Domestic Violence Survivor Mother-- Wins lottery, takes kids and goes underground.RUN HOLLY RUN!!

Abuser of course—doesn't want kids—atm—just the money!!

Holly you go girl!! Dont look back and you and your children live life!!!~! Free!!! Hooray!

Mystery Surrounds Mega Millions Winner

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/22/mystery-surrounds-mega-millions-winner-holly-lahti/

Jan 22, 2011 – 4:35 PM

Nicholas K. Geranios

AP

RATHDRUM, Idaho - Holly Lahti burst into the spotlight a week ago in a feel-good story about a single mother who won a $190 million Mega Millions jackpot.

Then came the mugshot: a thin young woman with disheveled brown hair, sporting a black eye and cuts and bruises on her face and neck. It turned out she was separated from a man who court records indicated had abused her, and now has a possible claim to some of the money through a quirk in Idaho law.

AP

Holly Lahti, shown here in a 2003 mugshot, has been in hiding since she won a $190 million Mega Millions jackpot. Lahti is separated from her husband, who court records indicate had abused her.

Lahti, 29, went underground with her two daughters immediately after learning she had won half of a $380 million jackpot in the Jan. 4 drawing. She has not been seen or heard in public since.

The mugshot was taken after Lahti and her husband, Josh Lahti, both were arrested during a domestic dispute in 2003. The charges were later dropped, and the couple has long been separated.

Josh Lahti said he did not know Holly had won the lottery until told by a reporter from The Associated Press last week.

"That's awesome! I won't have to pay child support!" he said upon learning his wife was rich.

As it turns out, the husband could be entitled to a chunk of the winnings because he and Lahti never divorced and were never legally separated for that matter. Idaho's murky law on the issue requires a divorce filing to grant separation, which is a key factor in splitting up assets between spouses.

While the lawyers sort out the issue in the months ahead, Holly Lahti can rejoice in the fact that her troubled past has given way to riches beyond her wildest dreams.

She quit her job as a customer service representative for a bank after winning the jackpot, then she asked family and friends not to talk with reporters. She did not appear at the Jan. 12 press conference in Boise in which her good fortune was revealed.

In a brief telephone interview, Josh Lahti said the two started dating in high school and got married in 2001.

Holly Lahti still lives in the couple's home in Rathdrum, a town in the Idaho Panhandle. Josh Lahti said he sees his daughters, age 12 and 10, most days.

Her friends are upset at all the attention paid to the decade-old mugshot, and say it does not reflect the devoted and hardworking young mother who has moved on from a troubled marriage.

Related Stories

Mega Millions Lottery Riches Story Marred by Jarring Mug Shot

Idaho Woman Claims $190M Mega Millions Prize

Mega Millions Winner Was 'Pale, Shaking' When He Struck It Rich

Mega Millions Jackpot: 5 Cautionary Tales of Past Lottery Winners

"She is kind. She is friendly. She is shy," said Jennifer Mayberry, who has lived in the same neighborhood for a decade. "My children play with her children."

Lahti opted Friday to collect her jackpot in a lump-sum payment, instead of annual payments over 25 years. She will get $120 million, which will be reduced to $80.6 million by federal and state taxes.

It will be a dramatic change for a woman who by all indications appeared to be of limited means.

A search of public records revealed that she grew up in California and moved with her parents to Rathdrum, where she graduated from high school. Her marriage appears to have included some violence.

Holly Lahti was arrested and charged with battery in 2003 in Kootenai County, but the prosecutor eventually dismissed the charges. Her husband was arrested on the same charge the same day, and those charges were also dismissed.

In 2003, Josh Lahti was arrested for violating a no-contact order, and that charge was dismissed. He was also charged with second-degree kidnapping, possession of drug paraphernalia, domestic abuse, battery and false imprisonment. All but the kidnapping were dismissed. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail and three years probation.

In 2000, he was charged with domestic violence, but the charge was reduced to disturbing the peace. He was also cited in 2001 for failing to make child support payments.

Does Josh Lahti have a claim to some of the money? A University of Idaho law professor said it is unclear.

Nearly all other states except Idaho have laws that differentiate between separation and divorce, with division of assets clearly defined in each case, said Elizabeth Brandt, professor of family law. The Idaho statute muddles the concept of legal separation, and there is no clear case law on the issue.

But while the lottery winnings are almost certainly community property, Josh Lahti should not expect a huge windfall, Brandt said.

Holly Lahti can still file for divorce, and contend the winnings are all hers because the couple do not live together and do not support each other, Brandt said. A divorce does not automatically produce a 50-50 split of assets.

Holly Lahti could also negotiate a settlement with her husband, she said.

