Mom Jailed for Nailing Judge Who's Extorting Her Silence in FB Post
And: Updates on Dr. Pridgeon, Narkis, and MP Kate
A New Jersey Custody Crisis case is getting attention outside the Family Court activism realm. Free speech activists are in an uproar about the criminal indictment and jailing of a mother for a social media post that nails two judges for extorting her silence. MSM is widely reporting on it as a probable 1st Amendment violation.
Rightly so, but this mother’s case involves an arguably more serious, systemic injustice that is not getting public attention: Family Court judges are routinely extorting women into silence and compliance using threats (and orders) of restricting or eliminating contact with their children.
Needless to say, there is no more powerful leverage than a mother’s children.
This coercive weapon is used every day in family courts around the world to control and punish women who dare challenge male authority in the family when they simply attempt to maintain custody or protect their children after separation.
It is quite paradoxical that two judges are causing a mother to be jailed for threatening them in an effort to silence her by exploiting a post that exposes them for their threats intended to silence her! Bottom line: judges continue to victimize mothers, regardless of the transparency provided by free speech.
FOLLOWING this important story, there are (amazingly) great updates on three PSC cases: Narkis, MP Mum Kate, and Dr. Pridgeon. Also, details about the next Sisters in Solidarity Forum this Saturday follow.
MOM JAILED
The mother at the center of the freedom of speech hubbub is Monica. Like so many mothers who find themselves in Family Court, judges took her children away and gave sole custody to the abusive father. Monica is not allowed any contact with her girls at all—a fairly typical Custody Crisis case.
One of her daughters, now a preteen, recently disclosed a violent incident in which the father strangled her, an established precursor to homicide. Monica says he had strangled her as well during their marriage, which surely ups the homicide ante. But this is being ignored.
Instead, after this disclosure which was confirmed at a hospital, the father had the girl institutionalized at a psychiatric facility, where they proceeded to drug and sedate her. A psychologist was brought in to coercively persuade (brainwash) her into not talking anymore about her father’s abuse—the usual M.O.
SPEAKING OUT
Monica has been speaking out regularly about the injustices in her case on social media. She doesn’t hold back, even calling the judges liars. She started an online petition to recall one of them for violating her Constitutional right to a relationship with her children.
Amusingly, Monica indirectly warned the judges a week before her arrest in December not to retaliate against her. Poking the bear(s)?
ZERO RETALIATION IS PERMITTED AGAINST ME FOR EXERCISING MY RIGHTS. Take notice…
The judges were surely none too happy about her exposé of their wrongdoings. They were likely looking for an excuse to shut her down once and for all.
They got their chance when Monica posted sardonically:
Judge Bogaard and Judge DeMarzo: If you don’t do what I want then you don’t get to see your kids. Hmm.
Now, it is obvious to any sane person that Monica is paraphrasing the judges’ terroristic threats and retaliation against her—that if she didn’t do what the judges wanted (shut up, go away, and accept the father having sole custody and control), she wouldn’t get to see her children.
But the D.A., surely at the behest of the named judges, twisted it to their ends. They are charging her with terroristic threats, harassment, and retaliation against a public official—framing the post as Monica threatening the judges that if they don’t do what she wants, they won’t get to see their kids.
Really? In what universe does a mother have the power to retaliate against judges and take children away from them? Certainly not on this presently patriarchal Earth. In fact, that is so ludicrous on its face it is amazing the D.A. can get away with prosecuting her. But, like Family Court judges, district attorneys have virtually absolute power to prosecute (or not).
Monica’s criminal prosecution is clearly frivolous and malicious. It is not an innocent misinterpretation or punctuation mistake, as MSM is reporting. The Women’s Coalition has covered numerous cases in which D.A.’s are commissioned by Family Court judges to prosecute women who won’t get with the program.
Lacie’s case is an excellent example of this collusion between judges and district attorneys using malicious prosecutions to punish and disempower ex-wives: With a Shotgun to Her Head: U.S. Marshals Arrest Mom in Hiding.
FREE SPEECH & TRANSPARENCY
This free speech scenario is a subset of the age-old tug-of-war between government officials who deprive citizens of their rights and citizens exposing the injustice using their right to freedom of speech under the Constitution. Contested custody cases are often a contest of strength between judges and the ex-wives of the men they are empowering, and free speech is one of the only means women have to fight back.
