Page Three
The next four pictures are of the four page fax I received on 09-14-2001, a few hours after the hearing that suspended my visitation for the second time. I am going to post them out of sequence, list a copy of Jackman's petition first.
Note: Of all the papers that were, no doubt, presented as "evidence", I was never given a copy of the complete record. I have no idea what was said, who was there to testify. Furthermore, Jodi Hertzberg only gave me one page of the Jackman's petition. I have provided a summary for certain paragraphs below.
Summary
Paragraph One: I openly challenge that as a blatant lie given the history of what happened and how this whole matter was designed to facilitate a private adoption.
Paragraph Two: Attorney Jackman is not a professional witness and was making allegations to my "mental status" to Judge Biehn. Mr. Jackman and/or Karen Murray, on 02-25-2000, used the standard mental challenge allegation from the beginning that works so well as basic procedure. As from the beginning, make baseless allegations while providing not proof hoping that, after the fact, a cooperating shrink will provide post-justification. Why, all of a sudden, did my letters become an issue? It didn't stop me from getting unsupervised visits, for example. Two shrinks that actually did an "evaluation" knew of my letters and both came back with favorable reports.
Look at the logic: Jackman makes an allegation then tells the judge I must see a professional to give his opinion. This was done twice, both in my favor. Now, on 09-14-2001, Mr. Jackman, who is not a professional, again makes the carpet allegation which contradicts the very professionals he had me see in the first place. (Click Here for addition information.)
Note: Did I do anything wrong? If they had hard facts to claim that I did something wrong. But the did not! Hypothetical speaking, if I was a judge and evidence was provided that a father was driving while intoxicated with a child in the car, or was not bringing the child back on time, or bringing the child back with severe injuries, or something to that effect, I could see making a decision to suspend visitations. But first, I would make sure the father was present to challenge any allegations.
Mr. Jackman amazed me. From the beginning he has made baseless allegations into my "mental status". I get "evaluated" and come back with a good report. Not happy, he wants more. By the time I see shrink #3, I get another favorable report and he recommended I get "immediate custody". (Click Here.)
Paragraph Three: Click Here to read the letter I wrote to the Bucks County Commissioners.
Paragraph Four: Mr. Jackman said, "That such communications presents serious concerns..." All of a sudden? As stated, "such communications" have been written and sent for over two years. (What has amazed me, is that a year prior to this, not counting all the letters I have written to document my version of what was going on, I sent the Commissioners a video I made as to how I spent my first father's day away from my daughter. Children & Youth had a copy. No mention about the videos.)
Note: So, now I have shifted my letter writing to the Internet.
Conclusion
Mr. Jackman did not want me at the hearing and didn't want Judge Rufe at the hearing either. What to do? Figure some way to get Judge Biehn on board, not familiar with what was going on during the past two years, first let him see a sanitized version of the record then give him a slanted argument having nor fear of cross-examination, while, at the same time, give false statements to the court that I was "properly" notified and have it seem I didn't show because of no interest or something.
Updated: 12-16-2001