CincinnatiPAS.com


Unless There Are Other Interests

CincinnatiPAS

Dr. Richard Gardner's PAS Debunked

Dr. Richard Gardner's Autopsy - Suicide

Judge Judson Shattuck Jr. Stuffs His Pockets & Gets Caught

At Tribal Council, Panioto Voted Out As Chief

Dr. Kowalski's Allegation Against Louis Thibodeaux

Judge Ronald Panioto - Has "No Problem" with PAS

Dr. Michael Borack's PAS Reports

Panioto Coerces

Borack Deposition

Borack Disciplined

Borack's Rotten Egg

Scarlet A & Anthrax In The Hood

Panioto Hides Borack

Telephone Harassment

Zuberbuhler Perjury

PAS Mistrial - Ron Panioto Cuts & Runs

Caplinger: Get Lost, Call 241-KIDS

Ducote Sues Louis Thibodeaux

Mastruserio In Trouble - Lies To Both Courts

Mastruserio In Recorded Docs

Kelly Thibodeaux: "Understanding The Borderline Mother"

Dateline NBC - Farmer

Judge Shattuck's Pro-Abuser Skyline Chili Decision

Appeals Court:
We See Nutzzing

Highlight Quotes

Parental Alienation Syndrome - PAS


Cast Your Vote Here: What Will The Ohio Bar Do About Dominic Mastruserio's Lies?

"The truth is the engine of our judicial system, and if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost." -
US Special Prosecutor
Patrick Fitzgerald

Stalking The Mother

The Cincinnati mother in this case received several hundred harassing telephone calls in the years 1999 and 2000.
So did her Ohio parents and sister and California brother
Altogether, the harassing telephone calls numbered in the thousands.

Most of the calls occurred during normal east coast business hours Monday thru Friday. Almost never in the evening or weekend. Sometimes though, by virtue of being in the Pacific time zone, the California brother would receive harassing wake up calls very early in the morning.

Occasionally, the calls received in both Ohio and California were within minutes of one-another, suggesting a common stalker. The calls were silent and ominous. Sometimes breathing could be heard. The stalker on the other end usually would not be the first to hang up, almost always content to stay on the line.

Gee, Who Could It Be?

It wasn't hard to figure. The mother's family knew exactly who was behind the harassing calls. A person threatening or trying to intimidate someone can only succeed if the victim knows who is doing it? Otherwise, what is the point? And stalkers know that their victims often regard them as psychotic, unpredictable people to be feared. A savvy stalker can use that to great effect to intimidate their target.

The harassing phone calls started about the same time that the mother took her three year old daughter to Dr. Kowalski, and to the hospital in August 1999 for examination of possible sexual abuse.

And also followed by a few months the Montgomery, Ohio Police publicly humiliating the alleged abuser when escorting him from the home that he had tried to steal from the mother.

The harassing calls encompassed the entire Dr. Michael Borack (the PAS guy who should be flipping burgers at White Castle) reports period. And took on a taunting, almost gloating nature following Borack's wacky PAS reports.
The stalking abruptly ended in November 2000 after the alleged abuser was directly asked in a videotaped deposition in a separate matter whether he was responsible? The alleged abuser's nervous eye tick flared up, twitching uncontrollably as he denied involvement.

Catch Me
If You Can

The calls infuriated the mother's California brother, who went to the police in February 2000 to file a complaint. Threaten a man in his own home and if he catches you, look out.

In the ensuing months the police authorized the telephone company to place intermittent traps on the brother's home phone. In October 2000, the Pacific Bell Telephone Company successfully trapped another early morning threatening telephone call which was received in California at 3:13 a.m..


The telephone company traced the harassing call not to Cincinnati, but rather to the Boston residence of a 32 year old married woman named Regina (real identity changed). The mother's family did not know Regina. But the call from her home was consistent with the many other spooky silent calls, and possibly explained why the stalker never spoke? To be effective, the calls must be thought to come from the alleged abuser. A woman's voice ruins that, hence the silence.

Later, it was learned that Regina (photo remarkably similar) worked and traveled extensively for a laproscopic medical device company named Boston Scientific, and the abuser in this case is a laproscopic surgeon. Further, Regina had been in Cincinnati the very week in April 1999 that the abuser had lost his bid to keep the marital home. Regina's stay in Cincinnati was five days.

Setting A Trap

Rob Dixon, a Private Investigator with Northern Kentucky Investigative Services, set a trap with a particular premise and used a pager as bait to discover those individuals possibly involved in the harassment and stalking campaign?
Who took P.I. Rob Dixon's pager bait?
1) Regina's best friends Steve & Linda (names changed for this site) of Boston, and formerly Cincinnati, contacted the pager.

2) Within 9 minutes of Linda, the alleged abuser's attorney, the liar Dominic Mastruserio, contacted the pager.

