Class Action Suits
I am forwarding information about on the most litigated divorce case in the history of DIVORCE. This info pertains to the ongoing case of Dr.Paul Schapiro(a once wealthy podiatrist) in PA , his request for participants in a class action suit (constitutionality of protection from divorce laws), a request for input and support, and information about his daughter's law suit to DIVORCE her MOTHER.
Scanned reports from Fathers' Rights Newsline PO Box 713, Havertown, Pa 19083 (215) 879-4099. Call Donald J. Middleman for more information. Call Mr. George E. Walker, Esq. for support/suggestions/ input RE: Judicial conflict of interest. Call Dr. Schapiro's beeper at 215-422-9028 to speak with Dr. Schapiro.
Please over look scanner mistakes. Permission to forward information is granted by Dr. Schapiro who also wants to be included on the Fathers Manifesto list.
EXCERPTED FROM FATHERS' RIGHTS NEWSLINE, P.Q BOX 713, HAVERTOWN PA 19083
STRIKE BACK FOR THAT PHONY PROTECTION-FROM-ABUSE ORDER ISSUED AGAINST YOU.
If you have a horror story of family court injustice to tell, put it to good use. Write it up in a letter addressed to Dr. Paul Schapiro, Benson Manor #623, 101 Washington La., Jenkintown PA. 19046. Be sure to send a copy to Fathers' Rights Newsline, indicating if we may publish it with or without your name.
Schapiro, also a PFA sufferer, will make your letter part of his appeal in the federal courts challenging the constitutionality of protection from abuse laws. In effect, you will be joining a class action suit having the potential to upset an evil system unparalleled for corruption, violation of human rights, and unequal treatment outside of the courts of Nazi Germany.
To participate, simply write a letter describing how you were thrown out of your house on little or no evidence. Tell in detail as well how this cost you your home, loss of other property, and contact with your children . Mention as well if, after you left, wife moved in her boyfriend or relatives.
Your letter will become part of an action, currently in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, that very well may go to the U.S. Supreme Court. If you want help in writing, telephone Fathers' Rights Newsline hotline (215)879-4099. Well draft a letter for your signature. For a free copy of the Schapiro appeal brief, write to him at the above address.
Schapiro appealed to fathers "to join a battle which may benefit both yourself and all fathers. Even judges have estimated that some 60 percent of abuse charges are phony," he said.
In a 28-page petition filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals in June, Schapiro, 44, a Montgomery County podiatrist, charges that County Judge Horace Davenport in November 1991 wrongly put him out of his 12-room Huntingdon Valley mansion with no evidence and simply on his wife Sarita's unsubstantiated abuse complaint.
Subsequently, Roger B.Reynolds, Jr., master in divorce, refused to admit a tape recorded acknowlegement from Linda Smith, the Schapiro's former housekeeper, that Sarita earlier had persuaded her to testify falsely that Paul had a violent temper and in wild rages had thrown hotdogs and furniture. Smith also signed a statement admitting her perjury.
Because of Judge Davenport's illegal action, Schapiro's complaint states, "a false allegation of abuse was used to take away his property, income, and liberty interest to his children, without due process of law . .. This false allegation. . .was brought in bad faith for the sole purpose of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff was not only prevented from proving his innocence. . ., but defendant Sarita Schapiro was . . . not even required to prove that it was true."
Among 26 named as defendants are seven Montgomery County judges including Judge Davenport, the county domestic relations office; Santa Schapiro, her mother Faiga Rubenstein, and her lawyer David Gutin and his firm Astor, Weiss and Rosenbloom; and the Superior and Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania. In addition to injunctive relief, the suit asks for an award of $60 million in compensatory damages.
Excerpts from the Schapiro complaint follow:
If indeed her (Sarita's) divorce action was fraudulent and brought in bad faith as Paul Schapiro contended, did he not have a fundamental right to present witnesses in his defense and not just be blindly and irreparably gouged? Was it not grossly inequitable and unconstitutional to prevent the Plaintiff from proving that the allegation of abuse against him was false. . . Was it equitable or constitutional to prevent him from presenting his defense on one hand, but forcing the sale of his home . . .on the pretext that he was behind in support arrearages?. . .
'Simply put, this is a clear case of divorce fraud. Divorce fraud condoned and encouraged at the very least by the judges' callous disregard and deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff's federally protected rights. Plaintiffs case easily falls within a #1983 action which looks to both compensate for, and deter, violations of constitutional rights occurring under color of state law. It is settled law that a federal court can enjoin the parties from benefitting from a judgment fraudulently procured in a state court once it has jurisdiction of the parties... Citations from past appellate cases include -
Neither man nor child can be allowed to stand condemned by methods which flout constitutional requirements of due process of law.'-McKeiver .Penna. (403 U.S. 528, 531 (1971).