Along with fighting for more free speech rights, there have been regular outcries for more general transparency in the system. Transparency provides more accountability for these horrible judges who take children away from their loving mothers.
In the UK, there has been much activism to open family courts. After much effort, in January of last year, qualified journalists are now allowed to attend hearings and report on cases anonymously. But they're already seeing it is not the panacea they had thought it would be.
What journalists and mothers who want to bring attention to these horrific cases do not yet realize is that an increase in transparency will make little difference in the Crisis. One need only look at the U.S. and other countries, where more transparency is already occurring, to realize that this form of accountability-holding has made no detectable difference.
Yes, more transparency makes it a bit harder for judges to do their dirty work, provides some accountability, and feels empowering to mothers—good things for sure. But no significant change. Why?
Most Family Court judges are just paying their dues, doing what is necessary to be promoted to a more prestigious and lucrative position. So a bit of bad media can be tolerated.
What cannot be tolerated is going up against the OBN [Old Boy Network]. Judges would rather put up with a bit of temporary bad publicity (they know people’s memories are short anyway) than permanently piss off the OBN—which could cause the end to their ladder climbing. So they do their bidding regardless of the short-term consequences. And, of course, the OBN bidding, as always and ever, is to continue male entitlement in the family—the age-old patriarchal mandate.
So…the accountability provided by more transparency and free speech is eclipsed by judges’ desire for status and power. [Watch for the upcoming column: Down the Transparency & Accountability Rabbit Hole.] Sad to say they sell mothers and children down the river every. single. day.
The characterization of PSC cases as a transparency or free speech issue diverts from the real problem—judges having virtually absolute power to switch custody from loving, primarily-bonded mothers to abusive or otherwise underserving fathers. The only fix for that is to remove the power to decide custody from judges.
This means dismantling, or at least removing custody cases from Family Court, which is designed specifically so judges can keep men entitled in their family. True transparency and accountability will only happen when custody cases are heard in a regular civil court with a jury—open to the public.
WHAT’S NEXT
Monica was released from jail after 35 days and her public defender has filed a motion to dismiss the case, saying:
The government is punishing and jailing a woman for simply speaking her mind. There’s really nothing criminal about what she did.
Her lawyer appears to be trying to help Monica, but you never know what’s going on behind the scenes in these cases that involve the OBN. Attorneys often find themselves fired or disbarred if they help mothers too much.
Also, unfortunately, it seems the prosecution is refiling tomorrow with added false charges and a new request to detain (jail) her. So she could be arrested and jailed yet again tomorrow.
But it doesn’t seem they can shut her up no matter what. She is still posting and says she will continue to.
Kudos to Monica for her bravery.
UPDATES
NARKIS
We began covering Narkis’s case many years ago, when her ex filed a Hague petition in the Netherlands, years after Narkis had left Italy, where the father lives, back to her home in the U.S.
The Hague Convention (law governing international custody disputes) states that children must be returned to the jurisdiction from which they were taken, but provide an exception if children may be subjected to a “grave risk of harm”.
The Hague ruled that Bradley be returned to Italy where “ameliorative measures (making things less harmful) could be explored”. So the little boy would not be subjected to a grave risk of harm, just plain old harm. Right. Of course, whether any ameliorative measures would actually be taken would be up to Italian family court judges who would would likely not monitor the father’s behavior, as per the entrenched male entitling everywhere.
Narkis responded to this Hague ruling by filing a petition to prevent Bradley’s return on the grounds of “grave harm” in the Eastern District of New York, where she had been living with Bradley for five years. The case made it up to the U.S. Supreme Court where Narkis won a partial victory, but it was remanded back to the same district court where the judge once again ordered Bradley back to Italy to be reunified with his father.
Narkis was found dead shortly after this ruling. The cause of death has not been publicly released. Her sister kept the fight going and has just received the final ruling. Bradley stays in the U.S. with her!
For more on this case:
and
DR. PRIDGEON
Last week, Women’s Coalition followers were updated that Dr. Pridgeon, Patrick, and Grandma Ann’s trial was finally starting on Monday, five years after they were arrested for helping to hide children from their molester fathers. They were facing up to 30 years in prison.
The trial was expected to take over a month, Pridgeon saying that much time was necessary because to expose all the corruption involved. Unlike family courts, everything in criminal court is public.
