The Court Report
Richard Blassberg
Jing and Tristram Kelly Update: “A Shameful and Grievous Commentary On The
Condition Of The New York State Unified Court System”
The following is a report from attorney Robert Wayburn who has alternately been representing Jing Kelly and her parents in their struggle to be reunited with Jing’s now-7-year-old son Tristram for more than five years.
The court appearance in Jing’s case was brief Tuesday morning, August 28th. The trial lawyer for ACS and
the Legal Aid Society trial lawyer, the assigned law guardian, were both away on vacation.
ACS submitted a new Permanency Plan Report which was supposed to have been served 14 days in advance
of the hearing, and, thus, was very late. ACS, noting that Tristram said he was reluctant to continue visitation
sessions with Jing, his “birth mother”, if by his doing this, he would be making it more likely that he will be uprooted from his current home in California (with Doug and Cori Kelly) and sent to New York City to live with Jing.
Jing noted that this was an astute observation to be made by a seven-year old child and, thusly, she wonders if
it is the product of discussions about the pending litigation held between Tristram and Doug and Cori Kelly.
ACS concluded that further visitation should be denied until such time as Tristram requests it be resumed. It would be strange, indeed, for a seven-year-old boy to be in control of visitation. The ACS recommendation in this regard is totally unacceptable to Jing.
Judge Schechter granted Mr. Schiff ’s application to consolidate the custody petition of Douglas and Cori Kelly with the permanent neglect proceeding. Jing objected to this but to no avail. On September 4, 2007, the court was scheduled to establish trial dates for both cases.
In the meanwhile, Jing still has no contact with her son, neither by telephone, nor by e-mail, nor by regular mail. How is Tristram to get to know his mother if he continues to be kept isolated. No new visits were scheduled.
I objected to the report of the social worker who monitored the visits in California, noting that it was beyond the scope of her court appointment order to make recommendations. That objection will be decided on the next court date.
All in all, it was a disappointing day for Jing. Tristram will never be reunited with her if he is left in the care of Doug and Cori Kelly and Mr. Schiff may substantially delay the new permanency hearing by being permitted to call his custody witnesses first. Jing feels she and Tristram were not given a chance to work things out between them. No competent decision can be based solely on five visitation sessions between a seven-year-old boy and his mother, neither of whom have seen each other for more than four years.
Analysis:
What we are now witnessing in this American Family Court Tragedy is the fulfillment of the most fervent
and cruel wishes of Gail Kelly Hiler and Judge Sara P. Schechter who, for several years, acting in concert, aided
and abetted by other members of the Kelly family, have succeeded in keeping a loving mother and her son apart.
There can be no question that this cruelty has been, and continues to be, at least partially racially motivated, and
has likely been financed by substantial funds left to the child by his deceased father but under the control of Gail
Hiler.
At no time was it ever established that Jing Kelly did anything harmful to her infant son. To the contrary, her taking him to China for some 18 months, when he was barely six months old, was motivated by her justifiable concerns caused by the child’s 24/7 contact with his alcoholic, abusive father in the Hiler household, in blatant defiance of court-imposed restrictions limiting his contact to supervised visitation.
All of the unlawful activities which Judge Schechter has engaged in with respect to this mother and child, as well as all of the perjury, connivance and cruelty employed by Gail Hiler in their joint malicious and bigoted scheme against this loving mother, cannot be permitted to succeed in perpetuity by virtue of the harm already imposed. The fact that this un-Constitutional and inhumane scheme has flourished unfettered, either by rulings or mandamus from the Appellate Division, First Department, insisting upon the reunification of mother and child, nearly two years ago, is a shameful and grievous commentary on the condition of the New York State Unified Court System.
Showing posts with label Jing Kelly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jing Kelly. Show all posts
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Thursday, April 5, 2007
A Mother’s Love
Jing Kelly Implores the Court, In Her Own Words
Editor’s Note: Jing and Tristram Kelly remain 3,000 miles apart, a loving mother and
her only child, victimized by the inhumanity and injustice of the New York State Unified
Court System for more than five years now. And, while the scenario for much of that injustice
has been playing out in New York County (Manhattan) Family Court, in the darkness of
Judge Sara P. Schechter’s ‘Chamber of Horrors’, nevertheless it has deep roots here in Westchester,
where former DA Jeanine Pirro kept Jing locked in jail and out of contact with her
infant son for more than a year prior to trial, having first arranged for his kidnapping by Gail
Hiler, sister of Jing’s deceased, abusive husband.
Attorney Robert Wayburn, working on behalf of Jing’s parents, Tristam’s maternal
grandparents, has been involved with the case since its inception. The Guardian has been
present at many of Jing’s court appearances and Mr. Wayburn has kept our readers frequently
updated. We present his most recent update, accompanied by Jing Kelly’s recently-submitted
Pro Se summation, in order that readers may better understand the horrific situation as
expressed in Jing Kelly’s own words.