3) Regina, from her office at Boston Scientific, contacted the pager.

4) The alleged abuser, Dr. Louis Thibodeaux, from a Cincinnati hospital where he worked as laproscopic surgeon, contacted the pager.

Minutes later, the private investigator made his only return call to a pager contact to Louis Thibodeaux, who complained to the PI that his "acquaintances" (Regina's friends) were being bothered. Then incredibly, Mr. Thibodeaux changed his identity in mid-conversation to that of Steve's.

Caution: Don't try that at home. Changing identity in mid-conversation should be attempted by only true experts.
According to the PI: Steve, Linda and Regina should have good reason to contact the pager, but not Louis Thibodeaux's attorney, the deceitful Dominic Mastruserio.

Putting aside its appropriateness, the swiftness of Mr. Mastrusario's call stunned those observing. It suggested his client's involvement and was a defining moment. So too was Regina's contact from her office. Until then, it was not known that Regina worked for Boston Scientific, a laproscopic medical device company.

Private Investigator Rob Dixon's Pager Trap was a brilliant idea, ferreting out those possibly involved. Louis Thibodeaux's continued interest in and eventual contact of the pager was also illogical. In short, Mr. Thibodeaux not only reacted when he should not have, but overreacted. In time, the liar Mr. Mastruserio, Regina & Thibodeaux's versions of these events further implicated Regina and Thibodeaux in ways they still have yet to fully comprehend, and won't until the proper time. Every time one of the alleged accomplices answers questions regarding the telephone harassment campaign, they dig a deeper, more incriminating hole.

"Well, today. I don't recall hearing it before."

Dr. Louis Thibodeaux, July 30, 2001

So intent on distancing himself from Regina and the criminal interstate stalking campaign that was probably his brainchild, Thibodeaux tripped himself yet again on July 30, 2001 by denying that he had ever heard the name of Regina, his alleged accomplice.

Several people, some of them officers of the court, were stunned at Thibodeaux's explanation because they had witnessed otherwise just two weeks prior.

Thibodeaux's absurd denial on July 30th made absolutely no sense for these three reasons:

There was a motion six weeks prior on June 20th in the Thibodeaux case asking to take leave to question Dominic Mastruserio about the stalking campaign. The motion prominently featured Regina's name as she was being accused of telephone harassing the mother in this case in possible concert with Mr. Thibodeaux.

The June 20 motion also defined for Louis Thibodeaux just who the mother was asserting that was behind the Pager Trap. Mr. Thibodeaux had been agonizing over the pager trap and the mother was accusing Regina, and and by extension, him. So Mr. Thibodeaux likely read Regina's name in June.

The June 20 motion requested to take leave to question Thibodeaux's deceitful attorney, Dominic Mastruserio, about these events and why Mastruserio curiously contacted the pager? The possibility existed that Mr. Mastruserio might have to recuse himself. So serious is this, that it defies credulity to suggest that attorney and client did not have a spirited conversation in June or early July 2001 about the Boston woman, Regina, and the telephone harassment of the mother. It defies credulity to assert otherwise.

Indeed, Mr. Mastruserio must have had just such a conversation with his client in order to offer the explanation that he did on July 13, 2001. The June 20th motion was heard that day and Mr. Mastruserio did in fact address in court his having contacted the pager and why? Mr. Mastruserio offered to the court that his client reported to him having been harassed from that pager phone number. So everybody was talking in full view of Louis Thibodeaux about Regina between June 20 and July 13, but Thibodeaux testifies that the first time he ever heard Regina's name was on July 30th.

So why would Mr. Thibodeaux lie? Why do you think?

In point of fact, dear viewer, pagers can only receive calls - not initiate them.

Until returning his call, no attempt had been made to contact Mr. Thibodeaux. PI attempts were made only to his "acquaintances", really his friends, Regina, Steve & Linda.

Most likely, Mr. Thibodeaux used his unwitting attorney, the eager-beaver Dominic Mastruserio, to scare off potential pursuers. This website does not suggest that Mr. Mastruserio knowingly participated on any level in this criminal scheme. He's a liar and a schmuck, but he's not that stupid. However, having chosen to breach the confidentiality of his client on this issue, Mr. Mastrusario likely opened himself up to answering more questions about his client's possible criminal conduct? He may have to answer everything that he knows, and his client's representations, in regard to all things Regina.

Well, everyone else does!

Imagine Mr. Mastrusario's surprise, watching his client deny, deny, deny what he and everyone else had heard for themselves - Regina's name being bandied about?

This is how that deposition exchange went.

From Mr. Thibodeaux's July 30, 2001 Deposition

Richard Ducote Questions:
Do you know Regina (redacted)?
Mr. Thibodeaux Answers:
Not off the top of my head, no.

Well, you say not off the top of your head, let's go a few levels down from the top.
The name is not familiar.