Whatever agreement there may be as to the scope of the phrase 'due process of law' there can be no doubt that it embraces the fundamental conception of a fair trial.'-Frank v. Mangum (237U.S.309, 347 (19l5). 'though the limits of procedural due process may not always be precisely defined, in the abstract its essential elements are clearly established: adequate notice, a chance to be heard, and the opportunity to defend oneself before a fair and impartial tribunal having jurisdiction over the case.' - Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union Local473 ,AFL-CIOv. McElroy(367U.S. 886, 895 (1961).
Among quotations offered are-
The American divorce court system is perhaps the quintessential evil machine for extorting maximum money from vulnerable, divorced parents while simultaneously worsening the national crime plague, exacerbating poverty, and abusing helpless children. The courts commonly hold innocent children. . .hostage for ransom until all of their parents' life savings have been transferred to divorce industry attorneys and psychologists....
While the divorce courts ostensibly maintain that they operate in the 'best interests of the children,' their real motivations are the best interests of the state and the financial interests of divorce industry insiders. ...the goals of the present pseudo-system are ... to avoid welfare payments to divorced women to clear court dockets, and to make divorce attorneys rich.... the bitter harvest includes separation of children from their divorced fathers, tension and violence of post-divorced hostilities,(and) mountains of under paid financial support . . ." -Divorce Without Court by Roger Saul, published by the Worldwide Interfaith Peace Mission (1993)
This state of affairs is due to the legal system having a vested financial interest in not solving anything, and the divorce lawyers' self-perpetuating need to reap a gluttonous living. The court's policy appears to make decisions that antagonize, frustrate and confuse unsuspecting citizens who come in good faith to the court for fair play, logic, and legal solutions, yet find themselves in a system that sets up an adversarial and confrontational game. . .' the Making of a Deadbeat Dad, by John Aragon.
The divorce courts have become, in our opinion, a detriment to the health . . . of children, youth and families whose only crime is being involved in divorce litigation. The arrogance, condescension, indifference and rudeness of the judges, special masters and personnel in domestic relations offices . . .has to be suffered to be believed.'-Joe Hill, letter appearing in Fathers for Equal Rights Newsletter, May 1993.
'. . . In Pennsylvania, the cancer or the sickness of bias, half-truths, prejudice, covering-up, falsifying transcripts, double standards for rules of court or procedures, kangaroo court proceedings and theft by deception is the standard, ant those who go to the state court looking for justice are truly naive. . . .' Richard P. Bosa's June 5, 1 1995 letter to Judge Clarence Newcomer.
Montgomery County girl sues to divorce psychologist mother
In a rare action, a Pennsylvania Montgomery County girl has taken preliminary legal action to divorce her mother. Jillian Schapiro, 14, has signed a 50-page b brief entered in U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania's Eastern District accusing her mother Sarita of misdeeds against her, her sister Lauren, and father Paul, and asking for a change of venue from Montgomery County where Sarita, a well known psychologist and family counselor, allegedly has undue influence with local judges. She asks further that all defendants be enjoined from interfering with her access to her father, Dr. Paul Schapiro, formerly a wealthy local podiatrist
The brief, filed April 24, has been assigned to Federal Judge Marjorie Rendell.
Paul and Sarita Schapiro have been locked in a bitter three-and-a-half year divorce battle during which Sarita obtained a protection-from-abuse order putting Paul out of the couple's 12- room Huntingdon Valley mansion. Paul, subsequently, on principle refused to pay $1,000 weekly court-ordered child and wife support. Ordered to jail, he eluded authorities for some two-and-a- half years, meanwhile, weekly swamping county, state appellate and federal courts with thick legal petitions.'
The chase ended in July 1994 when he was arrested after spending six months in hospitals recuperating from a near fatal auto accident. In addition to her mother, Jillian, a ninth grade student at Abington Junior High School, named 14 others as defendants, asking as well that the court award her $20 million in damages. Included are Montgomery County Common Pleas Judges Horace Davenport, Bernard Moore, Joseph Smyth, Richard Lowe, and Albert Subers; various county officials; the mother's attorney David Gutin and his law firm, Astor, Weiss, Kaplan & Rosenblum; and Harvey A. Horowitz, a psychiatrist at Westmeade Center, in Hartsville.
Named as well are Malcolm Gaud, headmaster of Hyde School, in Bath Me, a disciplinary institution, where at different times as punishments she allegedly was compelled to shovel snow and cut tree branches until after dark. She ran away from the facility five times, she avers.
