Bucks County Commissioners

Subject: Reforming Domestic Relations --- Reducing Violence and Promoting Equity

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:49:53 -0400

From: "Anthony R. Stanziola" <phinehas@hazleton.net>

Organization: C.D.C. Ministry

To: mfitzpatrick@bellatlantic.net, samiller@bellatlantic.net,

chmartln@bellatlantic.net

Dear Bucks County Commissioners:

1. My name is Anthony R. Stanziola, living in the Luzerne County area.

My daughter has been, since birth, a resident of your county from 08-09-99

to present and is almost two years old, housed in a Quakertown foster

placement.

2. Before I continue, I have reviewed your respective personal history

as found on the Bucks County web site. As for Ms. Miller, since she served,

in part, with the Violence Prevention Implementation Committee.

3. I have attached an e-mail that was originally sent to a local news

reporter in your area. Same is a core element summary of events, about 30%,

of what I have had to deal with, esp. since my circumstance first made its

debut within your county forum on 06-02-99.

4. FORMAL REQUEST: I AM ASKING THAT YOU CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO MY

ALLEGATIONS AS APPEARING IN THE ATTACHMENT AND WHAT IS LISTED BELOW.

5. Special Note: Parents and children are an emotional issue.

Therefore, it is hard to censor out emotion, often counter productive when

added; but without it, the context is bland and can be misleading.

Initially when thrust into the domestic arena in late, 1998, emotion was

overwhelming as will be explained. That has subsided for various reasons.

Therefore, emotional words, as a calculated necessity, are added for clarity

and, often, can say volumes in a concise manner. I apologize now if

anything may be considered offensive, but I do not detract from their use.

Part Two

5. QUESTION: HOW CAN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BE REDUCED?

Note: I may be considered as an expert. In a manner of speaking, I have

"credentials" in this field.

6. THEORY: I have a theory regarding domestic violence. As follows:

Currently, fathers have no "rights" with their children, none at all, at any

time.* Absent of "rights" creates insecurity (whether initially perceived

or not) and a sense of helplessness; cumulative, compounding and additional

elements interacting to the overall sense of this feeling. That leads to

frustration, and that trajectory leaves two basic options: internal anger

(aka depression factors) or external anger (aka various types of physical

violence) and/or both.

*: As I will explain, even a "married" man has absolutely no "rights"

with his children and left with an illusion: that means even you, the

Commissioners. (Only your political connections would spare you from what

the average man has to deal with if you faced a divorce or custody matter.)

Note: I have a Main Premise as to what is the cause but I will leave

that aside for now.

7. QUESTION: Is there a test case, so to speak, existing in Bucks County

that contains all the prerequisites facilitating violence?

8. Last year a tragedy happened in upper Bucks County, which, sad to

say, I consider typical. This in regards to the late, Leslie R. Giannini

who committed murder-suicide on or about 04-18-00. (A secondary premise

into violence is, maybe, desperation for CONTROL, which often dissipates,

like nature abhorring a vacuum, because of the absence of it.)

Note: This case has two considerations. First, that it is one too many

times for such a thing to transpire, and second, that this man is the former

ex-husband of the foster care giver who has my daughter: Carolyn Giannini of

Quakertown.

9. CASE HISTORY:

(a) Starting in 1995, Leslie files for divorce, I believe, in Berks

County. (I argue he filed to gain a sense of control in a matter he felt

having no control. As I mentioned above, on the domestic board game, fathers

have no "rights" with their children and the "laws" and sentiment favor

females. A man is up the river with no paddle and no rudder from the onset.)

(b) Then, it seems, as an act of generosity, he signs his name off of

the marital property for one(1) dollar. Would a reasonable person conclude

the same? I could argue he did so to kiss ass hoping that his act of

kindness would be returned; like a political bargaining move that proved

fruitless.

boys. Apparently he looses big time. (No wonder, the system favors

females.)

(d) Then, does Leslie, before the tragedy, give a clue?

(e) In October of 1999, Leslie writes a letter (his second) to the

editor of the Morning Call Newspaper and published on 10-21-99. (I argue he

was leaving a suicide note, so to speak, and his internal rage was building

for some time.) He talked about being alienated from his children, that

they were used a pawns to teach him a lesson. He closes by saying, in

effect, "Some say we are all equal in court...let's see that in action."