"I can't imagine he will have a significant claim to these earnings in the end," Brandt said.

Another DADDY kills his Daughters

Man kills two daughters, turns himself in

Why does the media consistently miss in repoerting—if mommy had killed they would say MOTHER—when DADDY kills they say MAN-- wtf

Sunday, January 23, 2011

By Salis bin Perwaiz

Karachi

In a gory incident that shocked the city on Saturday, a man killed his two daughters and injured his wife and another daughter over suspicion about their character.

Zameer Ali Bhutto, a former security guard at the Police Foundation, later surrendered himself to police.

According to police, the man opened fire on his wife Habiba (45) over some domestic dispute in their house in the Sachal police limits.

Their daughters Maria (22) and Dareesha (18) were killed in the firing when they came to rescue their mother. Besides Habiba, her daughter Farzana (19) also received serious injuries.

In her statement to the police, Habiba said that she had married Bhutto in their hometown in Khairpur, and later they settled in the Sachal Goth area in Karachi.

She gave birth to three daughters — Maria, Dareesha and Farzana. She said her husband worked as a security guard at the Police Foundation but he lost his job due to his character.

According to Habiba, it was early on Saturday morning when her husband came to the house and seemed to be drunk. When she asked him for money to purchase household items, he got involved in an altercation with her.

In the meantime, Bhutto allegedly took out his pistol and opened fire on his wife, and when their daughters came to save her, he also shot at them, injuring all of them. The man then fled from the scene.

Upon hearing gunshots, residents of the area broke into their house and took the injured to hospital, Habiba added. Police said Maria and Dareesha succumbed to their injuries. Their sister Farzana received five bullet wounds and her condition was said to be critical.

Maria taught children at a private school in the area while her sisters had been teaching children at home to earn their living.

After three hours of the incident, Bhutto surrendered himself to the Sachal police and also handed over the murder weapon.

During interrogation, he told the police that he had been jobless for the past few months and had heard bad things about his daughters. He said he was upset and developed doubts about the character of his daughters and wife.

Police said that the accused also used to take drugs. A case has been registered and an investigation is continuing.

Jennifer and Holly Collins Update: We found the visitation supervisor - Jim Seas!

We found the visitation supervisor - Jim Seas!

 

Hello Everyone, I am so excited to tell you that we found him! We found the visitation supervisor from Katahdin Inc!
His name is James E. Seas from Minneapolis Minnesota.
In all fairness I want to give Mr. Seas a chance to explain his side of the story.

Maybe he was misdirected from someone from the family court & he was just doing his job.
I want to thank everyone for you help. I can’t believe how fast this moved.
At least I am one step closer to getting answers.
~Jennifer

State Audit Questions Qualifications of Family Court Personnel

Law & Order

State Audit Questions Qualifications of Family Court Personnel

By Peter Jamison, Thu., Jan. 20 2011 @ 5:13PM

​The California State Auditor released a report today questioning the qualifications of experts who make child-custody recommendations for the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties.

The report, which you can read in full here, found that neither county's family court system could produce adequate documentation of the competence of the psychologists and social workers who make critical recommendations to judges in disputed custody cases.

The audit noted, among other findings, that seven of the Sacramento family court's 20 mediators "appeared not to possess the minimum qualifications and training requirements" for their jobs and and that the Marin family court "did not verify that the mediators had met the initial training requirements" when hiring them.

The audit also found that neither court was keeping track of complaints from families.

"We finally have credible government data to back up the many years of horrific complaints we've received from parents and children whose lives are being destroyed by a family court system run amok," Kathleen Russell of the Marin County-based Center for Judicial Excellence, which has pushed for reform of family courts across the country, said in response to the audit.

Policy matters regarding the state's family courts are emotionally charged, given the nature of the cases and and their life-altering outcomes. Activists have criticized the system for poor custody decisions and a lack of transparency.

Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF

Tags:

California State Auditor, family court, Marin County, Sacramento

Joan Dawson: Parental alienation and domestic violence

Joan Dawson

Posted: January 20, 2011 02:36 PM

Parental alienation and domestic violence

"I hope there's more cases just like this, where people don't want to let their spouses see their kids...I hope it happens more and more, until the law finally says you know what? There needs to be something done so these parents can be with their kids."

These were the words fired by Randall Todd Moore as he denied having "not one ounce of remorse" for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and killing his ex-wife.

But was his ex-wife 'alienating' the kids, as Moore alleged, or trying to protect them from danger?

This case is clear, but as those working in domestic violence and child abuse realize, all too often clarity comes at a price.

Parental alienation (PA, or PAS for Parental Alienation Syndrome), a topic pro-PA psychologist Richard Warshak recently covered on Huffington Post, alleges a parent poisons the mind of a child to fear or hate the other parent. The defamation results in a damaged relationship or estrangement.