It is now more than sixteen months since the November 17, 2005 initial appeal ruling reversing the unlawful March 20, 2003 Family Court award of permanent custody to Tristram’s paternal aunt, Gail Hiler. Still, to this very point in time Jing has been allowed nocontact with her son, Tristram, not by phone, or e-mail, or regular mail, or in person. This protracted delay in implementing visitation between mother and son in this case is due, in large measure, to the determination of the trial judge to delay visitation until the completion of the neglect dispositional hearing. The Appellate Division sixteen months ago, however,directed that a visitation inquiry be held immediately and that the new dispositional hearing be expedited. A delay of sixteen months in completing this hearing (no decision yet) is inconsistent with the mandate of the appellate ruling. Indeed, a mandamus as to visitation was issued by the Appellate Division on August 3, 2006 but to no effect.
After the passage of sixteen months, it appears family therapy will finally be ordered to start for Tristram. Although Jing Kelly sent her check in the sum of $350 to the therapist in California (and ACS was directed to pay $800 but it is not likely that payment has been processed)-- still nothing has happened here. The court order is not yet signed and has not been forwarded to the agency by the Law Guardian. It is anticipated that Tristram will have five therapy sessions in California and then Jing will join him out there for five more sessions.Jing is anxious to see her son. She wants these therapy sessions for Tristram to be started immediately. It is unusual that a respondent mother would be asked to travel to California to visit her son out there (in a neglect case) where, as in this case, no court approved the child being sent to California in the first instance.
Jing suggests an appropriate dispositional order would be a FCA Section 1055 placement of Tristram, under ACS supervision, through the Interstate Compact so California child protective agencies can be requested to cooperate, for a period of four to six months,maximum, while Tristram is prepared for his return to New York City to reside full time with his mother here.
ACS suggests a FCA Section 1055 placement also, but does not set a time limit in their summation (the maximum period is one year) and ACS suggests Jing Kelly be put under their supervision under FCA Section 1057 and ACS opposes visitaton for the maternal grandparents. As noted previously, ACS objected when the court directed them to pay $800 towards the therapy costs for Tristram. They did not discuss this in their summation but presumably they should pay towards Jing’s travel costs to and from California and for additional therapy costs during the placement period.
As noted in Jing’s summation, a good deal of the problems that have arisen here are due to the erroneous rulings of the Family Court trial judge and the improper actions of the paternal relatives in overstepping their bounds as Tristram’s caretaker. ACS and the Law Guardian share some of the blame here too for not arguing to the Family Court that the lawbe properly applied at all times in Jing’s case.
One would think that ACS, the Law Guardian and the Family Court judge would be moving mountains to reunite
this mother and child (given the reversal on two separate appeals of myriad improper, unlawful, and erroneous dispositional orders, and the passage of time where the paternal relatives were enabled to wrongly isolate this mother from herchild). But, neither ACS nor the Law Guardian nor the Family Court trial judge are inclined to recognize these factors and seem to be in no hurry to facilitate the reunification process.
One can only wonder if a third appeal will be necessary to get this matter moving in the right direction. The maternal grandparents dearly want to see Tristram but are willing to wait until Tristram meets Jing in family therapy, and that that situation is going well. Thereis no standing issue as to their visitation entitlement as the initial appeal ruling directed thatvisitation for them be considered by the court.
This was ordered to be done sixteen months ago. In the interim a mandamus was ordered in this same regard. Why is Tristram not yet seeing his mother and maternal grandparents,then? It is a sad commentary on the Family Court that little seems to get done right there.
Bob Wayburn
Jing Kelly Implores the Court, In Her Own Words
Editor’s Note: Jing and Tristram Kelly remain 3,000 miles apart, a loving mother and
her only child, victimized by the inhumanity and injustice of the New York State Unified
Court System for more than five years now. And, while the scenario for much of that injustice
has been playing out in New York County (Manhattan) Family Court, in the darkness of
Judge Sara P. Schechter’s ‘Chamber of Horrors’, nevertheless it has deep roots here in Westchester,
where former DA Jeanine Pirro kept Jing locked in jail and out of contact with her
infant son for more than a year prior to trial, having first arranged for his kidnapping by Gail
Hiler, sister of Jing’s deceased, abusive husband.
Attorney Robert Wayburn, working on behalf of Jing’s parents, Tristam’s maternal
grandparents, has been involved with the case since its inception. The Guardian has been
present at many of Jing’s court appearances and Mr. Wayburn has kept our readers frequently
updated. We present his most recent update, accompanied by Jing Kelly’s recently-submitted
Pro Se summation, in order that readers may better understand the horrific situation as
expressed in Jing Kelly’s own words.
It is now more than sixteen months since the November 17, 2005 initial appeal ruling reversing the unlawful March 20, 2003 Family Court award of permanent custody to Tristram’s paternal aunt, Gail Hiler. Still, to this very point in time Jing has been allowed nocontact with her son, Tristram, not by phone, or e-mail, or regular mail, or in person. This protracted delay in implementing visitation between mother and son in this case is due, in large measure, to the determination of the trial judge to delay visitation until the completion of the neglect dispositional hearing. The Appellate Division sixteen months ago, however,directed that a visitation inquiry be held immediately and that the new dispositional hearing be expedited. A delay of sixteen months in completing this hearing (no decision yet) is inconsistent with the mandate of the appellate ruling. Indeed, a mandamus as to visitation was issued by the Appellate Division on August 3, 2006 but to no effect.