Emphasis added. (Well, six months later Leslie did get some action for

violence is a great equalizer as I will explain. Borrowing Leslie's words,

what "lesson" can be learned; what did Leslie "teach" us?)

Comment: Does anyone read these types of editorials with interest?

Leslie might as well of written same as graffiti on a rest room wall at a

truck stop. I could argue he did not submit that editorial for a response,

no, maybe as his epitaph. Warning.

(f) Within six months after the editorial was published, in what I

consider an act of displaced aggression over his children, he took a hammer

to his new wife, Wanda, and then blew his brains out. His emotional spring

was over wound for years. Inadvertently, his button got pushed and went on

autopilot. (I argue he was thinking about committing violence before he

wrote the editorial. Fear kept him from acting out sooner. I argue he was in

a tremendous struggle with himself not to commit violence. Unfortunately,

Wanda acted, no doubt unintentionally, as the catalyst, lit the fuse and the

rest is history.)

(g) Shortly afterwards, on 04-27-00, Victoria A. Coyle, director of

Turning Point of Lehigh Valley, had her letter to the editor published

concerning the murder suicide, using that word again, typical, blind

propaganda feeding the baloney stereotype of men-bashing.

10. ARGUMENT:

(a) I have dealt with Carolyn Giannini personally and documented various

things with Jodi Hertzberg during the past ten months. I consider Carolyn

an interesting woman to say the least. (In a manner of speaking, I believe I

know what Leslie had to endure. I could say more but I'm trying to be

nice.)

(b) I argue that the entirety of the system, including probability

aspects of known effects to given stimulus, mixed with known awareness of

men having no "rights" with their children and/or within the domestic

setting, a court system too centered on expediting matters in the fast lane

making decisions in the shadows of a back room, not only can given agents or

parties predict such an outcome but actually design and engineer its

creation. Incredulous? Read the attachment.

a cat toying with a mouse, knowing a little psychology, familiar with the

exploitabilty of the legal parameters, the system is ready, willing and able

to allow a female to commit indirect murder and commend her for the deed.

In fact, I argue the system encourages females to do no less for in the

process, government generates profit, job security and employment

opportunity as fathers are deemed expendable to that end. When a male

commits violence you have a self fulfilling prophecy for the system did

everything in its power to make it a reality. (In the case of Leslie, he

pushed the matter outside acceptable limits since he unleashed cause and

effect. Acceptable? If he only committed suicide, that would be

acceptable.) I argue, women like Ms. Coyle (who would be in denial to say

otherwise) do not want violence to end, for that would put her out of

business. No, lets see if we can manage violence within acceptable limits:

that is profitable. See men degraded. Humiliated. Wonderful. Acceptable. She

has a vested interest to incite violence when none is pending. Those who

mediate violence, like a union representative negotiation a contract, have a

direct contradiction to their endeavors. Controversy creates the need. Need

seeks to cancel out controversy which would cancel out itself if too

successful.

Part Three

11. MAIN PREMISE: (This is going to probably offend but if the

separation amendment between church and state was diligently complied with,

I would not have to say the following.) So, I argue that the only way for

fathers to get back in the loop with their children, for men to have

equality, for the word "right" to have meaning, we MUST GET THE CATHOLIC

CHURCH OUT OF THE DOMESTIC FOREST for only then will there be fairness and

great reduction of violence. Again, incredulous?

12. OATH OF OFFICE: I am a former veteran with honorable discharge from

the Vietnam Era. You took an oath, as I did, to support and defend the

Constituition(s) against enemies both foreign and domestic. You are duty

bound to live up to your oath and make sure the Constitutions are

implemented. That is all I ask.

Note: But what happens? It seems the Constitution is too remote to have

relevance in daily life so in the mean time, resort to drafting internal

policy while making sure we don't rock the status quo. Rock the boat?

Can't do that, counter productive to get re-elected.

13. Please excuse me, but I must now do some catholic bashing.

14. QUESTION: Have you ever examined the current Acknowledgment Of

Paternity form, last revised in 1998?

