|
|
|
Scarlet A
|
&
Anthrax In The Hood
|
"Once a mother is called an alienator, police are informed, social workers are informed, and everything she says from then on counts for nothing. This is the new scarlet letter."
Robin Yeamans
California attorney
Robin Yeamans could also have added that
anything the children say ... count for nothing.
See how this works.
In December 2001, Louis Thibodeaux had custodial rights to the children courtesy of PAS Dr. Michael Borack and PAS Judge Ronald Panioto of the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court. The older child was nine years old and attended weekly group therapy sessions for children from divorced families sponsored by his Catholic grade school. The purpose of the group sessions are to help children come to terms with issues relating to divorced families.
Apparently, the boy said to his classmates and to the school psychologist something along the lines of
"If you think that's bad, you should hear what my dad does to me," 
or words to that effect. And then the boy made allegations to the group against his dad, which surprised the other children and alarmed the school counselor.
Alarmed by what the boy revealed to the group, the school therapist Kira Kerstine informed the school principal, who then contacted Children Services (required by law) to report the possible disclosures of child abuse. According to Ms. Kerstine in her deposition testimony nearly two years later, Children Services failed to contact or interview her. Instead - Children Services notified Louis Thibodeaux that they would be paying him a visit. He might have been grateful for the advance warning.
Mr. Thibodeaux and his second wife Kelly then spent hours alone with the children in advance of the Children Services visit.
Allegedly, Kelly Thibodeaux hurried her baby out of the house so that Children Services would not remove the possibly at risk child.
The mother in this case had no idea that any of this was going on because the son had made his disclosures to his classmates and school counselor during his visitation time with his father.
Upon Children Services' visit to the Louis Thibodeaux home, they were "informed" by the Louis Thibodeaux that the Hamilton County Court Appointed Psychologist Dr. Michael Borack had already investigated these allegations (he hadn't) and determined that the children had been brainwashed by their mother into making allegations. Allegedly, the discredit Borack Reports were used as a shield to fend off the boy's classroom accusations. Michael Borack, it must be noted, had admitted only the month prior, that he hadn't the ability to assess child abuse, hadn't conducted an investigation and did not know whether the children had been abused.
 The Borack PAS Reports were presented as proof of the brainwashing.
[Drs. Kowalski, Olafson & Boat all had taken turns testing the children for coaching and determined that they had not been. Do you think a 4 year old girl can outwit three child sexual abuse experts?]
Children Services did ... nothing.
Was the Catholic school psychologist advised to discount disclosures? Kira Kerstine testified that she felt threatened, legally, by Mr. Thibodeaux. Most likely, Mr. Thibodeaux did not inform the school principal or psychologist that only the previous month was Dr. Michael Borack discredited and forced to admit in deposition:
 "I'm not an expert, a specialist, in assessing children as to whether or not they've been sexually abused."
Why inform anyone of that when you can still use the moronic Borack's reports to thwart allegations?
After Children Services left the Thibodeaux's Loveland home, the boy reported that there was lots of screaming.
Are the children trapped?
Probably.
Would Louis Thibodeaux, already determined by Children Services a few years prior to have "physically" abused the boy, ever resort to threats, intimidation, bribery or punishment against his children in the hopes of altering their story?
Because he had custody, Louis Thibodeaux would one day have his wife Kelly Reichert Thibodeaux read to the children
"Understanding The Borderline Mother"
which was done to poison the children's relationship with their mother and possibly cover up the alleged abuse.
Louis Thibodeaux and his deceitful attorney, Dominic Mastruserio, assert that if the children are disclosing abuse, then the explanation is that it's the mother's fault.
To that end, read here what Louis Thibodeaux, through the liar Dominic Mastruserio, did next.
|
Anthrax  In The Hood
Just days after the nine year old boy made his allegations to the Catholic school counselor Kira Kerstine, and despite the mother having not seen her son when he made them, Louis Thibodeaux and his attorney launched an attack upon the mother, blaming her for the boy's disclosures.If the children are disclosing abuse, Gardner's theory holds, it must be the mother's fault.
A case of PAS of course.