Those opposing parental alienation admit parents can bad-mouth the other parent either deliberately or inadvertently; however, factors such as poor parenting skills or personality on the part of the mother or father and stages of normal development or reactions to divorce on the part of the child can also cause alienating behaviors.

Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, and a former President of the American Psychiatric Association states, "Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent's own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors."

More dangerously, parental alienation can mask domestic violence, child abuse and child sexual abuse. What is the difference between fearful or uncooperative battered women and alienating," vindictive" mothers? If parents try to withhold access to children, are they alienators or protectors? If they try to provide evidence of abuse - interviews with psychologists, medical examinations or discussions with the child - are they gathering proof or further alienating the ex? What is the difference between alienated children and abused children?

The behaviors can be indistinguishable.

Indeed, it's not just domestic violence survivors' advocates who witness the problem with PA. The American Bar Association, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National District Attorneys Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges all denounce the use of parental alienation in the courtroom. The National District Attorneys Association says on their Web site, "PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children."

That hasn't stopped courts from using PAS, resulting in accusations against individuals, mostly women, of maliciously denying access to children.

Katie Tagle, for instance, sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriend Stephen Garcia to stop him from having unsupervised visitation with their nine-month-old child.

She told the judge Garcia threatened to kill the infant. The court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, "One of you is lying," and later, "Mr. Garcia claims its total fabrication on your part." Garcia also referred to it as "little stunts and games" that she used to deny him access to his son.

Even when she tries to produce evidence of the threats, he says, "Well, ma'am, there's a real dispute about whether that's even true or not." And finally, "My suspicion is that you're lying" (said twice). He denied her the order (as did two other judges). Garcia took their son that day and drove off into the mountains. Ten days later, they were both found dead.
The transcript is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26434649/tagle-garcia-court-transcript-dent-protection-to-baby-now-bay-is-DEAD

This case clearly demonstrates another issue women have in courts: credibility. It's easier to believe a woman is lying than to believe a man can abuse or kill a woman or child. In reality, in family court, denying abuse is more common than fabricating tales of abuse. Most allegations are made in good faith (see the American Bar Association's 10 Custody Myths and How to Counter Them). And most denials are made by perpetrators, perpetrators skillful at manipulation - even of professionals.

Indeed, we must not forget family court is the place for couples with high conflict and abuse. The overwhelming majority (up to 90%) of couples create their own parenting plans. Those that cannot, go to family court.

Judges, though, have been known to downplay even well-documented cases of abuse and to give more weight to parental alienation than to abuse allegations. In the case of Jennifer Collins, for example, the judge told her mother to "get over" the abuse as at least two years had passed, according to Collins' Web site. The judge reversed the custody decision because her mom's fear was "interfering in his relationship with us." Jennifer's mother Holly took her two children and fled to the Netherlands, where they were granted asylum. (See also the Courageous Kids Network of children who were court-ordered into relationships with abusive parents.)

58,000 children a year go into sole or joint custody arrangements or unsupervised visitation with physically or sexually abusive parents, according to an estimate by the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence. That's over 1,000 children a week the courts place in harm's way.

Giving custody to the supposedly alienated parent is one way to "solve" the problem of parental alienation. Jailing the mother is another.

Tiffany Barney and Joyce Murphy are two women who've been jailed; their cases were covered in the media. Both alleged child sexual abuse and neither were believed. Barney fought for five years, at times losing custody or having limited supervised visitation. Murphy was called "toxic" to her daughter and deemed the cause of the child fearing her father. She fled with her daughter. When found, she was jailed for felony abduction and later granted limited visitation. It wasn't until three more girls came forward with molestation charges that her ex was finally the one jailed.

A few other cases making headlines include: Court Punishes Woman in Alienation Case; WI: Judge Jails Mother over Daughter's Refusal to Visit Father and Judge Dismisses Abuse Allegations.

To sum it up, any behavior that does not promote access to children can be classified as parental alienation and punished with jail time or limits on/loss of custody. With this threat, parents are less likely to report abuse and more likely to share custody with an abuser.

It should also be noted that when violent partners make good on their threats to take the kids away, it's referred to as domestic violence by proxy -a continuation of domestic violence - rather than PA or PAS. Some battered women who've lost custody use PA or PAS to describe their particular situation. This both minimizes the nature and scope of abuse women face and promotes the use of a dangerous weapon (PA/PAS) that can be used against them in court.

I wouldn't hand an angry man a agun, nor would I readily hand over a legal strategy to potential pedophiles, abusers or killers. Yet that is exactly what PA/PAS is doing.