Comment: For one raised, educated or indoctrinated as a catholic,

reading said form they would see nothing wrong. AND THAT IS THE F'n

PROBLEM!!!

Rebuttal: That form is grossly unconstitutional, no less than eight

violations, because said form is entirely drafted using catholic ideology.

Its as if to say that Harrisburg has become nothing more than a Vatican

annex promulgating catholic edicts disguised as civil law.

Note: I am not a catholic, let alone a christian. I take great offense

that my public servants want to force me to live as a catholic!

15. Yes, have yo ever examined said form?

REBUTTAL: I argue that when a male signs the form, he is relinquishing

all claims to the female: that the child belongs to her, exclusively.

Furthermore, the male is admitting to a criminal confession of tort

liability that he damaged the female getting her pregnant. Criminal?

Failure to pay child support (aka damages) is criminal contempt of court.

16. EXAMINATION:

(a) In the block where the female signs, in relevant part, "I, [Jane

Doe] acknowledge (i.e. accuse) [Mr. Smith] as the father of MY child."

Emphasis and opinion added.

(b) In regards to the block for the male, "I, [Mr. Smith] acknowledge

that I am the biological father (i.e. sperm donor) of THE child." Emphasis

and opinion added.

17. CONCLUSION: (Brief summary.) Like any form, that can only be

executed upon after the fact, the post signature status of said form clearly

has the father admitting the child belongs to the female in the contextual

relationship of the "my" and "the" words. Why would a male sign that form?

First, ignorance and duress, as his child is dangled before him, they system

compels him to sign the form for the sole purpose of entrapment.

Note: It is said that a fair trial means an uncertain outcome. What

uncertainty is found in regards to the intent of this form? Based on sex

discrimination, we have the female pre classified as a victim, so to

complete polar logic, the male is pre classified as the criminal. Have a

few victims walking around and you create need for a host of do-gooders to

have a job, get their name in the paper, receive a few awards and make

money. As for the criminals, more job opportunity to manage their

employment deductions.

Comment: How can such a form be drafted when those who did so, those who

took an oath to uphold the constitution, violated equity and non

discrimination? A female, for example, receives benefit from her "unwed"

status by default while the male is penalized for his "unwed" status.

Paternity is a transitory matter. If anything, the name of said form should

read: Recognition Of Custody, since the State should favor no party and

insist that both parents receive equal benefit and liability as default.

Then let a moving part and issue take it from there so each case can be

heard on the merits. As it stands now, the matter is pre adjudicated.

18. Dear Commissioners, we are in a new millennium. As I will explain

shortly, if the separation doctrine was enforced, not only is there existing

law that has made the religious expectations of "marriage" obsolete, but the

State is barred from using the word when drafting laws. Again, incredulous?

I argue the word "marriage" is germane to a parish, not a county.

REBUTTAL: For now, I argue that the State can recognize the concept of a

special contract called "marriage" outside itself, since, the State

recognizes that citizens have the "right" of religious freedom and the free

exercise thereof. But the State is barred from favoring any religious idea

or group of a given religion embracing a majority belief for that violates,

in part, the Bill Of Rights. But I must break sequence for a moment.

19. Next, examination is with the "marriage license". I argue it is

unconstitutional for the State is barred from forcing people to comply with

a religious mandate.

REBUTTAL: As for myself, if anything, in certain aspects, I think like

a 17th century protestant. Borrowing a catholic word, I think like a heretic

who is duty bound to defy the catholic concept of authority. Researching the

historical evolution of the "marriage license", esp. its conception into

Pennsylvania society circa 1857, when a couple goes to the courthouse to

obtain a "marriage license", in the process they are surrendering their G-d

given right to marry (recognized by the protestants who drafted the

Constitution(s), and seek for the State to give it back in the form of

privilege upon payment. They are also making a confession that they are

incompetent and, hence, receive a WARD MARRIAGE CONTRACT.

QUESTION: What does that mean?

REBUTTAL: First of all, that lets agents of children and youth

unbridled discretion to seized children without trial by jury and cloak

their actions in secret. For such a marriage contract, like a breeding

permit, the parents have no "rights" with their children. Catholic ideology

in all its glory.

