Michael "Woody" O'Brien Wrote to us and asked to share his story

On July 3rd 2003 when my sons mother died of cancer, his grandfather, a retired
judge kidnapped him from her funeral and comitted social security and many other
frauds in his name as a part of his sick religious jihad against my 2nd wife and I
because we are not catholics.

Despite the fact I have no criminal record, am a well respected financial advisor
for 25 years, and was a model father the police did nothing and a corrupt county
judge (see http://www.impeachjudgebayley.com ignored both Pa and federal law and
gave legal custody of my son to his grandparent kidnappers, the same people who
repeately abused me as when I was a child. He also gave my 2nd wife, her family and
Me ZERO visitation rights, effectivly terminating my parental rights without any
seperate hearing the law requires barring me from even seeing my child who is now a
student at the Milton Hershey school.

The Milton Hershey schools corrupt adminstrators assisted the kidnapper grandfather
(who is a corrupt retried state court judge the police refused to arrest) after the
fact.

Please read my story at http://www.luckiestmanonearth.com and share it with others
you think it will intrest. Murder OJ Simpson has custody of his teens having been
found civially responsible for their mothers murder, yet my parental rights in a 45
year life without so much as an unpaid parking ticket were given illegally to a
proven child abuser who kidnapped my child.

The clear constitutional right of parents to raise their child as they see fit free
of interference of busybody relatives or the state was validated again in 2000 by
the US supreme court in Grantville vs troxell, yet Pennsylvania family courts
routinely ignore this law of the land.

On 11/30/04 The Pa supreme court (just like the state supior court had done) ignored
all state and federal laws protecting the rights of surviving parents and the
kidnapper grandparents blatent criminal interference and refused to even hear our
appeal to get our now totally brainwashed son back.

PA and federal law regarding the right of surviving parents have NEVER been enforced
in our case BECAUSE the kidnapper grandfather is a retired judge.

What is the point of having laws if they are not equally enforced? Equal justice
under the law is a PR myth.

The media just wont cover custody fraud like this unless celeberity or murder is
involved
this kind of horror goes on everyday.

When there is no truth, there is no justice and no American way.

God Bless you and be grateful everyday your family is normal by comparison, and the
government has not YET selected you life to destroy.

Michael "Woody" O'Brien
Mechanicsburg Pa
http://www.luckiestmanonearth.com

THIS WAS SENT TO US A SHORT TIME AGO

I was divorced in 1993 because my ex wife was cheating and she was always using physical, mental and emotional abuse on me. I had the hardest time leaving my daughter at the time only being about 6 months old it tore me apart.

I had a bad lawyer and I assumed since she committed adultery I would get custody.... yeah right. She got custody I think looking back there were a lot of things to be done but my lawyer was not at all worth what I paid her.

My ex-wife is a very controlling and manipulating woman and she has used this on my daughter for years telling her bad things about my wife and myself. My daughter came to me last year crying as she has for quite some time and asked me to fight for her to live with me so I did.

It was very, very expensive as you know but I actually won custody. Long story short we went to court and the judge asked how long each side needed for court time and they came up with an answer of a couple of hours.

I ended up on the stand first and I had a very good attorney that had prepared me for court. I was on the stand for 30 minutes when the judge says time for lunch and also said when I come back from lunch I want your daughter in my office.

We all went to lunch then my daughter went and talked to the judge being 12 years old in Texas it is legal. I guess she told the judge how she felt and that she wanted to live with me. The judge came back and said well we are out of time we will have to continue this on another date.

I guess between my words on the stand and my daughter talking to the judge my ex got scared and the very next morning my attorney called. She said the other side wants to make a deal and let your daughter come live with you.

I was jumping for joy. Well it was good for a couple of months then my daughter started acting angry and strange and I was thinking about what my ex had put me through and knew that her mother had gotten in her head.

My daughter announced that she wanted to go back to her mothers so I was not going to fight her on it and she went back and is still there.

My daughter comes to me last weekend crying and asking me to bring her back home because she cannot take it anymore and I told her she cannot keep going back and forth it is not right not to mention expensive and very hurtful.

We went back to court to have custody go back to my ex when my daughter went back I ended up with a different attorney and she was terrible to say the least.... long story short.... I got slammed with back support from the time my daughter went back to her mothers (5 months ago) they doubled my child support and hit me with her attorney fees.

I am now broke and troubled by this system that is supposed to be fair and equal and just I feel I have been robbed and cheated. There is a lot more to this story but I did not want to get to carried away.

