cincinnatipas.com


The Hamilton County Parenting Division Supervisor

Deposed
January 15, 2004

Jayne

Zuberbuhler

Deposition

 

Other Pages On This Site

cincinnatipas.com Home
Highlight Quotes

Dr. Richard Gardner - PAS
Dr. Jacqueline Kowalski Original Allegation
PAS Judge Ronald Panioto
Michael Borack's Reports - Deprogram
The Borack Deposition - Ducote Deposes
Kentucky Disciplines Michael Borack
Scarlet A and Anthrax In The Hood
Panioto Court Hides Borack, Wins Appeal
Ohio Supreme Court: Panioto Really Can Hide
The Abuser & Renee Stalk The Mother
PAS Mistrial
Jayne Zuberbuhler Deposition
Caplinger Won't Enter Emergency Motion
The Complete Autopsy of Dr. Richard Gardner MD
Dominic Mastruserio In Recorded Documents
At Tribal Council, Panioto Voted Out As Chief

"If you want to keep something concealed from your enemy, do not disclose it to your friend."

Gabirol, c. 1022- c. 1070


Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court
Cincinnati, Ohio

TOP TEN THINGS WE LEARN

FROM JAYNE ZUBERBUHLER

1. Dr. Richard Gardner, the creator of pro-pedophillic Parental Alienation Syndrome who stabbed himself to death in 2003, trained the Hamilton County social work staff in 1990.


(Gardner is pictured left.)

2. Also training the social work staff about PAS: Dr. Michael (small "p" small "a") Borack, Dr. Douglas Darnell and Shelly Rooney.

3. Jayne Zuberbuhler has a bachelor's degree in political science and government, not social work, and is unqualified to hold the position that she does of Supervisor-Parenting Division in Hamilton County.

4. Ms. Zuberbuhler did not take a test to become a licensed social worker - she was grandfathered in 1988, and two years later was attending Dr. Richard Gardner lectures on PAS.

5. Despite Dr. Michael Borack having been disciplined by the state of Kentucky for fabricating evaluations, and in this case, ordering the "deprogramming" of children that he could not possibly know have been programmed, Ms. Zuberbuhler would regardless hire Borack again, and further, would recommend him to others if asked.

6. Jayne Zuberbuhler incorrectly assumed that Dr. Michael Borack was qualified to assess child sexual abuse because she did not check his references to discover that he most definitely is not.

7. The Hamilton County Court maintains a "Family File" and a secret "Red Envelope File", the latter of which the litigant might not be aware, and regardless, cannot have any copies of anything in it, including psychological reports and/or ex-parte communications with magistrates, judges or other court and parenting division personnel.

8. In violation of constitutional rights, the Hamilton County Court has absolutely no control in place over who can access the secret "Red Envelope". Nobody knows who has placed items (possibly slanderous) in the "Red Envelope" or who has read them? A litigant might not ever know what is in their secret "Red Envelope"? Or how whatever it is got there? Or whether or not the magistrate or judge hearing their case has read or was influenced by those documents? Because there is no record log maintained regarding access.

9. The Hamilton County Court, under intense criticism from this web site for botching allegations of child sexual abuse, treats the "Family File" and secret "Red Envelope File" in this case differently from all others as the "box" of documents is kept on Ms. Zuberbuhler's credenza, whose reasons for doing so are contrived.

10. It requires the permission of Judge Ronald Panioto for a litigant's attorney to see what documents are in their secret "Red Envelope", and are not allowed to have photocopies.

Below is the deposition of Jayne Zuberbuhler, a frequent visitor to this web site. According to a little birdie, an absolutely - no doubt about it - unimpeachable source, Jayne Zuberbuhler makes numerous false statements under oath.

In May and June of 2002, Jayne Zuberbuhler studied this web site for many hours and days. The box of documents to this case is so very oddly kept on her credenza - a daily reminder of special status. Ms. Zuberbuhler spread the documents all over her desk and in full view of Court employees, poured through them, comparing she said, for accuracy.

Ms. Zuberbuhler still visits cincinnatipas.com. When reading her deposition, keep Zuberbuhler's incessant visits in mind. She plays dumb, pretending not to have heard about "deprogramming children" or having read the reports of Borack, Boat, Olafson and others. Not only is that nonsense, but much of the material she denies knowledge of, she has in fact most likely memorized. For instance:

At one point in her 2004 deposition, Zuberbuhler says of Dr. James Kelly:
"I believe he's a psychologist that has his own problems with the board."

Which mirrors very closely Richard Ducote's question about Dr. Kelly in Michael Borack's 2001 deposition: "Now, you relied a lot on another psychologist, a gentleman who had had his own little problems with the licensing board, did you not, Michael?"

Ms. Zuberbuhler denies having read Borack's deposition yet repeats Ducote's wording nearly verbatim. She of course gives herself away - but no matter, the little birdie does too.

Zuberbuhler's false statements pile up on top of one-another.

In the deposition below, every once in awhile, a little birdie will be placed next to a false statement.

There should be more, but there would be too many. Some of Zuberbuhler's other statements are laughable and receive satirical treatment.

Lest you - the reader - think we are being too tough, remember that people in positions of authority who use pro-pedophillic PAS theory on protective parents deserve the glare of public scrutiny. This site has done the job that the Cincinnati Inquirer has failed to do. The discomfort that these pro-PAS people suffer pales in comparison to the discomfort of sexually abused children.

See Jayne run.

Run Jayne, run.

Not from the little "p" little "a"

but from the big "P" big "A" big "S".




1

 1                        COURT OF COMMON  PLEAS

                       DOMESTIC RELATIONS  DIVISION

 2                        HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 3  

 4  

 5    Dr. (redacted),  

 6                  Plaintiff, 

       vs.                            :      CASE NO.  DR-(redacted)

 7     TERESA  (redacted),      

 8                Defendant.    

 9  

10  

11                  Deposition of JAYNE ZUBERBUHLER, a witness

12   herein, taken as  upon cross-examination by the Plaintiff

13   and pursuant to the  Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, agreement

14   of counsel, and  stipulations hereinafter set forth, at 800

15   Broadway, Second  Floor, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45202, on the 15th

16   day of January,  2004, at 1:09 p.m., before Connie G. Oelker,

17   a Notary Public  for the State of Ohio.