For more information, visit:

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence

Stop Family Violence

Center for Judicial Excellence

CHILD CUSTODY SCAM: THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR RELEASES REPORT ON SACRAMENTO AND MARIN SUPERIOR COURTS

Courtesy RightsForMothers

Ha!  Both of these courts are busted!  It didn’t work trying to shed documents as fast as they could and stall allowing the auditors into their files!  Thank you to all the California activists that worked hard to get this audit started and completed.

To download the report “Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts” by the California State Auditor, please click here.  Here is the synopsis of the report:

Date: January 20, 2011
Report: 2009-109

The California State Auditor released the following report today:

Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts

Both Courts Need to Ensure That Family Court Appointees Have Necessary Qualifications, Improve Administrative Policies and Procedures, and Comply With Laws and Rules

BACKGROUND Every superior court in each of California’s 58 counties has jurisdiction over family law matters typically within their family courts. Judges assigned to the family courts decide various family law matters, such as the dissolution of marriages, and where child custody or a determination of the legal relationship between natural or adoptive parents and a child is at issue, the family court may issue an order for child custody and visitation. At the Sacramento family court, where more than 92,500 family law cases were filed during the four-year period we reviewed, its staff conducted mediations and certain evaluations that the family court ordered and the court appointed private mediators, evaluators, and minor’s counsel. In contrast, the Marin family court, which opened 2,352 cases that involved child custody and visitation during the same four-year period, had staff who performed only child custody and visitation mediations and it appoints private evaluators and minor’s counsel to contested child custody and visitation cases. The Family Code requires family courts to design all child custody and visitation orders to reflect what is in the best interest of the child.

KEY FINDINGS Our audit of the Sacramento and Marin County Superior Courts’ processes for identifying, assessing, and evaluating court appointees in child custody disputes during the four-year period—from April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010—revealed the following:

• The Sacramento County Superior Court could not demonstrate that its staff performing mediations and evaluations and the private mediators, evaluators, and minor’s counsel it appoints are qualified or trained.

•The Marin County Superior Court could not demonstrate that the mediators always met the minimum qualifications or training requirements and that its private evaluators were qualified and met certain training requirements. Further, the family court did not ensure that minor’s counsel were qualified before making appointments.

• Although both family courts have a process for reviewing and resolving complaints about their mediators or evaluators, neither court kept logs of complaints received. In addition, both family courts did not consistently follow processes for dealing with complaints about their mediators.

• Even though courts may pay for minor’s counsel when it determines that the parties cannot pay, both courts need to improve their processes. The Sacramento family court did not always make the legally required determination about the parties’ ability to pay and the Marin Superior Court did not have a policy outlining the costs it reimburses.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS We make numerous recommendations to the Sacramento and Marin County Superior and Family Courts to ensure that the individuals who provide mediation and evaluation services and who act as minor’s counsel in cases before these family courts are qualified and trained. Further, we recommend that both the Sacramento and Marin family courts track all complaints properly and review them promptly and keep a log of complaints they receive. Moreover, both family courts need to improve their policies and rules for receiving, reviewing, and resolving complaints. We also recommend that the Sacramento Superior Court improve billing procedures and for determining and reviewing parties’ ability to pay appointing minor’s counsel costs.

And what was the court’s response to this report?  Read here:

Agency Comments

The Sacramento Superior Court stated that it was largely in agreement with the report’s recommendations and has already begun the process of implementing the great majority of them. The court also stated that it is taking other recommendations under consideration, but some of them will likely prove difficult to implement due to a lack of resources.

The Marin Superior Court stated that it believed many of the findings and recommendations were focused primarily on ministerial tasks. Further, the court expressed an opinion that eight of the 13 recommendations are suggested changes to existing practices that are not governed by laws, rules of court, or any other directives. The court stated that, although it intends to implement the recommended changes and has either already implemented a new process or is engaged in developing a new rule or protocol, it questions whether some of the recommendations actually enhance internal controls and accountability.

Here’s hoping that anyone with cases in these two courts can use this report to correct horrible actions that have happened to them.

Join us Tonight 1-20-2011 @5pm CST American Mothers Political Party BTRShow Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanmotherspoliticalparty/2011/01/20/still-standing

Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

Upcoming Show: 1/20/2011 5:00 PM  CST 6 PM EST 

Host Name:
American Mothers Political Party

http://vodpod.com/watch/1533683-evolution-of-propaganda?u=ampp&c=ampp

 

AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.

• We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children.

•  We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute.

• We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser.

• We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts!

• We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t.

• We demand the same "rights and freedoms" to which all humans are entitled.

Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children.

Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child.

Until Mothers and Children's voices are heard

we will never shut up, give up or go away!