After the passage of sixteen months, it appears family therapy will finally be ordered to start for Tristram. Although Jing Kelly sent her check in the sum of $350 to the therapist in California (and ACS was directed to pay $800 but it is not likely that payment has been processed)-- still nothing has happened here. The court order is not yet signed and has not been forwarded to the agency by the Law Guardian. It is anticipated that Tristram will have five therapy sessions in California and then Jing will join him out there for five more sessions.Jing is anxious to see her son. She wants these therapy sessions for Tristram to be started immediately. It is unusual that a respondent mother would be asked to travel to California to visit her son out there (in a neglect case) where, as in this case, no court approved the child being sent to California in the first instance.
Jing suggests an appropriate dispositional order would be a FCA Section 1055 placement of Tristram, under ACS supervision, through the Interstate Compact so California child protective agencies can be requested to cooperate, for a period of four to six months,maximum, while Tristram is prepared for his return to New York City to reside full time with his mother here.
ACS suggests a FCA Section 1055 placement also, but does not set a time limit in their summation (the maximum period is one year) and ACS suggests Jing Kelly be put under their supervision under FCA Section 1057 and ACS opposes visitaton for the maternal grandparents. As noted previously, ACS objected when the court directed them to pay $800 towards the therapy costs for Tristram. They did not discuss this in their summation but presumably they should pay towards Jing’s travel costs to and from California and for additional therapy costs during the placement period.
As noted in Jing’s summation, a good deal of the problems that have arisen here are due to the erroneous rulings of the Family Court trial judge and the improper actions of the paternal relatives in overstepping their bounds as Tristram’s caretaker. ACS and the Law Guardian share some of the blame here too for not arguing to the Family Court that the lawbe properly applied at all times in Jing’s case.
One would think that ACS, the Law Guardian and the Family Court judge would be moving mountains to reunite
this mother and child (given the reversal on two separate appeals of myriad improper, unlawful, and erroneous dispositional orders, and the passage of time where the paternal relatives were enabled to wrongly isolate this mother from herchild). But, neither ACS nor the Law Guardian nor the Family Court trial judge are inclined to recognize these factors and seem to be in no hurry to facilitate the reunification process.
One can only wonder if a third appeal will be necessary to get this matter moving in the right direction. The maternal grandparents dearly want to see Tristram but are willing to wait until Tristram meets Jing in family therapy, and that that situation is going well. Thereis no standing issue as to their visitation entitlement as the initial appeal ruling directed thatvisitation for them be considered by the court.
This was ordered to be done sixteen months ago. In the interim a mandamus was ordered in this same regard. Why is Tristram not yet seeing his mother and maternal grandparents,then? It is a sad commentary on the Family Court that little seems to get done right there.
Bob Wayburn
Thursday, September 14, 2006
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
The Injustice Continues
Robert F. Wayburn, being an attorney duly admitted to the practice of law, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:
I am the attorney of record for Ling Mei Xing, maternal grandmother and intervener in the neglect dispositional hearing of Jing Kelly, Respondent Mother.
I submit this affirmation in support of the accompanying Notice of Motion jointly filed by Ling Mei Xing and by Jing Kelly.
I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case, including the record of the prior appeal and the ruling on the prior appeal, dated November 17, 2005. I have read both the briefs and attended oral argument in mid-May of this year of the second appeal which is still undecided but will determine whether the ruling by Your Honor allowing the paternal uncle, Douglas Kelly, to intervene in the respondent mother’s neglect dispositional hearing was proper.
By orders issued on June 21, 2006, Your Honor denied the motion by Respondent mother, Jing Kelly, to have Tristram evaluated by the Family Court Mental Health Services (MHS) unit which had previously evaluated her and, accordingly, was fully familiar with the case. The report of Dr. Vazzana was completed and submitted on February 27, 2006. An appeal was taken from those orders and a stay application made to the Appellate Court pending this appeal.
A stay application was made to the Appellate Division on June 28, 2006 but was denied by Associate Justice Angela M. Mazzarelli. This ruling was premised on representations made by the ACS trial lawyer and the Legal Aid Society trial lawyer (law guardian) who appeared in the Appellate Division that date – that the evaluation
of Tristram by Dr. Conrad had already been commenced and that it was limited solely to visitation in its scope and that it would be completed within a few weeks.
Obviously, misrepresentations were made to Associate Justice Mazzarelli in the above regard. The completion of a report by Dr. Conrad on her evaluation of Tristram seems a long way off and it is now early September of 2006 – and more than two full months have elapsed since the above misrepresentations were made to the Appellate Court.
Associate Justice Mazzarelli voiced extreme concern over the fact that Tristram had been sent out of state by Gail Hiler (without prior notification to the Family Court and to the law guardian) and asked for an explanation and accounting of why this was done. Justice Mazzarelli voiced concern that visitation was not yet commenced for this mother and child despite the passage of so much time since the November 17, 2005 Appellate ruling. But Her Honor felt that by staying the evaluation of Tristram by Dr. Conrad might serve only to further delay the
commencement of visitation.
Clearly, Associate Justice Mazzarelli, in denying the stay application in late June of this year, relied upon the misrepresentations made to her that day, June 28, 2006, by both the ACS trial attorney and the law guardian trial attorney – that the evaluation of Tristram was already in progress and would soon be submitted to the Family
Court judge.
Had Associate Justice Mazzarelli known in late June that two full months would pass by without the evaluation being completed and without Tristram and his mother having contact during the summer months before school resumed – the stay application most probably would have been granted and MHS would have seen Tristram in the interim.