See---- www.stanley2002.org/fathersrights.htm

2nd District Court of Appeals- California

Governor Grey Davis recently appointed Robert A. Schnider to the
bench in Los Angeles. The Judge was admittedly angry at the Father based
on an allegation by a custody evaluator who was of the professional
opinion that Father was manipulating the system in an effort to delay the
Mother from moving away to the state of Kentucky. The custody evaluator
indicated the Mother SHOULD be allowed to move away. The Private
Custody Evaluator (who is also a local Family Therapist) did acknowledge,
that the Mother indicated she would not move if the Judge did not allow
her to. The children were raised in California and both sides of their
Families were located in the area.
In early 2001, well over a year before the hearing, the Mother
and Father had
both stipulated and agreed to actual Joint physical custody of their
children. In
this agreed and judicially ordered status quo arrangement, the children
spent one
week with each parent.
In September 2002, after this custody evaluation was conducted,
the Mother
filed to move away. The Judge indicated he had decided in chambers that
he was going to allow the move for what he indicates was a punitive
reason, based on the alleged delay. However, after the parties officially
appeared before the court and Father disputed the evaluator's report,
Schnider agreed to continue the matter until November for a full
hearing, still admitting he was leaning on allowing the children to move due
to the alleged delay.
In November 2002, Father went to court with witnesses and a
Forensic Psychologist and found the court had only granted him 2 hours to
present his full case. During the hearing, the court stopped the trial
in mid-testimony and set it to continue three months later. On the
objection of Father's Attorney, the Court indicated he was allowing the
children to move to Kentucky in the interim, without allowing Father the
opportunity to present his evidence. The court stated he believed the
Father delayed the move, indicating he does take it into consideration
that the Father has not had the opportunity to dispute the delay
allegation. The Judge also stated that the move "does not predict the ultimate
resolution of this case." The trial court balanced Stepfather's alleged
new job against the Fathers Fundamental rights. Father's attorney
refused to file a writ of supersedeas.
Three months later, after completion of the trial, the Judge
admitted he was wrong about believing the evaluator's delay allegation and
that was why he let the children move, but he felt "it was certainly OK
that I did." The Judge stated he was going to allow the relocation,
indicating he was exercising his "widest discretion" under Burgess
footnote 12 and stated "I should treat this as a de novo hearing" and the
"Burgess case also tells me to take the parties as I find them, and I find
the respondent living in the state of Kentucky and the Petitioner
living here." Schnider admitted that if the children were still living here
in California, he would not have disturbed the Joint physical custodial
agreement (not allow the children to move).
The Judge acknowledged that Mother had misrepresented to the court
the need to move. The Father did indicate to the court before the move
that Mother's motives were questionable. However, the court stated he
felt the Mother gave an acceptable reason for wanting to move away (in
court testimony, two months after her move had already occurred ).
Testimony shows the stepfather took a Family Medical Leave from his full
time job in California when the court allowed the move and had his job
still open and waiting for him two months later when the court allowed the
children to stay in Kentucky.
A Forensic Psychologist (also a local custody evaluator) testified
that the original custody Evaluator was biased against the Father and
conducted a biased and unbalanced evaluation. The evaluator disregarded
and left out of her report everything that was not favorable to the
Mother, using language such as "Father complained" and "Father belabored."
The evaluator also misrepresented to the Court a previously conducted
mini-evaluation that was unfavorable to Mother and Stepfather and made
it appear to be unfavorable to the children's Father. In this court
ordered mini-evaluation, conducted 9 months before the biased custody
evaluation, the Daughter indicated she loved both of her parents equally and
the little boy stated his Father was his favorite person.

The Court did acknowledge that the Father was the better parent.
The Judge also dismissed away evidence of the Mother's behavior (such as
removing Father's name from he children's school emergency cards
numerous times in California and in Kentucky and denying the Father overnight
visits when he visited the children in Kentucky). Schnider stated that
this is not the behavior of a parent attempting to frustrate the
child's relationship with the other parent. The Courtroom spectators and the
Families of the children who were present in the courtroom were shocked
at the court's unfairness and minimization of the Father's Fundamental
rights. One Attorney who was resent in the Courtroom stated it was very
obvious that this Judge did not like the Father.
Entered into evidence was medical documentation of two separate
injuries upon the 6-year-old boy caused by both his Mother and new
Stepfather. Shortly before the evaluation began, and 5 days after
Stepfather's injury on the child was medically documented, the Mother accused the
Father of spanking and leaving bruises on the boy. The Mother allegedly
made a videotape of some bruises on the boy's bottom. This video has
not been seen by the Father, was not shared with his Attorney or seen by
the court and Mother took both children to the Doctors that same day of
the alleged video for something different, but questionably never
mentioned or medically verified these alleged bruises. The Father indicated
he told the Mother and the custody evaluator that the child had fallen
off his bike and if there really was any bruising, that is where it
would have come from. The custody evaluator indicated she believed there
was evidence of Father's alleged "abuse" based on the video and w!
hat the children told her, yet mentioned nothing about the bicycle
incident. The evaluator reported to the court that the children had minimal
contact with Doctors and therefore refused to contact them even though
there was this documentation of injury upon the boy. The evaluator also
noted that the children were told what to say by their Mother.

Custody evaluators are mandated reporters and by law are required
to report even suspicion of these findings. Interestingly, the custody
evaluator never contacted anyone regarding her alleged findings. This
adds doubtfulness to the creditability of her custody evaluation and
expert opinion, especially when the Forensic Psychologist had testified
that she was biased.

It appears that the Court, apparently being angry about the
alleged delay, held
out on making his ruling until after the children had moved away. Upon
realizing his mistake regarding the delay, he decided to use this same
custody evaluator's opinion that the children were allegedly more
bonded to the Mother as the factor for justifying his decision. The Court
chastised the Father for having "an intensity in this case". The court
also ordered the father to pay some of Mother's attorney fees. This
appeal asks the appellate court to curb an evaluators influence and to
assure they follow the rules of court.

This Case is currently being appealed.
Transcripts available.
(Taken from court transcripts and records)
Contact info;
Kaycee

Families4@justice.com