Now, when was the first time you heard the name Regina (redacted)?
Well, today. I don't recall hearing it before.

Well you heard it in Court the day I indicated to the Court why I was interested in taking your attorney's deposition?
I don't know her.

Did you hear it that day?
I don't recall.

You don't remember?
No.

You do not remember taking out your address book and nodding and starting to flip through when I said her name?
I don't think it was because of her name.

Do you remember what name it was?
I don't know.

So you have nothing to hide with any relationship concerning Regina (redacted) in Massachusetts?
I don't believe so, no.

So you would have no objection for Regina (redacted) to disclose any and everything she knows about you if she knows anything?
No.

And I guess in an effort to clear this up, if it's some big misunderstanding, I assume you would be happy in fact to direct Regina (redacted) and her husband (redacted) to feel free without any fear to say and disclose whatever they would know about you?
Dominic Mastruserio, the abuser's attorney objects:
Objection to the question.
We don't have to answer that question. Whatever legal right these people have they can exercise.

I understand. That's not my point.
Dominic Mastruserio -
Don't answer the question, and you can certify it for the record.

Maybe I'm not clear if you believe it has to do with their legal rights since you apparently have no relationship with her according to your testimony here under oath. I just want to make sure that they know that they're free from your perspective to talk openly about anything that may concern you.
Dominic Mastruserio -
(Redacted), don't answer the question.

So the record is clear, is this a Fifth Amendment privilege?
Dominic Mastruserio -
It's not relevant, not relevant to this case. The legal right those people have they can exercise and talk to anybody they want. It's a stupid question.

Well, if it's a stupid question
then it's an even stupider objection.
Dominic Mastruserio -
Fine. It's a stupid objection, and certify it for the record and the Judge will decide it, but he's not going to answer the question.

Have you had anything whatsoever to do with any harassing phone calls made to (redacted) or any member of Teresa (redacted)'s family?
Mr. Thibodeaux Answers:

No.

Have you ever had discussions with any individuals encouraging them to make such phone calls?
No, sir.

Do you have any idea why when you were first asked about those phone calls in your deposition those phone calls stopped after that?
No, sir.

She Doth Protest Too Much

Meanwhile, in Boston and San Francisco, the brother's California attorney wrote to Regina and her husband in June 2001 asking that they kindly explain why there was a phone call trapped and traced from their Boston home to his client's California home at 3:13 a.m.?

Regina took full control of the situation, completely blocking the California attorney's attempts to speak with her husband and pointedly telling the attorney that all communication between them would be handled only by her.

After phoning the California attorney a second time, in an attempt to scare him away, Regina filed a complaint against him with the California State Bar.

She doth protest too much.
The California Bar quickly rejected the complaint as without merit.

The Hunter Becomes The Prey

The California brother retained Boston attorneys and filed a lawsuit against Regina in September 2001 for "Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress" and named Louis Thibodeaux eleven times as her possible accomplice.

Despite having an MBA and earning $130,000 per year for Boston Scientific, a laproscopic medical device company, Regina did not hire an attorney to defend herself.

In November 2001, Regina lost the lawsuit on default.

In January 2002, without notifying the brother's Boston attorneys, Regina filed pro se (on her own) an emergency motion to vacate the default order, which the court granted.

In March 2002, still acting as her own counsel, the Boston judge admonished Regina for not complying with the Massachusetts rules of civil procedure and scolded her for having not retained counsel. The Judge denied Regina's motion to dismiss. She finally retained a lawyer. It had been six months since she had been served with the lawsuit.

Regina Won't Sign An Affidavit

Straight away, Regina's new attorney filed still another motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The California brother's Boston attorneys requested of Regina's attorney an affidavit. They wanted Regina to state two simple things.


a) that she did not telephone harass this family

b) that she does not know the abuser in this case

Regina refused several requests over two months to sign the affidavit.
In June 2002, the Boston judge denied Regina's last ditch motion to dismiss, partly because she did not sign the affidavit and partly because she failed to appear at the hearing to profess her innocence.

Kiss Her Good-bye

Within just a few of days of losing her motion to dismiss in June 2002, and according to her employer taking with her more files than authorized, the lovely Regina shocked her boss and coworkers by unexpectedly quiting her $130,000 per year position with Boston Scientific, the non-invasive medical device company.Regina, married to a novice computer programmer, childless, and in the middle of a steep recession with news stories about MBA's taking waiter jobs, was suddenly unemployed.

According to the Boston Scientific, Regina had been a rising star at the laproscopic medical device company. She traveled the world for them.

Nice
The French Riviera
Prague London
New York California
Florida Cincinnati
Regina, 34 years old and in the prime of her career, quit her high paying dream job to do ... nothing.

Regina denied that the timing of her otherwise most curious employment decision had anything at all to do with losing her motion to dismiss. Nor she said, with the discovery requests served upon her employer.