The full panel, when determining the above Appellate motion did not revisit the above interim ruling of Associate Justice Mazzarelli but did issue a mandamus against the Family Court, directing “the attention of the Family Court to the decision and order of this Court [Appellatet Division – First Department] entered on November 17, 2005 (Appeal Nos. 6962/6962A/6962B/6962C/6962D) with respect to the issue of visitation.” [See Exhibit “C”.]
I could not myself contact Dr. Conrad in this regard nor provide her with a copy of the above order and urge her to submit an immediate report concerning Tristram – because Your Honor has precluded all contact between all attorneys for the respective parties and Dr. Conrad except, apparently, for Mr. Schiff, the attorney for the out of state interveners. In point of fact, Mr. Schiff brought on an Order to Show Cause to hold Jing Kelly’s attorney, Nicholas R. Perrella, Esq., in contempt of court for his having inquired of Dr. Conrad in late June of 2006 as to
the status of her evaluation.
That contempt motion has been tabled for the moment but remains outstanding. It should have been summarily dismissed and it is respondent’s attorney, Mr. Perrella, who should be delegated to coordinate all matters with Dr. Conrad and not Mr. Schiff.
On the same day that the Appellate mandamus order was issued, that is, August 3, 2006, materials retrieved from a box held in Your Honor’s custody and purportedly containing the entirety of materials reviewed by Dr. Vazzana in preparing her February 27, 2006 MHS report (as to the respondent), were apparently forwarded
to Dr. Conrad in California by Mr. Schiff. His letter in this regard is contained in Exhibit “A” herein. [It is not certain that August 3, 2006 is the actual date the materials were forwarded, however, as there is no affirmation in this regard.]
When I went to Mr. Schiff ’s office to view those materials on Wednesday evening of August 2, 2006, he informed me that his client had told him that Tristram would be brought to see Dr. Conrad, for the first time, sometime that very week.
That means that Dr. Conrad could readily have submitted a preliminary visitation report, based on her first session with Tristram, early this past month. This would have been consistent with the Appellate Mandamus of August 3, 2006. But instead of directing prompt action in this regard, Your Honor issued a letter, dated August 7, 2006 [included in Exhibit “A”] stating, in essence, that nothing will be done in response to the Mandamus.
Your Honor seems to be far more concerned with whatever is being said to the Appellate Court as being the cause of the inordinate delay in getting the visitation inquiry completed than in simply accomplishing this task here and now.
Your Honor expressed this concern to Jing Kelly’s new attorney, Mr. Perrella, in this regard at his first court appearance on her behalf on May 31, 2006: THE COURT: Okay, I have not delayed this. We had an extensive discussion from the get-go about the timing of this. It was the Law Guardian’s position that we absolutely had to have this evaluation and I agreed with the Law Guardian that we needed an evaluation. Time was lost in the process of selecting an evaluator. I’m not going to lose any more time in rescheduling that. I’m going to go ahead with the evaluator that we already have and I will want that to be done very, very quickly. Mr. Schiff, will you make sure your clients get this scheduled very quickly, because being that they’re there, they will be in a better position to make those arrangements. Id., May 31, 2006 Transcript at page 25, lines 21-25 and page 26, lines 1-12.
[Copies of the above mentioned transcript pages are attached as Exhibit “F”]. Obviously, Mr. Schiff was in no hurry to make the arrangements. Indeed, he blamed Jing Kelly’s outgoing lawyers at Sanctuary For Families for not completing a draft order for the appointment of Dr. Conrad and Your Honor then requested the Law Guardian to get it drafted. The order appointing Dr. Conrad to evaluate Tristram was finally issued by Your Honor on June 21, 2006.
Mr. Perrella, incoming counsel to Jing Kelly, did request an adjournment of the continuation of the dispositional hearing on May 31, 2006 – but this request did not cause the prior delays in getting a visitation evaluation done for Tristram.
Indeed, it was only upon learning that Dr. Conrad had not yet commenced any work on the evaluation of Tristram, as of late June 2006, that Mr. Perrella brought on an application to have Tristram to instead be seen at the same Family Court mental health clinic (MHS) that had previously evaluated Jing Kelly.
Interestingly, Your Honor admonished Mr. Perrella, when granting his request for an adjournment, by stating “THE COURT: …I have no problem granting you an adjournment, Counselor, but I do have a problem with you standing at the Appellate Division and saying I am biased and am deliberately delaying this”
[May 31, 2006 Transcript at page 30, lines 1-6 included in Exhibit “F”].
Analysis:
The foregoing Affirmation In Support of Motion filed by Robert Wayburn, attorney for Jing Kelly and Ling Mei Xing, her mother, is presented in its entirety in order that readers may understand the lengths to which Gail Hiler, an attorney, her brother, Douglas Kelly, an attorney, and Mr. Schiff, the attorney representing them, aided and abetted by Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter, together with attorneys for New York City ACS, are willing to go in order to keep this loving mother and child separated for as long as possible. Readers should keep in mind that the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, First Department, on Nov. 17th of last year, ordered
Judge Schechter, “in the best interests of the child”, to “immediately commence visitation” between Jing and her now 6-year-old son Tristram. And again, more than a month ago, that same Appellate Court, now commanded Judge Schechter, in the form of a rare Mandamus, to do as they had previously instructed her to do, because they learned that she had stubbornly disobeyed their order.