Louis Thibodeaux's attorney, Dominic Mastruserio, freaked out. He faxed the mother's attorneys that he would be filing a "Motion For Emergency Hearing" to terminate the mother's visitation rights; and in it leveled a series of allegations against the mother, including accusations involving Anthrax and Terrorists in the father's neighborhood.  Mr. Mastruserio clearly played the PAS card, blaming the children's disclosures not on his client, but rather, on the mother. In this scenario, when the children disclose, the mother should lose visitation rights. She needs to be punished.
This PAS tactic also becomes an incentive for the mother to tell the children to shut the hell up. The mother becomes the alleged abuser's ally in squelching more allegations. Otherwise, the mother will not be allowed to see her children. Gardner seemingly thought of every angle.
 The suicidal Dr. Richard Gardner shown left.
In a perfect Gardner PAS world, the abused child's one true protector, and probably the person he most trusts, his mother, would tell the children NOT to tell on daddy. At which point there is no hope for the protection of allegedly abused children.
Do abusers and their attorneys figure out how to manipulate such a situation to the abuser's benefit?
Of course they do.
The prolific liar, Mr. Mastruserio, can't possibly know if the allegations are true or false? So his willingness to cheat, lie and fabricate are indefensible. He crosses the line.
Mr. Mastruserio relied on the reports of Dr. Michael Borack, a PAS practioner whom to his horror, was sliced, diced and totally discredited by attorney Richard Ducote only weeks earlier.
Michael Borack: "I'm not an expert, a specialist, in assessing children as to whether or not they've been sexually abused."
Dominic Mastruserio failed to file his "Motion For Emergency Hearing" because after he faxed it to the mother's attorneys, he undoubtedly discovered that the Louis Thibodeaux's story was totally contrived.
A simple phone call to the Catholic school counselor Kira Kerstine might have saved Mr. Mastruserio considerable embarrassment. It would haved saved him from sticking his neck out for his client.
Ms. Kira Kerstine, the only therapist to see the abused boy from 2001 to 2004, chastized Mr. Mastruserio in January 2004 for asserting in the below motion that the boy had somehow told her that his mother had put him up to making the abuse allegations. Kerstine complained bitterly that that had NOT happened - and that the Mastruserio Emergency Motion was false as far as she was concerned.
Here is Dominic Mastruserio's
"Motion For Emergency Hearing" in all its glory, verbatim, dated December 5, 2001.
Mr. Mastruserio's Motion reads best if you shout all the words:
|
|
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
"Motion For Emergency Hearing"
by Dominic Mastruserio
PAS Attorney
And Fabricator For Hire看
"Now comes the Plaintiff, Louis Thibodeaux, by and through his counsel, and hearby moves the court for an order to terminate Defendant's, (mother), contact with the minor children pending the final trial on the issue.
Plaintiff states that the Defendant and her immediate family, including her parents and sister, are causing irrevocable psychological damage to the parties' minor children.
Plaintiff states that the Defendant having been evaluated by a court appointed evaluator has been given an option to seek the necessary treatment in regard to her unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations of either sexual or physical abuse involving the two minor children.
Plaintiff states that all past evaluators have stated to the court that, if Defendant continues to act out and make unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations regarding the minor children, that the Defendant's contact with the children should be terminated.
Plaintiff states that, during the course of the therapy with Dr. Boat, the Defendant, on two separate occasions, made unsubstantiated allegations of continual sexual abuse against the two minor children during the course of the treatment.
Plaintiff further states that the Defendant has, as recent as September and October, 2001, have continually kept the children out of school, has told the minor daughter that she cannot play with the father's neighbor's children because they have anthrax in their home, that they are terrorists, or that she does not like them."
(enlarged red type added)
"Plaintiff further states that the Defendant has contacted the school psychologist and has reiterated earlier allegations that have, in the past, been found unsubstantiated, has forced the nine year old child to go to the school counselor to make allegations that Father, Plaintiff, has been touching him and his sister. Plaintiff has been informed by the school counselor as well as the children's services investigator that the child has admitted that Defendant/Mother put him up to saying those things even though he knew that they were untrue.
Plaintiff states that the minor children are being put in a position of being embarrassed and humiliated by the constant manipulations being carried out by the Defendant in the hopes of discrediting the Plaintiff in regard to the pending issues before the court for termination of the shared parenting plan.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves the court to immediately schedule a hearing to terminate the parental contact of the Defendant with the minor children, to enforce the earlier court recommendations which the Defendant has ignored for the previous year by allowing her family to have contact with the two minor children and to restrain the Defendant from making allegations to the children's school, their church, their neighbors, and any other parties in an effort to discredit the Plaintiff or cause further embarrassment and psychological damage to the two minor children, attorney fees and court costs, and any other relief that the court deems appropriate."