22  TRI-COUNTY REPORTING AND VIDEOTAPE  SERVICE

23                       (redacted)

2

 1    APPEARANCES:

 2   On behalf of the Plaintiff:

 3   DOMINIC J. MASTRUSERIO,  ESQ.

 4              Dominic J. Mastruserio Co.,  LPA

 5              Cincinnati, Ohio   45210

 6              On behalf of the  Defendant:

 7              RICHARD DUCOTE,  ESQ.

 8              New Orleans, Louisiana  70118-3948

 9  

10              Also  present:

                Teresa (redacted)

11  

12                    S T I P U L A T I O N S

13   (redacted)

3

 1                           I N D E X

 2    WITNESS                CROSS

 3   JAYNE  ZUBERBUHLER

 4     By Mr.  Ducote         4

 5  

 6    EXHIBITS                     REFERENCED

 7   Defendant's Exhibit No.  1       5

 8   (redacted)

4

 1   JAYNE ZUBERBUHLER,

 2   a witness herein, of lawful age, being  first duly cautioned

 3   and sworn, was examined and deposed  as  follows:

 4                       CROSS-EXAMINATION

 5   BY MR.  DUCOTE:

 6        Q     Would you state your name and address,

 7    please.

 8        A     Jayne Zuberbuhler, 800 Broadway, Second

 9   Floor,  Cincinnati, 45202.

10         Q    Just spell Jayne and  Zuberbuhler.

11        A     J-A-Y-N-E,  Z-U-B-E-R-B-U-H-L-E-R.

12         Q    Have you ever given your deposition

13    before?

14        A     Yes.

15        Q    So you  know the purpose of the deposition

16   is to allow me, and perhaps  Mr. Mastruserio, to ask

17   you questions about this  case?

18        A     (Affirmative head shake)

19         Q    I'm going to ask you to do a couple of

20    things to make the deposition go easier.  The first

21   is to  wait until I'm finished asking the question

22   before you answer  so we don't speak over each other.

23   Second is to answer in  words as opposed to sounds

24   and gestures so it can be  accurately taken down by

25   the court reporter.  The third  is to let me know if

5

 1   you don't understand a  question, and I'll rephrase

 2   it in a way that will  hopefully make sense.  And

 3   finally, I'd ask you to  give complete answers to the

 4   questions that you do  understand.  After the

 5   deposition is transcribed by  the court reporter,

 6   you'll have the right to read and  sign the

 7   deposition to insure the accuracy of  the

 8   transcription, or you can waive that, and that's  up

 9   to you, and you can just let the court reporter  know

10   at the end of the  deposition.

11                   What is your position here at the

12    court?

13        A     Supervisor of the parenting  department.

14        Q     And what does that entail?

15         A    Well, I supervise five master's level

16    social workers who perform custody evaluations.  We

17   also  perform mediation and I supervise any attorney

18   mediator in  that position.  I also offer services to

19   the judge as  needed.

20        Q    You  gave me a copy of your curriculum

21   vitae before we started the  deposition.  Is this a

22   complete, up-to-date curriculum  vitae?

23        A     Yes.

24        Q    Let me  go ahead and mark this and attach

25   this as Exhibit Number  1.  Now, you, yourself, have

6

 1   a bachelor's  degree?

 2        A     That's correct.

 3         Q    In what  field?

 4        A     A bachelor's in political science and

 5    government.

 6         Q    And then, do you have any graduate

 7    training in social work?

 8         A    No, I do  not.

 9        Q     How did you become a licensed social

10   worker in  1988?

11        A    I  applied and was grandfathered in when

12   they first started the  licensing procedures.  I'd

13   been a social worker here at  the court, probably for

14   a number of  years.

15        Q    Did  you have to take a test to get your

16   license in  '88?

17        A    No, I  did not.

18        Q     Have you ever taken a test in the field of

19   social  work?

20        A    No, I  have not.

21        Q     Have you ever taken a course in the field

22   of social  work?

23        A    Yes, I  believe in undergraduate school.

24         Q    And what course was  that?

25        A     Sociology.

7

 1         Q    But you recognize there's a  difference

 2   between sociology and social  work?

 3        A     Yes.

 4        Q     Have you had to do anything to maintain

 5   your license  since 1988?

 6         A    Yes.

 7         Q    What's  that?

 8        A     Thirty credit hours every two  years.

 9        Q     You said that part of your job description

10   is to provide  service to the judge as necessary.

11   What does that  mean?

12        A    Well,  they might call me in and ask me to

13   do a number of  things.  They may consult with me

14   about a case, asking me  my opinion, any number of

15    things.

16        Q    Have  you had any connection or involvement

17   whatsoever in the case  of (redacted) versus

18   (redacted), Dr. (redacted) and  Teresa

19   (redacted), Case Number  DR(redacted)?

20        A     Yes, I have.

21        Q     What was the first involvement you had

22   with that  case?

23        A    The  case has been active here at the court

24   for a number of years,  so my recollection may be

25   flawed.  I believe it was a  custody investigation

8

 1   performed by Janice  Chapman, who I supervised.

 2         Q    And have you had any other involvement  in

 3   the  case?

 4        A     Yes.  Judge Panioto asked my assistance in

 5   finding a  psychologist to perform an evaluation on

 6   the  families.

 7         Q    When was  that?

 8        A    I  think it was in the beginning of  2000.

 9        Q     And did you do that?

10         A    Yes.

11         Q    And who did you find to do  that?

12        A     Michael Borack.

13         Q    And what instructions or guidance, if any,

14    did Judge Panioto give you when he asked you to help

15   find an  evaluator?

16        A    I  don't recall.

17         Q    Why did you pick Michael  Borack?

18        A     Michael Borack started doing evaluations

19   for the court,  probably three years before that.  He

20   had moved to  Cincinnati from Boston, and he came to

21   the court and talked  with our director and he talked

22   with me.  He was  interested in doing this sort of

23   work.  He had done -- he  had specialized in it in

24   Boston.  And he submitted his CV  and some reports

25   that he had completed in Boston, and he gave  us a

9

 1   list of references and asked that he be  considered

 2   for appointment in these sorts of  cases.

 3        Q     When you say "these sorts of cases", what

 4   sorts of cases  do you mean?

 5         A    We call this psychological evaluations  in

 6   terms of  parenting.

 7         Q    How many evaluations, to your  knowledge,

 8   had he performed before you asked him to do  the

 9   (redacted)  evaluation?

10        A     Totally, I would have no idea -- you mean

11   here at our court or  totally --

12        Q     No, just in the court here.

13         A    I wouldn't know, I would have to guess or

14    estimate.  Do you want me to do  that?