At no time, either in the original criminal proceedings, in which Jing Kelly was overcharged with Felony Custodial Interference, and found guilty, at trial, merely of a misdemeanor, or in all of the Family Court proceedings prior to, or following, that trial, has any evidence been proffered or established that would indicate that Tristram Kelly,
barely two years old when kidnapped from Jing, was ever abused or neglected, by her.
What we are now witnessing are the extreme lengths to which the family of Jing’s deceased former husband, Craig Kelly, are willing to go, including perjury, having previously kidnapped Tristram only to reject, and shuttle him to North Carolina, and then to California, merely to keep him separated from his natural Chinese-American mother.
The Appellate Court, fully aware of all of the circumstances, having rendered a decision nearly a year ago, intended to re-unite this mother and child, appears impotent to enforce its edict. It is, therefore, obvious that Chief Judge Judith Kaye must immediately intervene, and both, remove and sanction Judge Sara P. Schechter for
her judicial malfeasance and extra-judicial activities clearly against the best interests of the child, Tristram Kelly, and furthermore, in violation of his, his mother’s, and his maternal grandparents’, Constitutional rights.
Furthermore, it is also obvious that the office of State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer must immediately open an
investigation into the actions of former Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro with regard to her malicious prosecution of Jing Kelly, as well as her organizing and arranging of the kidnapping of Jing’s son, Tristram.
By Richard Blassberg
The Injustice Continues
Robert F. Wayburn, being an attorney duly admitted to the practice of law, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:
I am the attorney of record for Ling Mei Xing, maternal grandmother and intervener in the neglect dispositional hearing of Jing Kelly, Respondent Mother.
I submit this affirmation in support of the accompanying Notice of Motion jointly filed by Ling Mei Xing and by Jing Kelly.
I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case, including the record of the prior appeal and the ruling on the prior appeal, dated November 17, 2005. I have read both the briefs and attended oral argument in mid-May of this year of the second appeal which is still undecided but will determine whether the ruling by Your Honor allowing the paternal uncle, Douglas Kelly, to intervene in the respondent mother’s neglect dispositional hearing was proper.
By orders issued on June 21, 2006, Your Honor denied the motion by Respondent mother, Jing Kelly, to have Tristram evaluated by the Family Court Mental Health Services (MHS) unit which had previously evaluated her and, accordingly, was fully familiar with the case. The report of Dr. Vazzana was completed and submitted on February 27, 2006. An appeal was taken from those orders and a stay application made to the Appellate Court pending this appeal.
A stay application was made to the Appellate Division on June 28, 2006 but was denied by Associate Justice Angela M. Mazzarelli. This ruling was premised on representations made by the ACS trial lawyer and the Legal Aid Society trial lawyer (law guardian) who appeared in the Appellate Division that date – that the evaluation
of Tristram by Dr. Conrad had already been commenced and that it was limited solely to visitation in its scope and that it would be completed within a few weeks.
Obviously, misrepresentations were made to Associate Justice Mazzarelli in the above regard. The completion of a report by Dr. Conrad on her evaluation of Tristram seems a long way off and it is now early September of 2006 – and more than two full months have elapsed since the above misrepresentations were made to the Appellate Court.
Associate Justice Mazzarelli voiced extreme concern over the fact that Tristram had been sent out of state by Gail Hiler (without prior notification to the Family Court and to the law guardian) and asked for an explanation and accounting of why this was done. Justice Mazzarelli voiced concern that visitation was not yet commenced for this mother and child despite the passage of so much time since the November 17, 2005 Appellate ruling. But Her Honor felt that by staying the evaluation of Tristram by Dr. Conrad might serve only to further delay the
commencement of visitation.
Clearly, Associate Justice Mazzarelli, in denying the stay application in late June of this year, relied upon the misrepresentations made to her that day, June 28, 2006, by both the ACS trial attorney and the law guardian trial attorney – that the evaluation of Tristram was already in progress and would soon be submitted to the Family
Court judge.
Had Associate Justice Mazzarelli known in late June that two full months would pass by without the evaluation being completed and without Tristram and his mother having contact during the summer months before school resumed – the stay application most probably would have been granted and MHS would have seen Tristram in the interim.
The full panel, when determining the above Appellate motion did not revisit the above interim ruling of Associate Justice Mazzarelli but did issue a mandamus against the Family Court, directing “the attention of the Family Court to the decision and order of this Court [Appellatet Division – First Department] entered on November 17, 2005 (Appeal Nos. 6962/6962A/6962B/6962C/6962D) with respect to the issue of visitation.” [See Exhibit “C”.]
I could not myself contact Dr. Conrad in this regard nor provide her with a copy of the above order and urge her to submit an immediate report concerning Tristram – because Your Honor has precluded all contact between all attorneys for the respective parties and Dr. Conrad except, apparently, for Mr. Schiff, the attorney for the out of state interveners. In point of fact, Mr. Schiff brought on an Order to Show Cause to hold Jing Kelly’s attorney, Nicholas R. Perrella, Esq., in contempt of court for his having inquired of Dr. Conrad in late June of 2006 as to
the status of her evaluation.