OPINION: Being a parent is a RIGHT, not a privilege. Once parental

status is given back its sovereign status, as the protestants once upheld,

that is when equality will abound by default and violence reduced.

20. HISTORICAL EXAMINATION: Where did the idea of a "marriage license"

come from?

REBUTTAL: As I challenge you to refute, it was invented by catholic

bureaucrats during the Inquisition as means to control breeding to protect

the status quo. I argue the concept of a "marriage license" is

contradictory to the aspirations of the Constitution (Protestant Document)

for it has been used, and still used, as a tool to protect monopolies and

favored religious ideology.

Note: Any wonder why domestic relations, children and youth, are

infiltrated, controlled and dominated by catholic agencies like The United

Way? I argue that the catholic church, indirectly, has turned this branch

of government into its personal indoctrination center funneling as many

children as possible into the catholic fold.

Comment: With all due respect, in a catholic utopia, like a prison,

people have no rights, only leave to seek privilege. In such a utopia, again

like a prison, they don't care what you call yourself or by what name you

use as a "religion" so long as you are a good little inmate in the process.

I argue Bucks is more parish than county.

21. Once, in archaic Europe, the only "church" in town was catholic. The

only form of "government" were the nepotistic clans functioning as

monarchies. They had a vested interest for self preservation as they both

exploited the peasants to their pleasure. For those ends, it was important

to weed out "trouble makers". By shear act of genius, invention of the

"marriage license" solved most of their problems. Can't have a man, or

group of men, breeding an independent clan that opposed the status quo. For

such men, their lands confiscated, children seized and they were executed.

After all, that was the purpose of the Inquisition: domestic relations.

Also, it was during the Inquisition that the popular phrase, "best interest

of the child" was penned by catholic bureaucrats as rationale to their

cause.

22. Also, within the "marriage license", the bastard theory of law was

most useful for "marriage" created a class distinction of those who could

legally breed (so long as they agreed to indoctrinating their children as

catholics) and those who could not. Lords and Nobles had to protect their

lands and titles of nobility. If a Lord got a common girl pregnant,

producing a male child, that would pose such a threat for how could a

"half-breed" be properly indoctrinated into the art of exploiting the

peasants when he was one of them? That would also pose a threat to class

distinction between nobility and peasants. Now listed as a "bastard" (within

catholic logic), a given Lord was able to execute a political abortion and

disown the child. Yes, the "marriage license" had many uses as a tool of

utility.

23. By the way, I argue that the only reason my daughter was seized was

to breed me out of existence so the system can turn my daughter into a pagan

slut.

Part Four

24. CATHOLIC LOGIC:

(a) If catholic logic was applied retroactively, is then the entire

human race a "bastard" child since G-d the Father created Adam, out of

wedlock, without need of wife used as birth mother?

(b) Is then Eve a second generation "bastard" child since it took the

combined efforts of two males, G-d and Adam, to create the first female?

Were they "married" to each other when creating Eve? A homosexual event?

within the class called mother, since, in effect, he gave birth to Eve when

he donated a rib that came from his belly.

25. As I mentioned above, there is untapped precedent that "marriage" is

now obsolete.

26. EXAMINATION:

(a) See 23 Pa.C.S.A. Sec. 5102: In relevant part: "All children shall

be legitimate irrespective of the marital status of their parents..."

(b) First, what is a child? When does a child become a child? At what

moment in time is a child deemed "legitimate"? At birth? What is birth? The

final act of a process that began nine months previously.

extrapolate the word child for the female cannot be a mother unless she has

a child and cannot be a mother unless she had a male to impregnate her.

Marriage created a class distinction of all parties concerned. Legitimate v.

Bastard children. If all children are now considered legitimate, then the

State also legitimize the act that resulted in the child and has made the

concept of "marriage" moot and irrelevant for now all females produce

legitimate children. If so, then it also legitimized the act of the males

for that would be fair and equitable since the act of insemination is a

joint act having two parties for completion.

(d) What was the purpose of "marriage"? Several. But for this

argument, it was the best means possible, for many centuries, to insure that

a man's children were his own by blood regulating, even with the death

penalty, for infidelity. "Marriage" never was absolute in protecting a man's

blood line as a guarantee that a child born was his.