15        Q    If  it's an estimate, you know, based on

16   some basis and you can  explain the basis.  If it's

17   just a wild guess, then that  won't be helpful.

18         A    I think it would probably be a wild  guess.

19        Q     Okay.  Do you think it would be more than

20   10 or more than  15 or --

21        A     About 10.

22        Q     Now, do you recall Judge Panioto saying

23   anything about  Parental Alienation Syndrome?

24         A    No.

25         Q    Have you read Dr. Borack's report in  this

10

 1    case?

 2        A    I  probably did when we received it, but I

 3   have not  recently.

 4         Q    Okay.  Have you ever read Dr.  Borack's

 5    deposition?

 6         A    No, I have  not.

 7        Q     Are you aware of any licensing problems,

 8   difficulties  that Dr. Borack has had since he

 9   performed the evaluation  in this case?

10         A    Yes, I'm aware of one problem he  had.

11        Q    And  what is that?

12         A    He had a grievance filed against him in

13    Kentucky, and it was two-pronged, I believe.  One

14   was  that he offered services in Kentucky without

15   being licensed in  Kentucky.  And secondly, he

16   offered advice -- he wrote a  report without

17   substantive personal contact, something like  that.

18   He provided me with the consent agreement and  all

19   the paperwork having to do with this when  it

20   occurred.

21         Q    Is he still doing evaluations for the

22    court?

23        A    You  mean is he currently doing one?

24         Q    Yes, or is he still on the list of

25    approved  evaluators?

11

 1         A    We don't have a list of approved

 2    evaluators.

 3         Q    When was the last time he was asked to  do

 4   an evaluation from this court, to your  knowledge?

 5         A    Not all of them come through me, so I

 6    would not be cognizant of everything.  Sometimes

 7    they come directly to him from a judge.  Sometimes

 8    they come directly to him by agreement of attorneys.

 9   So I  don't think he's currently working on one right

10   now.  We  discussed him doing one several months ago,

11   but it fell  through.  You would have to ask him if

12   he's currently  doing one.

13        Q     So, despite the problems he had with the

14   licensing board in  Kentucky, this court would still

15   use him to do  evaluations?

16        A     I would -- yes, I would still use  him.

17        Q    Have  you had any discussions with Judge

18   Panioto about the  (redacted) case since there was

19   that discussion about trying  to find an evaluator?

20         A    Probably on procedural things, probably

21    most recently about this deposition.  I think there

22   was  some question about whether it should go forward

23   because of  something pending in the Supreme Court.

24   So I've briefly talked  with him about whether he

25   wanted this to go ahead.  I've  talked with our court

12

 1   administrator, Judge  Shannon, about the (redacted)

 2   case,  yes.

 3        Q     What was said to Judge Panioto and by

 4   Judge Panioto  regarding this deposition?

 5         A    Judge Panioto and our administrator,  Judge

 6   Shannon, were concerned that perhaps it shouldn't  go

 7   forward because there was something pending in  the

 8   Supreme Court and maybe that that stopped  all

 9   procedures in the case.  But they eventually  told me

10   to go forward with it.  I don't know what  their

11   private discussions were about  that.

12        Q    Did  Judge Panioto say anything else about

13   the case, other than  that?

14        A     No.

15        Q    Have you  had any other discussions with

16   him about any matters,  including procedural matters,

17   other than the issue of this deposition?

18        A     I probably have over the years, you know;

19   I can't recall them,  really.

20        Q    Do  you recall anything about them?

21         A    You know, we have a lot of cases pending

22    and this one's been pending a long time and most of

23   it's years  ago.  I'm sure I've had conversations

24   with him about, is  the report ready, you know, where

25   is the work report.  I  had to have him release funds

13

 1   to pay for  it.  You know, as things cropped up,

 2   probably, yes,  you know, I can't recall exactly.  If

 3   you have  specific questions, I --

 4         Q    Have you ever discussed the Borack  report

 5   with  him?

 6        A     You mean the contents of the report and

 7   whether he was  satisfied with it?

 8         Q    Yes.

 9         A    No, I have  not.

10        Q    Have  you ever discussed anything about the

11   Borack report with him,  other than you having had

12   Borack to do  it?

13        A    Probably  not anything other than, did the

14   report come in, here's the  report, we need to

15   release the funds, those sorts of  things.  Judge

16   Panioto is pretty independent.  He  judges a report

17   on his own, he doesn't say to me, what do you  think,

18   you know, that sort of  thing.

19        Q    At  the time that you had obtained or

20   gotten Dr. Borack involved  in doing the evaluation,

21   were you aware that there were  allegations and

22   issues about whether the father had sexually  abused

23   and physically abused the  children?

24        A     Yes.

25        Q    And did  you take that into account when

14

 1   selecting Dr.  Borack?

 2        A     There's a very limited number of experts

 3   that are willing  to do this work.  It's very

 4   difficult work.  A  lot of times the clients are

 5   difficult.  People are  not happy with what you do.

 6   Lots of grievances are  filed.

 7        Q     Well, okay, but the question was, did you

 8   take that into  account when you selected Dr.  Borack?

 9        A     Yes -- well, I have a great deal of

10   respect for Dr. Borack,  and I have a great deal of

11   respect for Dr. Michael  Nelson.  Now, he had done

12   some work on this case, and I  don't believe they --

13         Q    This is a real specific question  --

14        A    Yes, I  did consider it.

15         Q    And did you believe that Dr. Borack was

16    sufficiently qualified to assess allegations of

17   child sexual  abuse when you got him involved with

18   doing the  report?

19        A    I  felt that Dr. Borack was well qualified

20   to do this case.   And as part of this case, he would

21   be gathering information  from other sources.  And,

22   yes, I felt he was well  qualified to do it and to

23   assess, given the way these  evaluations are

24   performed, to assess whether there was sexual  abuse,

25    yes.

15

 1         Q    Are you aware or have you learned that,  in

 2   Dr. Borack's deposition, he testified that he's  not

 3   an expert in determining if a child has  been

 4   sexually  abused?

 5        A     In determining sexual  abuse?

 6              MR. MASTRUSERIO:  There will be an objection to

 7   the  question.  He's assuming a fact not in evidence.   She

 8   has no way of knowing unless he lays the proper  foundation.

 9              MR. DUCOTE:  Well, this is a discovery  deposition.

10        Q     Assume that Dr. Borack, in his deposition,

11   said he's not an  expert in determining if a child

12   has been sexually  abused.