That contempt motion has been tabled for the moment but remains outstanding. It should have been summarily dismissed and it is respondent’s attorney, Mr. Perrella, who should be delegated to coordinate all matters with Dr. Conrad and not Mr. Schiff.
On the same day that the Appellate mandamus order was issued, that is, August 3, 2006, materials retrieved from a box held in Your Honor’s custody and purportedly containing the entirety of materials reviewed by Dr. Vazzana in preparing her February 27, 2006 MHS report (as to the respondent), were apparently forwarded
to Dr. Conrad in California by Mr. Schiff. His letter in this regard is contained in Exhibit “A” herein. [It is not certain that August 3, 2006 is the actual date the materials were forwarded, however, as there is no affirmation in this regard.]
When I went to Mr. Schiff ’s office to view those materials on Wednesday evening of August 2, 2006, he informed me that his client had told him that Tristram would be brought to see Dr. Conrad, for the first time, sometime that very week.
That means that Dr. Conrad could readily have submitted a preliminary visitation report, based on her first session with Tristram, early this past month. This would have been consistent with the Appellate Mandamus of August 3, 2006. But instead of directing prompt action in this regard, Your Honor issued a letter, dated August 7, 2006 [included in Exhibit “A”] stating, in essence, that nothing will be done in response to the Mandamus.
Your Honor seems to be far more concerned with whatever is being said to the Appellate Court as being the cause of the inordinate delay in getting the visitation inquiry completed than in simply accomplishing this task here and now.
Your Honor expressed this concern to Jing Kelly’s new attorney, Mr. Perrella, in this regard at his first court appearance on her behalf on May 31, 2006: THE COURT: Okay, I have not delayed this. We had an extensive discussion from the get-go about the timing of this. It was the Law Guardian’s position that we absolutely had to have this evaluation and I agreed with the Law Guardian that we needed an evaluation. Time was lost in the process of selecting an evaluator. I’m not going to lose any more time in rescheduling that. I’m going to go ahead with the evaluator that we already have and I will want that to be done very, very quickly. Mr. Schiff, will you make sure your clients get this scheduled very quickly, because being that they’re there, they will be in a better position to make those arrangements. Id., May 31, 2006 Transcript at page 25, lines 21-25 and page 26, lines 1-12.
[Copies of the above mentioned transcript pages are attached as Exhibit “F”]. Obviously, Mr. Schiff was in no hurry to make the arrangements. Indeed, he blamed Jing Kelly’s outgoing lawyers at Sanctuary For Families for not completing a draft order for the appointment of Dr. Conrad and Your Honor then requested the Law Guardian to get it drafted. The order appointing Dr. Conrad to evaluate Tristram was finally issued by Your Honor on June 21, 2006.
Mr. Perrella, incoming counsel to Jing Kelly, did request an adjournment of the continuation of the dispositional hearing on May 31, 2006 – but this request did not cause the prior delays in getting a visitation evaluation done for Tristram.
Indeed, it was only upon learning that Dr. Conrad had not yet commenced any work on the evaluation of Tristram, as of late June 2006, that Mr. Perrella brought on an application to have Tristram to instead be seen at the same Family Court mental health clinic (MHS) that had previously evaluated Jing Kelly.
Interestingly, Your Honor admonished Mr. Perrella, when granting his request for an adjournment, by stating “THE COURT: …I have no problem granting you an adjournment, Counselor, but I do have a problem with you standing at the Appellate Division and saying I am biased and am deliberately delaying this”
[May 31, 2006 Transcript at page 30, lines 1-6 included in Exhibit “F”].
Analysis:
The foregoing Affirmation In Support of Motion filed by Robert Wayburn, attorney for Jing Kelly and Ling Mei Xing, her mother, is presented in its entirety in order that readers may understand the lengths to which Gail Hiler, an attorney, her brother, Douglas Kelly, an attorney, and Mr. Schiff, the attorney representing them, aided and abetted by Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter, together with attorneys for New York City ACS, are willing to go in order to keep this loving mother and child separated for as long as possible. Readers should keep in mind that the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, First Department, on Nov. 17th of last year, ordered
Judge Schechter, “in the best interests of the child”, to “immediately commence visitation” between Jing and her now 6-year-old son Tristram. And again, more than a month ago, that same Appellate Court, now commanded Judge Schechter, in the form of a rare Mandamus, to do as they had previously instructed her to do, because they learned that she had stubbornly disobeyed their order.
At no time, either in the original criminal proceedings, in which Jing Kelly was overcharged with Felony Custodial Interference, and found guilty, at trial, merely of a misdemeanor, or in all of the Family Court proceedings prior to, or following, that trial, has any evidence been proffered or established that would indicate that Tristram Kelly,
barely two years old when kidnapped from Jing, was ever abused or neglected, by her.
What we are now witnessing are the extreme lengths to which the family of Jing’s deceased former husband, Craig Kelly, are willing to go, including perjury, having previously kidnapped Tristram only to reject, and shuttle him to North Carolina, and then to California, merely to keep him separated from his natural Chinese-American mother.
The Appellate Court, fully aware of all of the circumstances, having rendered a decision nearly a year ago, intended to re-unite this mother and child, appears impotent to enforce its edict. It is, therefore, obvious that Chief Judge Judith Kaye must immediately intervene, and both, remove and sanction Judge Sara P. Schechter for
her judicial malfeasance and extra-judicial activities clearly against the best interests of the child, Tristram Kelly, and furthermore, in violation of his, his mother’s, and his maternal grandparents’, Constitutional rights.