The amazing update is: their case has been in effect dismissed!
In a surprise development on Wednesday, Dr. Pridgeon’s brilliant, young, pro-bono attorney filed a motion to permanently stay the criminal proceedings due to a legal technicality he had discovered—and it worked! The prosecution admitted their mistake and withdrew the charges of “conspiracy to defeat the course of justice” (violate a Family Court order) against all three defendants.
Judge Vicki Loury was so upset at this turnaround that she kept screaming at the defendants and the young defense attorney, “Get out, get out, get out!” until they were all physically out of the courtroom. Apparently she was bummed she would not be getting her reward from the Old Boys for steering the case, as much as possible, against three people who had dared to interfere with men’s well-established entitlement to sexually abuse their own children.
Unfortunately, Patrick still has six other charges active from posting on social media about one of the cases. Another freedom of speech case. There will be a pre-trial hearing at the end of the month. We will be watching…
For a more in depth look at this case, see our previous posts:
MP KATE
This week, UK MP [Member of Parliament] Kate achieved her final, most important victory in her 5-years-long PSC case (if it is possible for such finality in Family Court). Kate’s ex-husband, himself a former MP, was blocked by a judge from seeing their child at all.
It is a huge relief. After legal proceedings that have gone on for five years … hanging over you all the time, to have this is amazing.
The only contact the father gets is four letters a year and a holiday card. Mind you, that is still more than what most mothers who’ve been wrongly deprived of contact get—such as Monica’s story above.
This follows a lengthy process in which Kate had to spend over £120,000 on legal costs trying to get an official finding that her ex had raped her and been otherwise abusive. That’s the hard part—getting the abuse finding, and even when that happens, it is usually overridden.
The presumption of contact with a parent, even if abusive, is what Kate is now focusing on eliminating. However, this reform will not help much because judges can always find a way around it. There is presently a bill being debated in the UK that convicted child molesting fathers should automatically lose custody (duh) but there resides a poison pill within: the judge can override it if s/he thinks it’s best for the child. Not to mention fathers are rarely prosecuted for molesting their own children—and even fewer convicted.
Kate is also involved in “opening the courts” transparency activism. She was one of the first to be permitted to speak publicly about her case. UK mums who follow Women’s Coalition should meet with her and enlighten her about the real cause of the Post-Separation Crisis and the only effective solution being a new system. If you’d like to do that, email womenscoalitionintl.com.
For a more in depth look at Kate’s case from PSC perspective, see our previous post:
SISTERS FORUM
Our next Sisters in Solidarity Forum will be this Saturday, February 17th, at 1pm Pacific; 4pm Eastern; 9pm GMT/UTC.
If you’d like to join us, please read this column and fill out the linked form. You will be sent the zoom invitation a few days before the forum (check alternate boxes and spam). Please do not share the link; the forum is only for SIS’s.
You can also give a gift subscription to a mother who is going through her own Family Court nightmare and doesn’t understand why.
Or support the Coalition’s work through a one-time or recurring contribution at paypal.me/TheWomensCoalition
All contributions, large and small, are greatly appreciated!
Not surprising. I'm dealing with a situation where a judge gave an abusive ex my child . A child of no true biological relation. Soley off his word, without serving me anything. He just showed up at my house with an exparte order from nc to take my son. He immediately cut off all contact until this same judge whom I've filed complaints against before finally gave me, my other children visits 5 month after my son was wrongfully taken. Now that it know grave errors where made out of spite,judicial prejudice no one wants to acknowledge or rectify the situation. Leaving my son to suffer living with, through emotional, physical, psychological abuse, torment. While being bullied,intimidated not to tell or speak on it. Had she use her professional judgment for the true concern and consideration f
For the wellbeing of my child he would not be suffering unnecessarily. They hate when you can prove everything so they do thing like that to prevent the travesty of justice from being exposed. What about the kids....while everybody trying to save face at the expense of our innocent defenseless children.
Family court judges do use your children to gain compliance. There is no more powerful leverage. They threaten to not allow you to even seen your children until they're eighteen if you don't comply with their demands. I'm sure this has happened to countless mothers. This systemic injustice needs lots of attention. Family court judges will only stop when they're rendered powerless.
That's great news about Bradley and Dr. Pridgeon!!