13        A     Okay.

14        Q    Were  you aware of that, that that was in

15   his  deposition?

16        A     I don't know -- no, probably  not.

17        Q    You  haven't heard that before?

18         A    I don't know if I have or  not.

19        Q    Would  that concern you or give you second

20   thoughts about having Dr.  Borack involved in the

21    case?

22              MR. MASTRUSERIO:  Same objection.  If, in fact,

23   it's  a fact established.  Same objection.  You can  answer.

24        A    When  you do a custody evaluation, you talk

25   to a number of people  and you solicit a number of

16

 1   reports.  By law  in Ohio, sexual abuse is a

 2   responsibility of our Hamilton  County Jobs and

 3   Family Services, so they would give Dr.  Borack

 4   input.  There were a number of counselors in  this

 5   case who give input, and so, you know,  he's

 6   gathering a lot of information.  He probably is  not

 7   going to in-depth evaluate the child about  sexual

 8   abuse, but rather, he's going to rely in part  on

 9   others to determine  that.

10        Q    So  when you got Dr. Borack involved in the

11   case, it was your  anticipation that he would not

12   conduct his own evaluation to  determine if sexual

13   abused had  occurred?

14        A    It  was up to Dr. Borack about how he

15   wanted to conduct his  evaluation.

16        Q     So if Dr. Borack was either unqualified or

17   was not going to  conduct a sexual abuse evaluation

18   on his own, then, either  way, that would have been

19   acceptable to  you?

20        A    I think  Dr. Borack is qualified to do what

21   he  did.

22        Q    But  assume that, in his deposition, he

23   said he was not an expert  in determining if a child

24   has been sexually abused.  Do  you still take the

25   position that, when he did the evaluation,  he was

17

 1   qualified to do  it?

 2        A     Yes.

 3        Q     Are you an expert in child sexual abuse

 4    cases?

 5        A     No, I'm not.

 6         Q    Are you familiar with the concept of

 7    Parental Alienation  Syndrome?

 8         A    Yes, I  am.

 9        Q    And  how are you familiar with that?

10         A    Well, I know that it's a theory that was

11    put forward by Richard Gardner (above left), and he's written a

12   number of  books and he's done a number of speaking

13   about it.  And I  know that it's been discredited

14   because it was based upon  clinical experience rather

15   than any sort of research.   It's not something that

16   we have ever put any stock in here at  the court in

17   my  department.

18        Q     Had you yourself gone to any training by

19   Dr.  Gardner?

20        A     Yes, as a matter of fact, I went to a

21   lecture of  his.

22        Q    When  was that?

23        A     Probably 15, 20 years ago.

24         Q    And he talked about Parental Alienation

25    Syndrome?

18

 1         A    I believe he  did.

 2        Q     Have you read any of his  books?

 3        A     Yes.

 4        Q    Do  you own any of his books?

 5         A    I think I do,  yes.

 6        Q     Which books have you read?

 7         A    I have a book of his on how to  conduct

 8   custody investigations, it's probably 25 years  old.

 9        Q     Anything else?

10         A    Not that I know  of.

11        Q    Have you  ever discussed the concept of the

12   Parental Alienation Syndrome  with Judge Panioto?

13         A    No, I have  not.

14        Q    So,  would you agree that, Parental

15   Alienation Syndrome is a  discredited concept?

16         A    Yes, it's highly  controversial.

17         Q    But would you agree that it's  discredited?

18        A     Yeah, probably generally  discredited.

19        Q     Are you aware that, in the (redacted)

20   case, at Mr.  Mastruserio's suggestion, that when an

21   evaluator was going to  be found, that, he requested

22   somebody who was familiar with  Parental Alienation

23   Syndrome and that  --

24              MR. MASTRUSERIO:  There will be an objection.

25   Counsel is  misstating the record.  Counsel, get your  facts

19

 1   straight before you make a  record.

 2              MR. DUCOTE:  I don't believe I  am.

 3              MR. MASTRUSERIO:  You are wrong,  sir.

 4              MR. DUCOTE:  Well, do you want to tell me how I'm

 5    wrong?

 6              MR. MASTRUSERIO:  Get your transcript out and

 7   you'll  see how it's wrong.

 8   BY MR.  DUCOTE:

 9        Q     Parental alienation or Parental Alienation

10   Syndrome, and Judge  Panioto said, "Yeah, we'll get

11   somebody who's good in that,"  something to that

12   effect, are you familiar with that  transaction in

13   the  courtroom?

14        A    I  wouldn't think that Judge Panioto is

15   familiar with Parental  Alienation Syndrome.  As far

16   as parental alienation, I  think that's a term that's

17   used, small p, small a, meaning a  parent attempting

18   to alienate the child from someone else,  whether it

19   be another parent or relative or a school  teacher,

20   whatever.  I think parent alienation is a broad  term

21   that can mean a lot of things and is fairly  common

22   in our sorts of  work.

23        Q    Is  there, among the people who do the

24   evaluations here, your  staff, is there ever any

25   discussion about Parental Alienation  Syndrome?

20

 1         A    Oh,  yeah.

 2        Q     And what is the discussion, what's the

 3   gist of  it?

 4        A     Well, we have a staff meeting every week

 5   and we go over  various topics, and we've had

 6   speakers about parental  alienation, we've discussed

 7   it, we've read  articles.

 8         Q    Have you told your staff here that  the

 9   concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome as  proposed

10   by Richard Gardner is discredited and  isn't

11   something to be  considered?

12        A     They're aware, yes.

13         Q    That's an official policy of the court

14    here in your office?

15         A    Yeah, it's accepted in my  office.

16        Q    Just  so the record is clear, what's

17    accepted?

18        A     It's accepted that the syndrome is not a

19   valid  theory.

20        Q     Okay.  Are you familiar with the report

21   that Janice  Chapman did in this case?

22         A    I probably was when it was written.   I

23   haven't read that since it was  submitted.

24        Q     Do you recall whether or not there was any

25   criticism within  your office or of the court of the

21

 1   Chapman  report?

 2        A     No, I don't.

 3         Q    Now, explain how files are kept in  the

 4   court system.  There's obviously a record in  the

 5   clerk's office where pleadings and  orders,

 6   transcripts are filed and docketed, and that  carries

 7   the case number.  Are there any other files  that the

 8   court keeps, to your  knowledge?