(e) I argue that DNA testing has made need for the State to cling to

that aspect of marital regulations moot: since the former is not only non

religious, built on neutral medical science for rationale, and by far more

accurate.

27. Finally, using the phrase, Laws Of Nature, medical science has

confirmed it takes two to make a baby. But social law is abstract.

Interesting that the catholic church (aka Universal Religion Of The Roman

Empire) is in total contradiction to Scriptural precedents.

28. Example: Read what is commonly known as "Hebrews, Chapter 7". As in

other such citations of Scripture, a child was considered pre-created, as a

whole child, coming from the loins of the father. Period. It was from the

father that a child received identity, inheritance and social standing. The

man planted the seed and owned the fruit.

Note: But in a diverse religious society, that would not be fair and

equitable to give a child by default to the male for that is based on a

religious thought. Anyway, too bad it wasn't used to stop abortion.

29. As for the Scriptural position on "marriage". Very controversial.

Was the Messiah born a "bastard" child? Was G-d married to Mary when he got

her pregnant? Since Joseph was married to her, was that precedent to

endorse polygamy? Two men having the same wife? Do you think Joseph played

with himself? Mary had other children. The Messiah ahd half sibblings.

30. In the mean time, I have raised serious allegations in the

attachment. Maybe its time to have this matter see the light of day and

examined before the public, away from the shadows.

Sincerely,

Anthony R. Stanziola

(One Highland Village)

R.R. 1 Box 1275

Freeland, Pa 18224

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Does Libertae Have Any Secrets?

Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 04:11:41 -0400

From: "Anthony R. Stanziola" <phinehas@hazleton.net>

Organization: C.D.C. Ministry

To: lmason@calkinsnewspapers.com

To: Ms. Laure Mason:

From: Anthony R. Stanziola

(One Highland Village)

R.R. 1 Box 1275

Freeland, Pa 18224

Fax: (570) 636-3485

Cell Phone: (570) 956-1624

SUBJECT: DARK SIDE TO LIBERTAE

Dear Ms. Mason:

I am a father in a custody WAR with Bucks County. My daughter has been

incarcerated inside Bucks County Children & Youth (hereafter BCCY) since

02-23-2000.

Why don't you ask Ms. Karasow about her star pupil, Donna Marie Swire,

who is currently an inmate at Cambridge Springs, Erie County?

Preliminary allegations: Behind their carefully manicured facade,

cloaked in multiple layers of confidentiality, under the guise of adoption,

they are running a black market hub for babies. They will lie, cheat and

steal to get their way and then forge documents and sanitize the record to

cover their tracks.

1. Allegation: Donna was pregnant with my daughter when she was placed

at Liberate in 1999. To conceal Donna's drug use during the pregnancy, the

umbilical cord was deliberately destroyed before testing could be done.

Seems Donna was no stranger to Libertae. According to court papers in

Schuylkill County, Donna was there once before.

2. Allegation: Ms. Karasow helped Donna forge documents and used her

connections to have a bogus PFA placed against me. When Donna was an

inpatient at Choices, a rehab in Kingston, Pa, she made plans to have my

daughter given up for adoption at birth. Donna was having a hard time

getting rid of me. That is why she went to the loving embrace of Ms. Karasow

to help Donna get rid of another father.

(Donna sent me a letter admitting Libertae's involvement.)

Comment: You see, having a father involved only complicates adoption

schemes. If a father gets custody then Libertae looses all that money.

3. Brief Account: Donna, a drug addict, arrested for multiple crimes

related to her addiction, such as prostitution. In and out of prison for

over fifteen years. Donna seems to have this fantasy of getting out of

prison, immediately getting pregnant, giving birth, loosing the baby and

going back to prison. (She has done so five times: she had three girls and

two boys.)

4. In 1998 Donna targeted me for Fantasy Pregnancy #5 as a sperm donor,

so to speak. To her I was expendable and exploitable. Donna has hepatitis C

and never told me. Had I known that I never would of had sexual contact let

alone unprotected sex that would result in a pregnancy.

5. Donna has had five children with five different fathers. To various

degrees Donna was able to push all the fathers away with her other four

children. One father, Joseph Sabia, of child #2, she murdered via overdose

as means to get rid of him.

