Complaint Against Judge Jane Grossman, Part 3

Complaint Against Judge Jane Grossman, Part 3

This information is continued from previous articles about this case, detailed here and here.

Judge Jane Grossman’s observations about the FCVFC

In the midst of the hearing on the Ambrose case from September 11th, 2020, as will be noted from the transcripts, Judge Jane Grossman began to communicate to the assembled audience, tidbits of information she gathered from a Google search of the director of the FCVFC, Jill Jones Soderman.

 Judge Jane Grossman found information related to my presence on another Connecticut case where my engagement was related to consultation more than four years ago. The attorney currently representing the Protective Parent in this case before us—the Ambrose case—was the same attorney who in that former case represented a Protective Parent of three young children who were allegedly being sexually groomed by a mentally deranged father, from a family where occurrences of sexual abuse and incest had been present through multiple generations.

Similarities between the two cases

Not unlike the proceedings in the Ambrose case, in that former case the Protective Parent Mother was a professional, a highly trained, experienced nurse in a local hospital.

 In that former case, the evaluator also introduced confabulated hearsay testimony against the mother, with the source of that information being the father, who—again, similarly—had been contacting the hospital where she had been employed for years, enjoying a superb reputation.

 The evaluator in that case also introduced inflammatory, unsubstantiated material through the psychiatric evaluation. That mother, not unlike the Protective Parent in the current case, also experienced the transfer of her children, sua sponte, into the lockdown isolation of the deranged father.

 Similar to the Ambrose case, many process issues related to aberrations in judicial comportment, temperament, malicious dissemination of slander, and defamation were admitted into testimony. Testimony was blocked as it related to confronting evidence exonerating the Protective Mother. Testimony that was objectively rambling, bizarre, and dissociative was allowed to continue as the judge made comments that “this guy makes more sense than anyone,” which in itself is a bizarre comment. (Transcripts of this testimony and court proceedings remain in our possession.)

 Judge Jane Grossman made a limp attempt to suggest that the attorney for the Defendant in both cases was linked with the FCVFC in some form of ongoing conspiracy, which was and is factually, provably, not at all the case.

 From every aspect and dimension it is evident that in both cases the judges advocated for the pre-fixe case outcomes, through bias, fraud, judicial overreach, distortion, abuse of process, and due process violations.

Judge Jane Grossman’s bias

The transcripts in the Ambrose case provide a window into Judge Jane Grossman’s bias, as she, for example, in the same breath in which she stated that any and all marital assets must be liquidated to pay for attorney fees also commented on the excellent attorney representation.

 However, the Protective Parent Defendant litigant fired her attorney, Edward Nussbaum, for behavior that so violated multiple attorney ethics that extensive complaints were immediately documented and forwarded to the Connecticut Bar Association for Fee Arbitration and ethical complaint warranting disbarment.

 In another example, Judge Jane Grossman suborned perjury as she took the lead from the bench in promoting false narratives, such as advancing testimony from a sealed psychological “evaluation.”

The sealed “evaluation”

This psychological evaluation, written by Jessica Biren Caverly, PhD, was sealed from inspection by the client and her lawyer, other than under supervised review.

 The Protective Parent Defendant has stated that this so-called “evaluation” was so replete with false, defamatory, libelous statements that it may well have represented some other client.

 Despite massive protests, the Protective Parent Mother was forced to submit to humiliating, factually false material written about her that was deployed to remove custody of her children into the hands of the adoptive father, whom the children deeply feared.

The children’s fear of their father

Evidence of the children’s deep fear of their adoptive father is clearly shown in the many texts and pleas for help written by the two older children, which appeared in social media posts and which are being compiled to be included in documentation. A video that one child made can be viewed here.

 However, because of threats that have been made against them, the children have stopped detailing the bad acts of their captors, maintaining the hope that if they do not speak out they will be allowed some contact with their Protective Parent.

The police report

We see the elements of this dynamic as the children on four occasions contacted law enforcement. The Madison, CT, police reports (25 pages that the FCVFC has in its possession), documented by Detective William DeGoursey, indicate that the three children barricaded themselves in an upstairs bathroom, called Madison police, and stated that they feared their father—that they feared for their lives. The children stated directly to law enforcement that their father told them if they reported what had occurred, they would never see their mother again.