 9         A    Yes.

10         Q    What are those  files?

11        A    All  the legal papers are kept with the

12   clerk of the courts.   The court keeps its own record

13   of more of an informal record  called a family file

14   on each case.  In that family file  would be the

15   questionnaires that's done on each divorce  case,

16   which gives a lot of background on the couple  and

17   the children, dates of birth, you know, just  basic

18   sorts of -- addresses, occupation, education.   There

19   would be copies of motions.  There would be  the

20   custody reports from both our own evaluators  and

21   from outside kept in a red envelope, which  is

22   supposed to be highly confidential.  There would  be

23   notes from the magistrate hearings that would  also

24   be in the red confidential envelope that's  highly

25   confidential.  There would be child support  records,

22

 1   forms that have been filled out.   There would be any

 2   number of things in this family  file.

 3        Q     That envelope, is that the thing that has

 4   the file  number, for example, in this case, (redacted)?

 5        A     Yes, correct.

 6         Q    Where is confidential envelope  kept?

 7        A     In the family file.

 8         Q    But, I mean, what's the difference  between

 9   the envelope and the family  file?

10        A    Well,  the policy is that only an attorney

11   currently representing a  client or pro se client may

12   review the family file.   Generally, when the file's

13   reviewed, the red envelope is  removed because we

14   feel that that is very confidential  information.

15   And if that sort of information needs to  be

16   reviewed, it should be reviewed in the  parenting

17   department and should be supplied to you or  to

18   anyone who wants to see it under certain  conditions,

19   where copies are not made and people can't walk  off

20   with this highly confidential  information.

21        Q     So, for example, Teresa (redacted) is

22   obviously the defendant  in this case, is she

23   allowed, under the court policy, to see  what's in

24   her confidential red  envelope?

25        A     Yes.

23

 1         Q    Is she allowed to make copies of  anything?

 2         A    No.

 3         Q    Even things about  her?

 4        A     No.

 5        Q    And  what's the authority for  that?

 6        A    I  don't know.

 7         Q    Who decided  that?

 8        A     Hey, I'm just the social  worker.

 9        Q     I thought maybe you knew.

10         A    Well, I can tell you the theory behind it.

11    You know, we have found reports lying in various

12   places here  in the past, and we just think it's

13   egregious that, when  there's children involved and

14   these sorts of allegations, that  these things can be

15    disseminated.

16         Q    How about any discussion about the

17    Constitution and due process?

18         A    The  Constitution?

19         Q    I know family courts sometimes forget

20    about those things, but has that ever been

21   discussed, whether  there's any legal --

22         A    Yeah, it's been discussed on and on for 25

23    years.

24        Q    So,  physically, where is the file kept,

25   the family file that has  the secret  envelope?

24

 1         A    Secret?

 2         Q     Confidential?

 3         A    It's kept in the file room, generally

 4    except when it's --

 5         Q    The clerk's  office?

 6        A     No, we have a family file room up on

 7    three.

 8        Q     Do the judges have access to the

 9   confidential  file?

10        A     Um-hum.

11        Q    You  have to answer in words.

12         A    Yes.

13         Q    So is it the practice of the judges that

14    they might go, if they're hearing a case, go look in

15   the  confidential  envelope?

16              MR. MASTRUSERIO:   Objection.

17        A     No, if they're hearing the case, the court

18   personnel, as  standard procedure, brings the file to

19   them, and they have all  their files and all their

20   legal  jackets.

21        Q     Okay.  So, during the course of the trial,

22   the judge has  the confidential file sitting right

23   there and can look in  there?

24        A     Yes.

25        Q    Have  you ever had any discussions with

25

 1   Judge Panioto,  either in some staff meeting or

 2   personal discussions,  anything about whether that is

 3   something that's lawful,  to keep such a file like

 4   this that is not part of the  court file and is

 5   accessed by the  judge?

 6        A     This generally goes up the chain of

 7   command and I have  had discussions with our court

 8   administrator about those  sorts of things, but, no,

 9   I've never had discussions with  Judge Panioto about

10    that.

11        Q    Who  has the authority to put something in

12   that confidential  file?

13        A    Well,  anyone at the court who feels -- you

14   know, there's certain  things that go in that file,

15   and anyone at the court would put  them in.  And if

16   they're reviewed by a judge or  magistrate or someone

17   in parental or family counseling, they  are expected

18   to return them to the red  envelope.

19        Q    Is  there any sort of record kept of what

20   goes in that  envelope?

21        A     No.

22        Q    Is there  any sort of record kept of who

23   accesses the  envelope?

24        A     No.

25        Q    When  things go in the envelope, are they

26

 1   filed stamped  or stamped in like --

 2         A    No.

 3         Q    -- legal documents?  I'm going to show  you

 4   a copy of a letter that was introduced in  the

 5   deposition yesterday, from "K" (redacted),  dated

 6   June 8, 1999, addressed to Magistrate Theile,  and

 7   show you that it has what purports to be the  file

 8   number in this case with some notation,  "Please

 9   file,  6/21/99".

10        A     Um-hum?

11        Q    Is  that the kind of things that could end

12   up in the confidential  file?

13        A     No.

14        Q    It  can't?

15        A     No.

16        Q    So if I  represent to you that's where that

17   came from, would you have  any explanation?

18         A    Who's "K" (redacted), first of  all?

19        Q    That's  Dr. (redacted)'s current wife who

20   was romantically involved  with him at the time.

21         A    No, this would not go in the red file.

22    This would go in the general  file.

23        Q    When  you say "the general file", the legal

24    file?

25        A    No, it  would go in the part of the family

27

 1   file that is  not confidential.

 2         Q    So are there any rules or guidelines  for

 3   what goes in the part of the family file that's  not

 4    confidential?

 5         A    No.

 6         Q    And are things -- who can put things  in

 7   that file, in the family  file?

 8        A     Well, anyone that works here at the  court.

 9        Q     And is any record kept of what's put in

10    there?

11        A     No.

12        Q    And is  anything clocked in?

13         A    No.

14         Q    To your knowledge, how long has that

15    practice been in existence of maintaining that

16   separate file  for which something isn't recorded

17   that goes in it, that  there's no recording of who

18   accesses it or  --

19        A    Probably  over three years.

20         Q    Has there been a discussion among the

21    court or with Judge Panioto about changing that

22    practice?

23              MR. MASTRUSERIO:  There will be an objection.  The

24    witness has already answered she's had no conversation with

25    Judge Panioto about the  subject.

28

 1              MR. DUCOTE:  Well, this is a different  question.

 2         A    Could you repeat the  question.

 3         Q    Sure.  To your knowledge, has there  been

 4   any sort of discussion or meetings or  policy

 5   discussion about changing this  practice?