DOMINIC J. MASTRUSERIO CO., L.P.A.
Dominic J. Mastruserio #0031868
Attorney for Louis Thibodeaux
|
看 |
Whew - taint that something?
Did you shout all the words?
Why was Mr. Mastruserio's "Motion For Emergency Hearing" not filed?
This is, afterall, an emergency, right?
Nah, not at all.
The mother did not contact the school psychologist, much less make allegations. That and the rest of Mastruserio's "Motion For Emergency Hearing" is complete hogwash.
Anthrax?  Terrorists? 
Gimme a break ...
Dominic Mastruserio would lie about this event several more times in future years. When he was finally forced into a corner in the custody trial in 2004, forced to concede that it was the school principal, and not Teresa, who had reported to Children Services, PAS Judge Judson Shattuck Jr. informed the courtroom that Mr. Mastruserio did not have to admit the deceit because he's Italian.
Every Italian I know feels insulted by that. Because they are no different than the rest of America, in honesty ... or deceit.
In sticky situations, an all too common problem for Louis Thibodeaux, he apparently has a history of making outlandish accusations. In a 1982 letter to the parents of his pregnant college girlfriend, Louis Thibodeaux accused his then 20 year old New Orleans girlfriend of threatening to kill him.
|
"I will not tolerate anymore Death threats from Jan ... or any other calls wishing death upon me. ... if anything should happen to me, it put your family in a very suggestive situation."
Louis Thibodeaux in a 1982 letter to his pregnant girlfriend's parents.
|
And you thought you had issues?
Jan denies ever having made such death threats and suggests that Louis Thibodeaux was trying to sow doubt in the minds of her own family members.
She claims that the father of her baby, Louis Thibodeaux, did not want to accept responsibility for the pregnancy - nor pay child support.
Jan says that the father of her son paid only a couple thousand dollars total in child support the first 15 years of the boy's life. And he cruelly rejected a plea from his 9 year old first son, named JT, to meet.
 Supposedly, they still have not met.
JT is now 26 years old and plenty bitter.
It is he who now refuses his father's request to meet.
According to Jan, who calls Mr. Thibodeaux "a piece of work", he jerked her around for many years to avoid paying child support. He provided as his place of residence a New Orleans apartment building inhabited almost entirely by Chinese speaking tenants. 
Another time he told her he was living in Indiana when in fact it was Ohio.
Jan asserts that in the sexually graphic letter to her parents from Louis Thibodeaux, he cleverly portrayed himself the victim which had the effect of turning the tables.
When asked about the letter in his handwriting nearly two decades later, Dr. Louis Thibodeaux claimed to neither recall it ... nor the death threats.
Here is the mother's response to Mastruserio's Motion, which the mother did file:
|
|
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
Case No. DR97(redacted)
Judge Panioto
Magistrate Theile
看
"Defendant's Opposition To
Motion For Emergency Hearing"
看
"NOW COMES Defendant (mother), through the undersigned counsel, respectfully answering Plaintiff's motion for emergency hearing by denying each and every of the allegations set forth against Defendant in the un-numbered, vague, and repetitive diatribe filed by Plaintiff, and further shows as follows:
1) There is a hearing set on Defendant's objection's to the Magistrate's findings regarding Defendant's Rule 60(B) motion now set for January 2002, and Plaintiff has filed a motion to be heard on that same day to set this "matter" for trial.
2) Defendant maintains that there are no pleadings which put at issue anything which can be tried, other than the Rule 60(B) motion.
3) Plaintiff is improperly attempting in bad faith to circumvent the applicable rules of civil procedure by invoking some contrived "emergency" premised on bogus and ridiculous allegations he knows to be false because he knows that he cannot prevail on the merits if there is a full trial conducted pursuant to the rules of evidence.
4) Plaintiff is also desperate now because the deposition taken of Dr. Michael Borack, attached hereto as Exhibit A, revealed that indeed Dr. Borack is not an expert in child sexual abuse cases and that he did not conduct an evaluation to determine if, in fact, these children were sexually abused. Plaintiff has relied on Dr. Borack to vindicate him, and now realizes that, if anything, Dr. Borack's testimony can only harm his case.