Allegation: Fearing arrest, Donna allowed that child, Tausha, to be

adopted out so everyone would turn a blind eye. (I have sent certified

letters to Judge Muroski and the Luzerne County Coroner, Dr. Hudock.)

Part Two

6. Introduction: Donna was released from Schuylkill County Prison in

October, 1998 with two active paroles from Schuylkill and Montgomery. Within

three weeks she was pregnant with my daughter. Like she did with her other

four pregnancies, used drugs extensively. As usual, the parole officers

would not violate her parole since they don't want the expense and liability

of dealing with a pregnant inmate: esp. Donna. When Donna told me she was

pregnant, flaunting the matter since she knew the laws favored single

mothers, I sent certified letters to both parole offices indicating she was

pregnant with my child. Also, Donna has been through the domestic turnstile

four times before, she was familiar with the system. The game was afoot

with her fabricating and inventing "evidence" to get rid of me with hopes to

severe any chance I had getting custody.

7. As for the bogus PFA, first, an overview of legalities. The

original plan was once Donna moved to Libertae under in cloak of

confidentiality, hoping I would not know where she was, wait until she gave

birth then have me arrested on some alleged sex charge. But Sue Jerome,

from the Montgomery County Parole Office, who violated confidentiality, told

me where Donna was.

8. During that time, a then close friend of Donna, gave me a large

amount of letters Donna wrote to her. These letters were damaging to Donna's

original intent.

9. Within two weeks after Donna arrived at Libertae, I found where she

was and called Ms. Karasow. Consider it testing the waters. In part,

because of the letters, since I couldn't stop the treachery, I tipped my

hand letting Ms. Karasow know I knew Donna was there to force their hand

prematurely.

10. I was served with a PFA on 06-02-99. Donna was not then a legal

resident of Bucks County and her allegations supposedly took place in

Luzerne County. The court had no jurisdiction.

Note: I allege the court knew this and didn't care, they were preparing

the way for an adoption.

11. Donna had no witnesses testify on her behalf. She produced one piece

of "evidence" a photocopy of a fax of a fax: one page of a ten page fax of a

prenatal flow chart that originated from Healthy Beginnings Plus, in

Hazleton, then faxed to Choices and then re-faxed to Libertae.

12. The document was altered and/or forged and my allegation Ms. Karasow

knew of this and didn't care: it was vital dirt needed to prevail.

13. The PFA was granted. Not surprising. Bucks County hands them out

like candy. As a counter move, I wrote a certified letter to the Luzerne

County DA's office demanding to be arrested based on the testimony. No

takers. After all, if Donna said I committed criminal acts against her in

Luzerne County, and the same testimony was used to grant the PFA, then by

all means I should be arrested. If Luzerene County found no cause then how

could Bucks County?

14. But this is where the intrigue really gets messy. After my daughter

was born, I moved first and filed court papers. (Interesting, why did my

daughter have three different names on three active files at the same

time?) I demanded DNA testing not because I was denying being the father

but for peace of mind.

15. On the day of DNA testing, during a conference, Ms. Karasow

personally escorted Donna to the courthouse. Should Ms. Karasow know the

protocol and what papers should be brought to the conference? (I wonder how

many women at her facility she personally escorts to the courthouse?)

16. The conference was presided by Linda C. Fredericks. When a

conference is held for the first time, that is when the record should either

be amended or corrected as testimony is given. My daughter's name was listed

as "BABY SWIRE". Donna said she forgot the birth certificate but said the

child's name was "Angel Rose Colasurdo". Protocol was violated in that no

positive identification was presented in regards to the child. At the

conclusion of the conference, papers were given to me for signature. They

contained gross errors of fact such as the child's name still indicated

"BABY SWIRE" and also had me listed, the father, giving birth. Yes, me the

father giving birth.

Note: Interesting to point out, a foster family that has one of Donna's

other children, their last name is Fredericks, who is a police officer. (I

wonder if there is a connection. Someone doing someone a favor?)

17. Afterwards, we went upstairs for DNA testing. The nurse doing

testing also violated protocol and did not seek positive identification of

the child. Also, she had a swab kit. When it came to my package, it was not

sealed.