 6         A    Yes, there's been -- I've been here  twenty

 7   seven-and-a-half years, this has been a  constant

 8   topic that's been discussed.  It's a  balancing act

 9   here, you know, trying to follow the law  and trying

10   to protect children.  And this is a balancing  act we

11   do with everything  here.

12        Q    So you  don't think you can follow the law

13   and protect children at the  same time?

14        A     Well, sometimes it's difficult.

15         Q    Do you think maybe not following the law

16    can result in children not being protected as  well?

17        A    Yes,  certainly.

18        Q     So are there any plans now to change this

19    system?

20        A     No.

21        Q    Have you  ever heard of any practice in the

22   court of deprogramming  children who believe they

23   were abused or anything like that;  have you ever

24   heard of that  concept?

25        A     No.

29

 1        Q    Were you involved in any interview with

 2   Karen Winner about this case?

 3        A    Karen Winner?

 4        Q    Do you recall anything about that?

 5        A    Could you sort of refresh me?

 6        Q    She's a writer out of New York.

 7        A    Did I talk to her?  I don't remember.

 8        Q    Were you involved in anything about --

 9   were you aware that she came here to interview

10   people?

11        A    Yes.

12        Q    What do you recall about that?

13        A    I believe she came to the court -- this is

14   all a little sketchy -- I believe she came to the

15   court, I believe she went to the file room and

16   somehow got a hold of the (redacted) file and

17   shouldn't have.

18        Q    Which file did she get a hold of?

19        A    The family file, and it should not have

20   been given to her, as I explained to you the

21   procedure.

22        Q    How about the actual legal pleadings and

23   orders, the case file?

24        A    She can see that.

25        Q    That's public, right?

30

 1        A    That's not even in our court, that's a

 2   separate agency of the clerk of courts.

 3        Q    Okay.

 4        A    So I believe she came to the file room and

 5   somehow got a hold of the family file and went

 6   through it, and there was some uproar about that

 7   because she certainly should not have been given the

 8   file.  And then, I believe there was an uproar

 9   because she went -- I think she stopped to see me

10   and I was out to lunch, I don't know, and I don't

11   think I ever saw her, to the best of my

12   recollection.  She also went to see Dr. Borack and

13   he called me to complain about that.

14        Q    What did he tell you?

15        A    He told me she misrepresented herself as

16   someone who wanted to talk with him about retaining

17   him for professional services.  And she came to his

18   office and talked to him in general about custody

19   sort of things and divorce.  I think she -- she was

20   taping her interview with him, I think she asked him

21   and he said okay.  And I think she then segued into

22   this (redacted) case.  Then, according to him, it

23   became apparent that she was trying to get

24   information from him about this (redacted) case and

25   he was pretty angry because it was a breach -- if he

31

 1   would discuss it, it would be a breach of

 2   confidentiality.  And I think he took the tape

 3   recorder.  And then he also felt that she had been

 4   calling people about him in Boston.  I think he even

 5   thought that she might be driving past his home and

 6   he was concerned about his kids. 
He didn't really

 7   know who she was, he was just concerned that -- he

 8   felt it was an invasion of his privacy and he was

 9   somewhat concerned.  And he asked me if I knew what

10   was going, on and I said no, I did not.

11        Q    Did you ever talk to Judge Panioto about

12   that conversation with Dr. Borack?

13        A    The conversation about Karen Winner?

14        Q    Yes.

15        A    No, I believe I called Mrs. (redacted)'s

16   attorney at the time, who was --

17        Q    Abernathy?

18        A    Yes, Mr. Abernathy, and asked him if he

19   knew what was going on because Dr. Borack was

20   concerned about his kids and his wife.  He didn't

21   know who this woman was, he thought she could be

22   unbalanced.  And I believe Mr. Abernathy said he did

23   not know what was going on but he would attempt to

24   find out.

25        Q    Did you ever have any conversations with

32

 1   Judge Panioto about Dr. Borack's disciplinary

 2   problems?

 3        A    I can't be sure.  It happened, I think,

 4   probably two or three years ago.  I can't be sure.

 5   I may have, I don't know.  I did not -- may I offer?

 6        Q    Sure.

 7        A    I did not feel it was a substantive

 8   grievance in that his license was not suspended nor

 9   revoked, he was still allowed to practice in

10   Kentucky.  They entered a consent -- into a consent

11   agreement whereby he would utilize supervision for

12   one year, and by the time the grievance was

13   addressed, he had already had his Kentucky license.

14   He presented me with paperwork that said -- from the

15   Ohio Board of Psychologists saying that what he did

16   in Kentucky was not a problem in Ohio, and so, I did

17   not think it was a substantive problem.

18        Q    Have you ever had any conversations with

19   Dr. Borack about the (redacted) case since he

20   performed his evaluation?

21        A    Yeah, I just said I talked with him about

22   this woman that came to his office.  I talked to him

23   about getting paid.  I have talked to him other

24   times, probably.  Was he deposed at one time?  He

25   may have called about that.

33

 1        Q    That's what I was asking you about, about

 2   his deposition.

 3        A    I mean, he may have called -- he usually

 4   calls me when he wants to know, you know, does he

 5   have to do this legally, you know, is the court --

 6   you know, that sort of thing.  So he may have called

 7   and said, I'm supposed to be deposed, is this a

 8   problem, you know, and I would probably say, no, you

 9   have to go and cooperate.

10        Q    Did he ever talk to you about the

11   substance of his opinions about the (redacted)s?

12        A    No, he hasn't.

13        Q    When was the last time you went -- if you

14   ever have gone through the (redacted) file, the

15   court records, or the family court file or the

16   confidential file?

17        A    Probably years.  I do keep it in my office

18   though.

19        Q    You keep the file in your office?

20        A    Yes, I do.

21        Q    Which file, ma'am?

22        A    The (redacted) file, family file.

23        Q    So why do you keep it there?

24        A    I keep it there because we've had the

25   problem with the woman coming up to the family file

34

 1   room and somehow getting a hold of this file.

 2        Q    You're talking about Karen Winner?

 3        A    Yeah.  So I now keep it in my file cabinet

 4   so something like that can't happen again.

 5        Q    When was the last time you went through

 6   it?

 7        A    It's a pretty big file.

 8        Q    Well, when was the last time, that was my

 9   question?

