Episode six of The Unknown is in the books.
Rick Luthmann, from luthmann.substack.com, and I discussed current events, Rick’s interview with Paul Boyne, and my article on Ken Rosellini, a New Jersey attorney punished for exposing fraud upon the court.
Then, we welcomed Dr. Bandy Lee. Dr. Lee was one of several mandated reporters who witnessed a disclosure of sexual abuse by Ria Aichour’s daughter against her father.
Rick and I welcomed Ria last week. Ria comes on approximately thirty-four minutes in along with Jill Jones Soderman.
Dr. Lee told us that in her professional opinion the disclosures are real and not the result of coaching. Even though Ria’s daughter has disclosed this sexual abuse to numerous professionals- psychiatrists, therapist, teachers, and more- her ex-husband, the alleged perpetrator, has been granted sole custody and Ria has not seen her daughter in over ninety days.
Dr. Lee said that she has been shocked to discover that Ria’s story is systemic. Family courts across the US cover up for child abuse routinely, she told us.
Dr. Lee and I disagreed on the propensity of false disclosures. I believe it is relatively easy to coach children to report false abuse. Dr. Lee said the number is less than one percent.
We both agreed that family courts overestimate false reports exponentially.
Dr. Lee stated that family courts believe every child abuse report is false.
Dr. Lee has recently discovered the horrors of family court, and her initial introduction was witnessing her sister’s case.
Even though her sister’s ex-husband tried to kill her and their children, Dr. Lee said she was shocked to learn how easy the abuse was to cover up. Here’s part of a story she wrote.
Psychologically “breaking” the good parent is a commonly-pursued goal of the Family Courts, so as to retroactively justify their taking the children. Bringing in gangster-style human rights violations to middle- and upper-class families that never even imagined such violence helps ensure severe enough trauma to incapacitate them from speaking about what happened.
Yet, Gallina-Mecca misjudged my sister to be an easy target. Though mild-mannered and tight-lipped, having served as the New York State governor’s Ground Zero coordinator in the aftermath of the greatest terrorist attack on U.S. soil — 9/11 — she has steely determination. She was giving speeches, after all, before thousands of First Responders on the importance of safeguarding their mental health, when she was just in her twenties.
An alternative is to psychologically “break” the children. Isolating children with their violent abuser, while separating them from all loving adults, is a surefire formula for “Stockholm syndrome” — wherein victims ally themselves with their aggressor, so that they can psychically survive. With vulnerable children, this is only a matter of time, and thus many divorces drag on for more than a decade. This seems to be why Gallina-Mecca periodically interviews her child victims — all at once, assembly-line style — in stark contrast to her extreme suppression of their voices at all other times. She can test if they have been “broken” enough for their words to be used against them — since their saying they “prefer” their abuser is also useful as retroactive justification for having taken them.
The third psychological factor Family Courts evidently rely on and exploit is perpetrator psychology. Abusers are too myopic to notice that they are being “fleeced”, and having eagerly allied themselves with their likeminded, criminal operatives in Family Court, they cannot pull out, either, for then they will face proper prosecution. My brother-in-law is in this position — having sold his soul to Family Court, he is beholden to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars with no end in sight, getting nothing in return but the destruction of his family — yet, again, abusers are incapable of seeing that this is a loss.
However, without a semblance of justification, Gallina-Mecca cannot seem to make a ruling in my sister’s case. To call her “mentally ill” would be ludicrous by any objective standard. A default was entered in August 2022 for my sister’s imputed refusal of a “psychiatric evaluation” (the truth is, Evelyn Nissirios, charged with finding a compromised psychiatrist, in the end could not find one). Yet, ten highly-credentialed psychiatrists and doctorate psychologists submitted their reports, some up to 100 pages long, that the mother did not need another psychiatric evaluation.
A trial date was set for July 2023, already extremely delayed, and then postponed to August, September, October, and November 2023, and then January 2024. It still has not happened — and now the latest schedule is May 2024. The judge seems to be scrambling for some justification — she tried, for example, to accuse my sister of “absconding” with the children after assigning that weekend for her to be with them. She tried to incarcerate my sister for “breaking” a gag order, but all the information I have on her case is not from her (I even know more than she through independent investigations, not to mention multiple other, cookie-cutter Gallina-Mecca cases that give away her playbook). She tried to incriminate my sister for articles I wrote, but my sister has nothing to do with my articles.
Dr. Lee’s writings have become the subject of court hearings. The guardian ad litem, Evelyn F. Nissirios, on the case has been able to shut down Dr. Lee by having the judge, Jane Gallina Mecca, issue a protective order. Here is more from Rick Luthmann.
The protective order, issued on June 8, 2024, prohibits Lee from making any communications deemed “harassing,” which she argues is a direct violation of her free speech rights. Lee contends that the order is a tactic to stifle her criticism of the court's handling of family court cases, specifically those involving child custody.
“This is nothing but a violation of my free speech!” she asserts, emphasizing that the First Amendment protects her comments.
Judge Mecca is no stranger to violating the first amendment. In 2015, she ordered a news site to take down a news story it had previously published.
All too often, the first amendment is an inconvenience for judges in family court.
The Unknown episode 6