 The police officers continued to question the children about events they had reported, forcing the children to recant earlier statements. In a “gotcha” moment, the officers then use this manipulative tactic against the children to claim that prior reports were false.

 The reports of Officer DeGoursey provide evidence as to some of the reasons that Judge Jane Grossman is named as the lead actor in this process. It is through Judge Grossman’s directives, orders, and prevarications that we see the knitting together of elements of coercion, control, confabulation, and manipulation.

 Judge Jane Grossman has empowered various court actors to behave with impunity.

 The guardian ad litem’s routing of an investigation

For example, the report shows Jocelyn Hurwitz, the guardian ad litem, at the nexus of halting investigation, which the children have begged for in their limited efforts to gain exposure.

 The DeGoursey report details that Jocelyn Hurwitz stopped the police as to any thoughts of pursuing a proper forensic evaluation of the children at Yale Medical Clinic. To do so, she told the police that the Mother of these children is so mentally ill that she is not allowed access to them.

 On page 6 of the DeGoursey report, it is made clear that GAL Jocelyn Hurwitz had contacted evaluator Biren Caverly to speak to the Madison, CT, police and convince them to back off of any investigation.

 The children were then returned to the custody of their father and then fully and completely kept from any contact with the world beyond the adoptive father’s grip.

Police report commentary about the FCVFC

Another aspect of the DeGoursey report is the commentary regarding his contact with the FCVFC.  This commentary is replete with false statements and is even in some parts irrational, as documented in the email written to Chief John Jack Drumm of the Madison, CT, police department. (This email has also been sent to judicial review boards.)

 When the allegedly abusive Father contacted the children’s Mother to comment about the FCVFC, terminology used in that conversation reflected language that Detective DeGoursey had used, giving strong indication that DeGoursey has been in non-official communication with the Father.

The bad court actors

Despite the children’s multiple pleas for help in protecting them from the Father, this clandestine and coordinated network of professionals—all with documented histories of violating the rights of children and their Protective Parent*—have profited handsomely as to financial remuneration provided by the father that these children feared and hated with well-documented reason.

 We suggest that sources of funding are indicated by multiple AKA names, associated with social security numbers and business names all of whom have been provided to proper authorities.

 The professionals who are licensed as caregivers and protectors for these very children have in fact coordinated a team of court actors who have joined forces to promote a false narrative that unilaterally supports one side of the litigation—the alleged abuser.

 Not only is their narrative not supported by evidence, but it in fact appears to be developed with conscious, malicious intent to malign the suffering subjects, intimidating them with threats to silence their futile attempts to find help.

 We suspect that these crimes against the children have been developed to exonerate what can only be correctly and accurately referred to as acts of threat, intimidation, gaslighting, and more, all promoted to cover crimes by the named perpetrator of abuse, the adoptive father.

 The so-called “facts” communicated by court actors is actually material that has been confirmed by the inter-digitation of contacts and associations exclusively of court actors who support, validate, and corroborate each other’s stories in a dark, airless echo chamber.

 The FCVFC is deeply concerned, even alarmed, at the vice tightening and the progressive darkening presence of the court, extinguishing both daylight and oxygen.

The children in isolation

It has now been more than five months that the children have been under the exclusive custody and control of the father. It has been nearly four weeks since the children have been in complete isolation of the father.

Closing

Having just received a note stating that the committee is about to meet to make a decision regarding this Complaint against Judge Jane Grossman and additional court actors, I would hope that this committee will delay its decision until further documentation of facts and evidence can be forwarded. Extensive documentation is being prepared, not only for your review but for all other oversight bodies, criminal authorities, and malpractice review.

 Let me assure you that this Complaint against Judge Jane Grossman will not be receding into any abyss.

 Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 Jill Jones Soderman

Executive Director FCVFC

 ***

 *Documentation of cases and literature that name the miscreants retained to corral and isolate these children, seeking to humiliate and force their submission, will be part of the FNs and evidence documentation to be included. Names include Jocelyn Hurwitz JD, Robert Horrowitz PhD, William Horn PhD, and Allison Kravitz PhD.

 

Close Menu