10        A    I couldn't tell you, probably years.  I

11   mean, I've put things in it as they come.

12        Q    What's the most recent thing you've put in

13   it, do you know?

14        A    Didn't you just file some motions?  I

15   don't know.

16        Q    So you got a copy of that and put it in

17   there?

18        A    Yeah.

19        Q    Have you ever had any discussions with the

20   University of Cincinnati about Dr. Borack, written

21   any recommendations or anything?

22        A    I've talked with Dr. Borack's -- I believe

23   it's his boss, John Kennedy.  In fact, John Kennedy

24   came to present to us and it was arranged by Dr.

25   Borack.

35

 1             COURT REPORTER:  I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

 2        A    John Kennedy, a psychiatrist, who is Dr.

 3   Borack's boss, in fact, did come to present to the

 4   parenting specialists and family counselors as

 5   arranged by Dr. Borack.

 6        Q    What was the topic?

 7        A    I have it in my office if you want me to

 8   go get it.

 9        Q    Can you do that?

10                   (A break was taken.)

11   BY MR. DUCOTE:

12        Q    Let's go back on the record.  I believe

13   you obtained from your office the material regarding

14   Dr. Kennedy's record or training.

15        A    He spoke with Michael Borack on May 16,

16   2003, on assessing dangerousness.  This would be

17   about whether someone could be a danger in domestic

18   violence situations, a danger to their children.

19        Q    Have you ever written any recommendations

20   on behalf of Dr. Borack or conveyed any verbal

21   recommendations?

22        A    I don't recall, but I would if asked.

23        Q    Can I see the sheet that you were just

24   referring to?  This is different training that

25   you've undergone?

36

 1        A    Yes.

 2        Q    And this starts back in '85?

 3        A    Well, it may start in '85, but I don't

 4   think everything's on there from that far back, but

 5   probably for the last ten years.

 6        Q    I see here, on October 4, 2002, Dr. Borack

 7   gave a talk on alienation, estrangement and

 8   rejection of visitation.

 9        A    Yes.

10        Q    Did that deal with Parental Alienation

11   Syndrome; do you recall?

12        A    Part of that dealt with that.  He

13   explained, he reiterated what we knew, that it was a

14   defunct theory or a theory that had been

15   discredited.  He talked about parental alienation in

16   terms of small p, small a.  He did a lot of -- he

17   talked about Darnell, who has his own sets of

18   beliefs about alienation.

19        Q    And that's Dr. Darnell?

20        A    Yes.

21        Q    Now, you're aware that the Ohio Licensing

22   or Psychologist Board is undertaking disciplinary

23   action against him for diagnosing Parental

24   Alienation Syndrome?

25        A    No, I wasn't aware of that.

37

 1        Q    I see, back in May 22, 1998, Shelly Rooney

 2   taught or did a thing on alienation in high conflict

 3   divorce?

 4        A    Um-hum.

 5        Q    You have to answer in words, I'm sorry.

 6        A    Yes.

 7        Q    Did they talk about Parental Alienation

 8   Syndrome?

 9        A    I don't recall, but they may have

10   mentioned it in the same terms as Dr. Borack did,

11   but it's a discredited theory.

12        Q    I see here, November 30, 1990, that was

13   the Richard Gardner, Contemporary Issues in the

14   Treatment of Child Sexual Abuse, that was the one

15   you referred to?

16        A    1990?

17        Q    That's what it says on here, November 30,

18   1990.

19        A    It shouldn't say '90 -- well, maybe it is.

20   It might be '90, yeah, I guess it would be.

21        Q    Where would that training have been?

22        A    I think he was here in town, that was

23   downtown somewhere.

24        Q    Is that something that the court staff

25   went to; do you know?

38

 1        A    I believe I went -- yeah, I think some

 2   other people went.

 3        Q    Any of the judges, to your knowledge?

 4        A    No.

 5        Q    Do you know Betty Gilman?

 6        A    Yes.

 7        Q    And who is she?

 8        A    She's a social worker who is with the

 9   family therapy center.

10        Q    Is she somebody that the court uses?

11        A    In terms of?

12        Q    Evaluations and things like that?

13        A    No, she does family therapy mainly.  She

14   doesn't -- to my knowledge, doesn't do evaluations.

15        Q    Do you know whether or not she's been

16   disciplined by her licensing board?

17        A    Yes, she has been disciplined.

18        Q    Do you know what it was for?

19        A    I think it was a dual relationship.

20        Q    And diagnosing Parental Alienation

21   Syndrome?

22        A    No, not to my knowledge.

23        Q    Do you know anything about a civil suit

24   that she settled for malpractice for diagnosing

25   Parental Alienation Syndrome in a sexual abuse case?

39

 1        A    No, I do not.

 2        Q    Do you know anything about any reports

 3   from Dr. Boat or Dr. Olafson that were missing for a

 4   while and then turned up in the (redacted) case?

 5        A    No.

 6        Q    Would you be willing to get the file

 7   numbered (redacted) in the (redacted) case and bring it

 8   in here so I can ask you some question about what's

 9   in that file?

10        A    Sure.

11                       (Off the record)

12   BY MR. DUCOTE:

13        Q    Okay.  So you've gone to your office and

14   pulled what is a gray box that has on it,

15   "(redacted), Husband; Wife, Teresa

16   (redacted), DR (redacted), family file Number

17   E(redacted)", and just for the record, again, what is

18   this box that you brought in?

19        A    This is the family file in the (redacted)

20   case.

21        Q    Now, is there any sort of index that could

22   be readily pulled to say what's in this box?

23        A    No.

24        Q    And again, there is nothing to indicate,

25   is there, when things were put in, when things were

40

 1   taken out, who's read it or anything like that?

 2        A    Correct.

 3        Q    Is this something that I can now look at?

 4        A    Sure.

 5        Q    So it has copy of the motion for

 6   evaluation of minor children, and then -- can you

 7   just take the contents out?  I don't want to mess

 8   anything up.  Is there any kind of order in it?

 9        A    No.

10        Q    Now, the copies of the pleadings that are

11   in here, are these things that you received from the

12   clerk's office or docket office or where?

13        A    Docket office.

14        Q    Now, there's a manila envelope that says

15   "Dr. Borack's report", and then there's a writing

16   here, "Do not open or remove from file by order of

17   the court unless so ordered", and there's a notation

18   "Opened by Attorney Martin, 5/11/01 per RAP."  RAP

19   is Judge Panioto?