Allegations spelled out in 72 paragraphs charge that 7 her mother lied when accusing Paul Schapiro of physically abusing herself, Jillian and her nine-year-old sister Lauren, 7 her mother uses Lauren and her as pawns to punish and extract money from Paul Schapiro; 7 the courts wrongly prevented her and Lauren from coming to court and testifying, 7 the courts wrongfully failed to act to compel Sarita to comply with custody orders when she blocked Paul from the children, 7 Sarita without cause placed her in a ward at Westmeade Center where psychiatrist Horowitz wrote a letter reciting Jillian's supposed admissions about herself which she denies having made, 7 Horowitz' letter falsely attributes to her admissions of inappropriate sexual behavior and of playing her stereo too loudly at Benson Manor, necessitating a police visit, 7 her mother's interference wrongly kept her from attending school for five months in 1994-95, thus keeping her from her friends, jeopardizing her ability to keep up, and creating a possibility that she will fall back to a younger class where, already tall for her age, she would be out of place, and suffer stigma, social maladjustment, and emotional distress, 7 through misuse of the courts and laws, the defendants in violation of due process of law have deprived both Lauren and her of their constitutional right to the "society, companionship and custody of our father."
As compensation, the petition on her behalf asks the court to order the defendants to pay $20 million compensatory and punitive damages "for their malicious acts to deprive us (Lauren and Jillian) of a normal life with our father and our grandmother, . . .for purposefully misdiagnosing me as a pretext to keep me confined in a psychiatric ward and to ship me out of state (and) . . . for terrorizing me . . ."
Asked also is injunctive relief assuring Paul Schapiro access to the children, and moving jurisdiction to another county, free from the influential ties that her mother and her lawyers have with local judges.
David Gutin, Attorney for Sarita Schapiro, and a defendant in Jillian's suit, refused to comment.
In a precedent-making 1992 case, Florida Circuit Court Judge Thomas Kirk permitted 1l-year- old Gregory K. to sue to terminate his legal relationship with his mother after his father voluntarily relinquished parental rights. The decision opened the way for his foster parents to apply for adoption. Summarizing, his lawyer, Jerri Blair, declared: "It's a case that has to do with a child being allowed to go to court when he's been abused, abandoned, and neglected, and the system has failed to protect him."
FATHERS' RIGHTS NEWSLINE Post Office Box 713 Havertown PA 19083 215- 879-4099 For information,call Donald J. Middleman,or Dr Schapiro's beeper 215-422-9028
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Sandra Newman, her law clerk Robert Katz. Esq.. and Montgomery County Judge Samuel Salus have been linked in alleged improprieties surrounding sale of property and distribution of assets totalling $143,000 in the bitterly-fought, three-year Schapiro vs. Schapiro divorce battle.
George E. Walker, counsel for Dr. Paul Schapiro, prominent Jenkintown podiatrist, made the allegations in a two-page letter dated March 3 to Montgomery Couch County Judge Albert Subers currently holding hearings in the Schapiro case.
In addition to being mailed to Judge Subers. the letter is part of a I20-page legal petition filed March 9 with the U.S. District Court. Eastern District. in which Schapiro. representing himself, is seeking in excess of $16 million in damages. Judges Subers and Salus are among six judges named among 14 defendants. including as well various court personnel. Schapiro's estranged wile Sarita, her lawyers. the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board. and the Pennsylvania Superior and Supreme Courts.
Wrote Walker ' Difficulties that Paul Schapiro experienced in the adjudication of petitions, hearings. and signed orders . . . may well cast grave doubt on the judgment and fairness of this court."
Walker backed up his allegations. noting that Judge Newman. a friend of the mother of Schapiro's estranged spouse Sarita. has close ties with many Montgomery County judges. Prior to election to Commonwealth Court, last ..., Judge Newman was a partner in Astor Weiss and Newman, of Bala Cynwyd.
It was Robert Katz, the Judge's current law clerk and, earlier,.also a member of Astor Weiss and Newman, Walker noted, who drafted and signed petitions for distribution of $143,000 escrowed monies stemming from the forced sale of Schapiro's Wyncote two-acre estate. Without offering Paul Schapiro a chance to buy the property, Judge Salus signed the order.overruling Judge Paul Tressler who, earlier, refused to authorize the sale in advance of a support hearing. Judge Salus' order transferred the bulk of the proceeds from the sale to Sarita Schapiro, and $100,000 to her lawyer, David Gutin, Esq., a partner in the former Newman firm. now renamed Astor Weiss Kaplan &Rosenblum.
In court on February 15. Judge Salus admitted that he is "a good friend of Judge Newman.
"It is clear. wrote Walker " . . .that a conflict of interest exists that is injurious to my client. This conflict cannot be dissipated unless this Honorable Court . . . begins to rectify some of the serious problems that have festered to the point of becoming an egregious wrong"
At one time in the divorce action, Schapiro's legal team comprised ten lawyers. Fees and court costs, to date. he estimates, have cost him $350,000. For two years, he refused to pay $1,000-a-week: court-ordered child support and temporary alimony, averring that his wife, a professional psychologist earning $311,000 yearly, did not need it, and demanding half-time custody of his two young daughters.