Regina found new employment three months later and now works for a non-profit organization earning $47,000 annually, with no paid trips to Paris, or even Cincinnati. The decision to suddenly quit her job cost her $83,000 annually in lost income. Ouch! That's gotta hurt. Her wallet is presently about $400,000 lighter than it would have been.

Police say there is a mistake committed in every crime. In this one, it was Regina telephone harassing the California brother from her place of residence instead of her work. She went for the extra gusto, waking the California brother at 3:13 a.m. instead of 5:00 a.m.. To accomplish that, Regina needed to make the call from her home instead of work.

It is not lost on anyone that a person must be especially bent if the first thing they do in a day is harass someone they don't even know.

Get Your Story Straight

The beautiful Regina and the almost too clever Mr. Thibodeaux, in their respective depositions, tell the same exact false stories, contradict one-another on other key points, fabricate, sloppily reveal prior knowledge of the other, and offer weak, nonsensical explanations not befitting people of higher education. Their behavior throughout is highly suggestive of guilt.

Regina has found that there is no such thing as a small favor for a friend in criminal matters, no matter how clever devised. Probably unable to use her former employer, Boston Scientific, as a reference, it is unlikely that Regina will ever again rise so high.

But in every shattered dream there is hope.

This web site believes Regina could run one helluva telemarketing company.

Quiz For Cincinnati Folks

So here's your Quiz Question:
If you were speaking to a complete stranger on the telephone and he told you ... "that he was involved part-time in a basketball program" ... and that's all you knew about him, which of the following local basketball teams would you then have "assumed"?

A. The Cincinnati Bearcats?
major college program

B. The Xavier Musketeers?
major college program

C. The Cincinnati Stuff?
minor professional program
(folded after two seasons)

Of course folks, why assume anything? But Mr. Thibodeaux did. He assumed that the stranger that he was talking to on the telephone, Regina's high school friend Steve, coached the Cincinnati Stuff, which would have been the least likely assumption.

Mr. Thibodeaux's assumption, however, was absolutely, and improbably, correct.

A lucky guess?

Or a slip of the tongue?

In all liklihood, Mr. Thibodeaux said that he "assumed" Steve coached for the Cincinnati Stuff because he knew that he did. And the reason why he knew that he did is because Steve is both Regina and his friend, or at least acquaintance, as he described him to Rob Dixon. Mr. Thibodeaux denied knowing either person, and looked foolish and deceitful doing so.

Juke & Jive

Regina's husband Tim came forward almost three years after the trapped call, and two years after being sued, to say that he suddenly remembers making the offending 30 second "wrong phone call" to California. Took him awhile, but he remembers now with vivid clarity the entire conversation, which he recounted in a deposition.

Dear visitor, can you remember making, much less the actual conversation, of a wrong phone call from three years ago? How about two years ago? A year ago? A month ago? Last week? Yeah, right.

In his deposition, Tim said that he never called his boss at EDS Boston Scientific (he worked there too) on his direct line. However, his telephone records showed dozens of calls to his boss' direct line. So he can't remember that, but he can remember a 30 second wrong call from three years prior.

Tim is a nice fellow who wants to believe his wife. So it was uncomfortable watching Tim's deposition, knowing that he was totally full of shit.

There's more interesting and incriminating information, especially from Boston Scientific, which we are withholding in the event it's ever needed.

The Hell With It

After four years of beating on Regina, the California brother decided the hell with it, she's paid for her sins, and the Hamilton County PAS Court is not going to listen to harassment evidence against an alleged child abuser anyway, so he agreed to drop it.

A Good Message

No regrets about it. The telephone harassment stopped. And a few people learned very quickly that the California brother knows how to throw a punch as well as take one. Most bullies don't really want to fight. They want to win by intimidation. They like picking on weaker people, not people who will fight. It was a good message to send.

Regina is better off too. She is now working for a very worthwhile charity, contributing to society instead of helping suspected child molesters.

Final Observation

Just like the "Understanding The Borderline Mother" episode in which Mr. Thibodeaux deviously manipulated his now estranged 2nd wife, Kelly Thibodeaux, into reading a counter-culture psychology book to his children in the hopes of convincing them that their mother is crazy, Mr. Thibodeaux's apparent attempt here to stalk, harass and terrorize his ex-wife Teresa and her family falls on deaf ears in Hamilton County's Family Court. Evidence against protective mothers is exploited in that PAS Court to protect abusers. Evidence of evil and wrongdoing on the part of the abuser is ignored. We have no doubt that were the situation reversed, the PAS Court would have used it to justify a pro-abuser decision.

A Good Lawyer

Want the name of a good lawyer in Boston? Somebody not only smart, but ethical? We highly recommend attorney Chris Litterio of Ruberto, Israel & Weiner.

"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