20        A    Yes.

21        Q    Is this standard practice with the

22   psychology reports, that they're sealed?

23        A    No.

24        Q    Do you know why this was done in this

25   case?

41

 1        A    I would assume someone said they did not

 2   want the Borack report disseminated, and he said

 3   okay, I'm going to put it in an envelope and no one

 4   will see it.

 5        Q    Here's a little envelope here, dated

 6   August 25, 2001, from P.O. Box 53905, Cincinnati,

 7   Ohio, 45253, with a little purple sticky on it that

 8   says, "Please put in file".  Do you know whose

 9   handwriting that is on the purple sticky?

10        A    No.  It's addressed to Judge Panioto.

11        Q    Right.  Addressed to Honorable Ronald A.

12   Panioto, 800 Broadway, Second Floor, Cincinnati Ohio

13   45202.  Appears to be a subpoena to Dr. James D.

14   Kelly, with a check made out to Dr. Kelly that I

15   guess was sent back, and it says, "I respectfully

16   request leave from testifying because I will be out

17   of the country during the date of the hearing."

18                  Do you know who Dr. James Kelly is?

19        A    I believe he's a psychologist that has his

20   own problems with the board.

21        Q    Right, like sleeping with patients or

22   getting a patient pregnant, something like that?

23        A    Yeah.

24        Q    I'm just going to look at these things,

25   and if I have some interest in commenting on it,

42

 1   I'll do that; otherwise, I'll just try to go through

 2   this as quickly as possible.  Now, I've come across

 3   two, just loose-leaf sheets of paper that are

 4   stapled together that has a bunch of handwritten

 5   notes that I can't readily decipher.  Can you can

 6   just tell me what this document is, if you know?

 7        A    It looks like magistrate's notes on a

 8   case.  Looks to me, I couldn't --

 9        Q    Do you recognize the initials at the end

10   of the second page?

11        A    CIP, continued in progress.

12        Q    What's that?

13        A    Continued in progress.

14        Q    Oh, that's all that is?  So you don't know

15   whose notes these are?

16        A    No.

17        Q    I see another little sheet of paper that

18   says, "Call Sergeant Fried at house.  Car phone,

19   520-0336, very important you call him."  Do you know

20   what that's about?

21        A    Huh-uh.

22        Q    Do you know who Sergeant Fried is?

23        A    Huh-uh -- no, I don't.

24        Q    Do you know who that's addressed to?

25        A    No.

43

 1        Q    Do you know if anybody called Sergeant

 2   Fried?

 3        A    (Shaking head negatively)

 4        Q    You have to answer in words.

 5        A    No

 6        Q    If somebody did call Sergeant Fried and

 7   had a conversation with him or her, would there be

 8   any record in the file?

 9        A    No -- you know, it might be that these

10   papers were -- I mean, this has happened, it might

11   be that these papers were on someone's desk and they

12   were reading them, and they went like this and

13   Sergeant Fried was meant for --

14        Q    We just don't know?

15        A    Right.

16        Q    But that Sergeant Fried note, will you

17   return that to the box?

18        A    Yeah.

19        Q    Now here's some other handwritten notes of

20   considerable length on loose-leaf pages.  Do you

21   know what this is?

22        A    Looks, again, like magistrate's notes on

23   this (redacted) case, looks like Mr. Mastruserio

24   and -- was Ralph Ginocchio on this case?

25             MR. MASTRUSERIO:  Yes.

44

 1        A    I would assume it's the magistrate -- who

 2   was the magistrate?

 3        Q    Magistrate Theile?

 4        A    These are probably Magistrate Theile's

 5   notes, which they should be in the red envelope

 6        Q    Okay, and there's something stuck together

 7   --

 8        A    That's the danger when so many people go

 9   through the file.

10        Q    All right.  Here's Dr. Borack's deposition

11   that's attached to Defendant's opposition motion for

12   emergency hearing.  This was filed December 10,

13   2001.  You said you've never read Dr. Borack's

14   deposition.

15        A    Not that I can recall.

16        Q    Okay.  Now here's some other notes on

17   yellow loose-leaf paper.  Do you know what this

18   represents?

19        A    Those, again, would be the magistrate's

20   notes, most likely, in all likelihood.

21        Q    I'm requesting a copy of all of the

22   handwritten notes on all of this loose-leaf paper

23   which I have just looked at that's in this file

24   that is not in the red folder.  Is that something I

25   can have?

45

 1        A    No.

 2        Q    And why is that?

 3        A    As I said, those are supposed to be in the

 4   red folder.  No copies are permitted of those.  You

 5   would have to speak with Judge Panioto.

 6        Q    But you're not sure, I believe your

 7   testimony was, as to what they even are, you're

 8   assuming they are the magistrate's notes, correct?

 9        A    Yes.

10        Q    And this is something that Judge Panioto

11   or anybody else in the court would be able to read,

12   correct?

13        A    Yes, they would be able to read; I doubt

14   that anyone would read them.  I think they're kept

15   in the file so that the magistrate would have access

16   to them.

17        Q    Okay.  So I'm formally requesting a copy

18   of all this, and you're formally denying that?

19        A    Maybe you ought to take it up with someone

20   higher than myself, I only run the parenting

21   department.

22        Q    But these files are kept in your office?

23        A    This file is currently kept in my office.

24        Q    And does the clerk of court have any

25   control over this file?

46

 1        A    No.

 2        Q    So who, other than the clerk, has control

 3   over this file?

 4        A    This is strictly the Court of Domestic

 5   Relations' file.

 6        Q    But who, other than you, has control over

 7   this?

 8        A    Control?  I'm not quite sure what you mean

 9   by control.  Who can give you permission to --

10        Q    Yes.

11        A    I would assume Magistrate Theile if, in

12   fact, these are his, which I suspect they are, or

13   Judge Shannon, our court administrator, you could

14   talk with him about it or Judge Panioto.

15        Q    But you have the authority to let me read

16   what was in the files, right?

17        A    Yes, you can look through it as Mrs.

18   (redacted)'s current attorney.

19        Q    But you wouldn't allow me to make copies

20   of those loose-leaf papers?

21        A    That's correct.

22             MR. MASTRUSERIO:  If it would be of any help to

23   you, Counsel, those note are usually taken from earlier

24   motions that were held by the magistrate.

25             MR. DUCOTE:  Well, whatever they are, I'm just --

47

 1        Q    You're handing me another part of this

 2   that is in a manila jacket that has the case name

 3   and says "May not be removed from cou