5) Defendant is filing a motion to exclude Dr. Borack's testimony in this case and to strike his evaluation as incompetent and inadmissible.
WHEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT the motion for emergency hearing be denied, and that the Defendant be awarded costs and attorney's fees for defending this motion. Defendant further prays that the case proceed only according to the applicable rules of procedure and evidence."
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Richard L. Ducote, (5111)
Counsel pro hac vice for (the mother)
|
看 |
Criminal Child Neglect
And
Other False Motions
Jan, frustrated by her attempts to collect child support for her son, filed criminal child neglect charges against Louis Thibodeaux in New Orleans in 1986, who then faced an arraignment hearing.
The former girlfriend also filed a motion for contempt in 1998 in New Orleans on the very same issue.
And again in 1998, in this Cincinnati case, attorney Dominic Mastruserio entered a motion in behalf of Louis Thibodeaux, claiming that Dr. Thibodeaux's "income" fell to $80,000 annually, and requesting the court for a reduction in his child support payments.
Hmmm ... is there deceit in this motion too? 
Would Dom do anything else?
While Dr. Thibodeaux's medical practice salary indeed had fallen to $80K, he had also worked for many years picking up extra income as an ER doctor. Dr. Thibodeaux pretended for the court that his "salary" was his only source of "income". This is called parsing.
Some people think of parsing as a game, while others call it lying.
What do you call it?
 It took the mother one year and thousands of dollars in legal expenses, and numerous subpoenas of Cincinnati health facilities, before Louis Thibodeaux admitted in deposition, ever so reluctantly, that he earned nearly double $80K.
Not parsing, under oath, the $80K story had been a lie.
A big lie.
Though well educated, Mr. Thibodeaux conveniently pretended not to understand the distinction between a salary and actual income.
The ruse was successful against Jan in 1998 in Louisiana. She hadn't the money to contest Mr. Thibodeaux's $80K claim, though she knew it was false. After 15 years of neglect, she was further cheated of what was properly due her son JT.
But Mr. Thibodeaux's $80K lie did not work in Ohio because the mother in this case stood her ground and smoked out the truth.
Mr. Mastruserio must have had no idea that Mr. Mastruserio was attempting in bad faith to hoodwink the mother and the court. Mr. Mastruserio is an officer of the court and that would be unethical.
Mr. Mastruserio would never knowingly tell a lie in court, would he? Believe that and he'll tell you another one. And another one. And another ...
There were no court penalties for Louis Thibodeaux's deceit. The mother's legal expenses uncovering this lie were never recovered. Nor for the nearly dozen contempt motions from 1997 to 1999 filed by Mr. Mastruserio on behalf of Louis Thibodeaux and properly dismissed by the Magistrate.
 During this two year period from 1997 to 1999, Mr. Thibodeaux had shamelessly locked the mother and their two children out of their Montgomery, Ohio home. He had been caught having an affair with a medical student named Stella in the home and at first left.
 Comicly, Mr. Thibodeaux asked the mother in this case not to toss him out of the house until he knew whether or not Stella would keep him? Who cares? The mother gave Mr. Thibodeaux the heave-ho straight away. The mistress Stella soon rejected him too and he rebounded quickly to his current wife, the former Kelly Reichert.
Despite having written a letter of apology for the "moral failure" of an affair and offering to leave if asked (he was), Mr. Thibodeaux and his lying attorney Dominic Mastruserio laid claim to the home and fought feverishly hard to keep it for Mr. Thibodeaux.
After two years, Magistrate Theile properly awarded it back to the mother. But several weeks later, Mr. Thibodeaux needed to be escorted from the home by the Montgomery Ohio police as he had refused to set a date to leave peacefully.  While lying about his income, and laying claim to the mother's home and according to Children Services also abusing the children, Louis Thibodeaux and his attorney peppered the mother with contempt motions. It is a legal strategy Mr. Mastruserio uses to wear down the other side. It is also abuse of process. While all but one of the contempt motions were tossed out, they nevertheless added stress to the mother.
Which was probably the whole idea.
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
Thomas Jefferson, 1820
|
|
tmtcincy@yahoo.com
|