18. You see, I received a tip that, at that point, they were so

desperate to get rid of me, they were going to have the test results forged

to show I wasn't the father.

19. The tip was given credence with the violation of protocol. I went to

the controller's office, obtained a copy of the contract listing the name

and address of the out-of-state company and fired a bunch of letters telling

them of my concerns. Test results confirmed I was the father.

20. Donna left Libertae in January of 2000 and relocated to EQPP's

shelter in Milford Square. (It seems to be placed close to the selected

adopting family.)

21. In the mean time, the court was stalling me for months in my attempt

to obtain the proper paperwork to send to Vital Records so the birth

certificate could be amended listing me as the father. (I needed a court

order with a judge's signature.)

22. After being a real pain in that special place, Vital Records sent me

notification that they were going to deviate from their rules and amend the

birth certificate anyway. They also notified the court.

Note: Now, their desperation was in high gear.

23. Within two days after Vital Records gave notification of their

intent, Bucks County Children and Youth invented probable cause, had Donna

involuntarily committed in a psychiatric ward and seized my daughter. That

was 02-23-00. No one called me that night. (The court knew I was actively

seeking custody.)

24. The next morning, I received an anonymous tip, a man called from the

Dublin Village Plaza, telling me of what happened and said if I wanted my

baby I should move fast. I called children and youth.

25. They told me a hearing was scheduled for the next day, the 25th, at

9:00 am. I went to the hearing, which lasted under four minutes and Children

and Youth was given custody. The judge said the hearing would of commenced

without me.

26. Interesting to point out, the same day of the hearing, a few hours

later, around 1:35 pm, Vital Records amended their records and the birth

certificate was amended listing me as the father.

27. Allegation: They were hoping to sneak into court and gain custody by

using a birth certificate that listed no father before I wouild be the wiser

but the tip spoiled that move.

28. Also interesting to point out, the day after the hearing, the 26th,

I received notice from Children and Youth, dated and postmarked the 24th,

telling me of the hearing set for the 25th.

Comment: That letter wasn't written for me but necessary fodder for the

file. You see, as documents are placed in the file in chronological order,

as some third party reviewer glances at the whole, not knowing I live 85

miles away and it takes two days for mail to travel, it would give the

impression that I was served notice but did not attend the hearing. Or at

least that was their goal but, again, the tip I received spoiled that move.

29. During the next 15 months, boy or boy, what a ride. The current

swing move is as follows: Baseless allegations were made against my "mental

status". I had to have an evaluation which came back in my favor. They

wanted more and the next psychologist jerked around for five months and did

nothing. I protested so another shrink was selected and that report came

back in my favor. Not happy, during a recent hearing they said they want

still more testing. I wonder why?

30. But what's interesting, as an allegation, the shrink was told to sit

on his report and not release it until after the hearing; which he did

release it a few hours later. Why? Because starting in February of this

year, a choreographed character assassination has been executed, coaching

the foster family how to give my daughter certain things to eat so when I

bring her back from an over night visit they can quick document how my

daughter is being mistreated during her stay with me.

Note: If that report was available for the recent hearing of 05-29-01, I

would of taken my daughter home. They are playing dirty pool.

31. Last year I filed a petition for custody. It was returned with a

sticky note attached from the Master's Office saying I could not file a

petition against Children and Youth. I asked by what court rule, law or case

precedent supports their arbitrary action to return my petition. Pam, from

the prothonotary's office said she didn't know of any, that she was only

doing what she was trained by internal policy.

Note: Sounds like they violated my constitutional right of redress of

grievances.

32. But what is most interesting, when a petition is filed it is to get

its own separate docket number. More sanitizing the record for they made my

petition disappear. How? They used the docket number for the PFA that, by

that time, was already expired and the docket listed I filed against

Donna(who was then in prison) with no mention of filing against Children and

Youth. By the way, the kept my $167 dollar filing fee.

33. I have a photo gallery of my daughter on the internet. Please go to

www.photoisland.com User ID: sugaree10 Guest Password: bucks7

34. So, the next time you want to praise what a good job Ms. Karasow is

doing, think again. To me she is just a baby broker.

35. If you have any question you can contact me as indicated above.

Sincerely,

Anthony R. Stanziola

Site Index

Updated: 12-26-2001