Furthermore, it is also obvious that the office of State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer must immediately open an
investigation into the actions of former Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro with regard to her malicious prosecution of Jing Kelly, as well as her organizing and arranging of the kidnapping of Jing’s son, Tristram.
Thursday, September 7, 2006
In Our Opinion.....
Three weeks ago the Guardian’s front page headline read, “Court Orders Judge To Reunite Jing Kelly And Son.” The court referred to was the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department,
which had taken the rare action of issuing a Mandamus, literally commanding New York County Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter to immediately arrange for visitation between Jing Kelly and her now six-year-old son.
The four-member panel who issued the order, had all been involved in the original decision back on November
17th of last year, when immediate visitation was called for Judge Schechter however, six weeks later, on December 29th continued to do everything in her power to keep Jing and Tristram Kelly apart.
Not only did she not set in motion the process of regular visitation, as specifically instructed to, but she also made certain that the child, who has been kept for at least two years in virtual false imprisonment in California in the home of Douglas Kelly, would remain there indefinitely to be evaluated by a psychologist. In calling for “immediate Visitation,” back in November, the Appellate Court declared that their reversal of Schechter’s denial of visitation to the mother, and maternal grandparents, was presumed to be in the best interests of the child.
The simple fact remains that this loving mother and her infant son have not seen each other, nor been permitted contact of any kind, since Gail Hiler, without any parole custody, without any legal authorization, however assisted by District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, kidnapped two-year-old Tristram from Jing Kelly. The monstrous injustice that Mrs. Pirro set in motion, and perpetuated by Gail Hiler, and members of her family, in total conspiracy and collusion with Judge Schechter, must be brought down immediately.
Apparently none of the participants in this cruel scheme, though law school graduates, believe in the Rule of Law. It is our latest understanding that Judge Schechter will not even hold a hearing in this most urgent case until late September, and that it will be many months before the commandment of the Appellate Court will be complied with, if ever. Her conduct in this case can only be viewed as the most reprehensible, contempt, not only for the Law, but also for the Human Rights of Jing and Tristram Kelly.
Therefore, we now call upon Judith Kay, Chief Judge of the State of New York to open an investigation into the suitability of New York County Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter to continue sitting in that Court.
Furthermore, we are calling upon State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to open an immediate investigation in the actions of former Westchester District Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, in the malicious prosecution of Jing Kelly, for Custodial Interference, as well as the organizing and arranging of the kidnapping of Jing Kelly’s infant son, Tristram.
Three weeks ago the Guardian’s front page headline read, “Court Orders Judge To Reunite Jing Kelly And Son.” The court referred to was the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department,
which had taken the rare action of issuing a Mandamus, literally commanding New York County Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter to immediately arrange for visitation between Jing Kelly and her now six-year-old son.
The four-member panel who issued the order, had all been involved in the original decision back on November
17th of last year, when immediate visitation was called for Judge Schechter however, six weeks later, on December 29th continued to do everything in her power to keep Jing and Tristram Kelly apart.
Not only did she not set in motion the process of regular visitation, as specifically instructed to, but she also made certain that the child, who has been kept for at least two years in virtual false imprisonment in California in the home of Douglas Kelly, would remain there indefinitely to be evaluated by a psychologist. In calling for “immediate Visitation,” back in November, the Appellate Court declared that their reversal of Schechter’s denial of visitation to the mother, and maternal grandparents, was presumed to be in the best interests of the child.
The simple fact remains that this loving mother and her infant son have not seen each other, nor been permitted contact of any kind, since Gail Hiler, without any parole custody, without any legal authorization, however assisted by District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, kidnapped two-year-old Tristram from Jing Kelly. The monstrous injustice that Mrs. Pirro set in motion, and perpetuated by Gail Hiler, and members of her family, in total conspiracy and collusion with Judge Schechter, must be brought down immediately.
Apparently none of the participants in this cruel scheme, though law school graduates, believe in the Rule of Law. It is our latest understanding that Judge Schechter will not even hold a hearing in this most urgent case until late September, and that it will be many months before the commandment of the Appellate Court will be complied with, if ever. Her conduct in this case can only be viewed as the most reprehensible, contempt, not only for the Law, but also for the Human Rights of Jing and Tristram Kelly.
Therefore, we now call upon Judith Kay, Chief Judge of the State of New York to open an investigation into the suitability of New York County Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter to continue sitting in that Court.
Furthermore, we are calling upon State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to open an immediate investigation in the actions of former Westchester District Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, in the malicious prosecution of Jing Kelly, for Custodial Interference, as well as the organizing and arranging of the kidnapping of Jing Kelly’s infant son, Tristram.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Court Orders Judge To Reunite Jing Kelly And Son Kidnapping Arranged By DA Jeanine Pirro.
Jing Kelly, the Chinese-American mother who fled to China with her six-month-old son Tristram, more than five years ago, will finally be re-united with that child, now six, under a Mandamus issued August 3rd by the Appellate Division, First Department, of New York State Supreme Court. The Mandamus, a rare judicial action, essentially commands New York County Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter to immediately comply with an order previously issued by the same court on November 17th of last year calling for the immediate commencement of visitation between mother and child.
Jing, who was married to Craig Kelly, a disgraced former assistant district attorney in New York County, was the victim of severe domestic violence at his hands. Testimony at her criminal trial in Westchester County Court, three years ago, revealed in sworn testimony that he had been physically abusive, demanding genital and oral sex from Jing, at gunpoint, the night after she came home from the hospital with their newborn son. It was further revealed that Craig had a serious alcohol addiction, and was frequenting prostitutes.
Craig’s reckless conduct produced a serious vaginal infection that threatened Jing’s health for months, at a time when she needed most to nurture and care for their infant son. However, her fears for her own safety were not nearly as compelling as her concerns for Tristram, who she quickly discovered could not be safely left, even for brief periods, in his father’s care. One incident, brought out at trial, detailed her horror, upon returning from a brief trip to the store, to find Craig passed out from intoxication, and their son, less than two months old, laying unattended, and smelling from beer.
The relationship quickly deteriorated with numerous incidents of physical and psychological injury to Jing, resulting in frequent police visits which were most often distorted and turned around by Craig’s badge and overreaching influence. After several such incidents, over a period of many weeks, Jing and Craig, who had been seen in Family Court, were separated, with Craig moving out of the apartment. However, despite that arrangement, an overzealous, inexperienced ACS worker ripped Tristram from his mother’s arms in the presence of his maternal grandmother despite their tearful pleas.
Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter then arranged for temporary custody of the infant by Craig’s sister, Tristram’s paternal aunt, Larchmont Attorney Gail Hiler. Under the court order each parent was entitled to supervised visitation, neither permitted to reside with him. However, Gail Hiler and Craig soon violated those terms when Craig moved into Hiler’s home, thus living full-time with the child.
Jing continued to abide by the terms of the court order, traveling to Larchmont from Manhattan by train. As weeks rolled by, according to court testimony, Jing would find her infant son constantly sick, and with progressively more physical injury. Additionally, Gail Hiler repeatedly complained to her that caring for Tristram was working a serious hardship on her marriage and her relationship with her husband Jim, also a lawyer.
Finally, no longer able to tolerate her son’s deteriorating condition, and fearful of his exposure to alcohol and tobacco from constant contact with his father, Jing used the occasion of her last visit to abscond with her son to China.
Finally, no longer able to tolerate her son’s deteriorating condition, and fearful of his exposure to alcohol and tobacco from constant contact with his father, Jing used the occasion of her last visit to abscond with her son to China.
Enter Jeanine Pirro. Mrs. Pirro, then District Attorney of Westchester County, under a questionable theory of jurisdiction, given the fact that the only criminal act occurred in Queens County, when Jing boarded a plane at John F. Kennedy Airport, proceeded to arrange for the insertion of Jing Kelly into New York State’s Twelve Most Wanted, amongst murderers, rapists, and thieves. The woman who would have us believe that she is a “victim’s advocate,” then circulated the poster on the Internet and in neighborhoods in Manhattan where Jing and her elderly parents were known to frequent,
Jing and Tristram remained in China for eighteen months, during which time Craig Kelly passed away from a gastrointestinal illness. Mrs. Pirro then proceeded to make contact, through the Mamaroneck Police Department, the United States Embassy in China, and Chinese authorities, promising Jing that she would not be arrested if she returned to New York with her son.
Jing who had only fled to China because of her fears for Tristram’s wellbeing, involving his father, realizing that the harm she feared might come to her son was no longer possible, and accepting Mrs. Pirro’s promise at face value, now boarded a plane, with Tristram, bound for New York, by way of Vancouver Canada. However, Mrs. Pirro, who claims to be a victim’s advocate, was busy arranging with authorities everywhere, including Vancouver, to have Jing arrested on sight, detained, and separated from her two-year-old son. That was more than 4 years ago, and Jing and Tristram have been allowed absolutely no contact since, despite the fact that it has never been alleged that Jing had done anything harmful to him.
On the day following her arrest, and forced separation from her son, Jing Kelly’s baby, under arrangements made by DA Jeanine Pirro with Canadian authorities, was taken, literally kidnapped, by Gail Hiler, a person with no legal authority, no parole custody certificate, nothing other than a vindictive desire to keep a Chinese-American woman, who her brother had married, apart from her infant son.
Mrs. Pirro, to insure that Jing would remain out of the picture, knowingly over-charged her with Felony Custodial Interference, and demanded that she be held without bail, on the trumped-up claim that she was a “flight risk.” Mrs. Pirro knew perfectly well that with Tristram held in custody, Jing was not going anywhere. After 14 months in the Westchester County Jail, Jing was tried by a jury of her peers before Judge Barbara Zambelli, and found guilty only of Misdemeanor Custodial Interference.
Immediately released by Zambelli, having served many more months than she could possibly have been sentenced to for a mere misdemeanor, Jing Kelly has been struggling for nearly three years to regain contact with, and ultimately, custody of, her now six-year-old son. The most recent action by the Appellate Division, several days ago, would appear, finally, to signal a major reversal of the injustice and conspiracy that have maliciously kept Jing and Tristram Kelly apart. Hopefully this development will bring to an end the grief and outrageous mistreatment of a loving mother and child by the malicious prosecutorial misconduct and civil rights violations worked against them by DA Jeanine Pirro.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
