Aside from those legal ethics issues that have been extensively contemplated on this bLAWg, there is another court-related extortionate scheme that I and a number of other individuals have been busy exposing and dealing with for the last several years. Much of the extortionate scheme, which I dub, "the Colorado Special Advocate Racket" is revealed on two Web pages:
http://www.knowyourcourts.com/ColoPscheBoard/ColoPsheBoard.htm &
http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Fyfe/bill_fyfe.htm As usual with the knowYourCourt.com site/domain, these pages are primarily document repositories, which leave it up to the visitor, to form his or her own informed conclusion from the documents found thereon.
Here's a summary of the so-called "Special Advocate Racket":
In Colorado, the single largest slice of the legal industry pie is "family law," which comes in at 42% (the next largest is Consumer/finance at 20% and Housing at 19%). Source: 34 Colo.Law. 12 (Dec. 2005) at 31. Under this paradigm, any family that submits their lives to the court in contested proceedings (and it only takes one party to subject the family to this process) will lose everything they have. Certainly, the lawyers will financially benefit, aided by the judge. See L. Kennedy, Holodeck Law (avail. at several sites, including
http://www.avoiceforchildren.com/documents/corrupt/courts/holodeck_litigation_vortex.htm ). Indeed, neither party's attorney has any incentive to ameliorate the hostilities. It's is a reasonalby well-kept secret that opposing divorce attorneys will reach out to collude with one another to raise billable fees (this I know from personal admissions of attorneys). It's documented "in the literature" to a lesser extent. See, e.g, Grotman and Thomas (1990) (the more involved the litigation process, the greater the profits for the attorneys); Colorado Supreme Court Civil Justice Committee Meeting Minutes, Feb. 11, 1999 ("Without outside pressure, a less costly litigation path to determination of a case on the merits will never come to fruition because attorneys are often opting for a more complicated process due to billable hours"); Bronsteen, “Against Summary Judgment,” George. Washington Law Review (2007) ("Chief among [class action litigation] problems is that the lawyer who represents the plaintiff class often colludes with the defendant to structure a settlement that pays the lawyer a lot but his clients (the class members) very little") (quoting Samuel Issacharoff, Class Action Conflicts, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 805, 821(1997) (“In fact, there is no better formula for collusion than a situation in which the rights of non-participants can be extinguished without notice or an opportunity to get out from under a prospective court decree.”).
Several parents and I are drafting a letter to Chief Justice Mullarkey. The content of this unfinished draft, appearing hereinbelow, describes an example of court-sponsored corruption (stay tuned for the response we receive, if any):
-------------------------------------------
January 05, 2006
Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey
Colorado Supreme Court
2 East 14th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
RE: child and family investigators, parenting coordinators and other court-appointed divorce-related “experts”
Dear Chief Justice Mullarkey:
We write collectively in reply in support of Darla Scheuerman’s September 15th 2006 memorandum and also in reference to your October 17th 2006 response (http://www.knowyourcourts.com/ColoPscheBoard/documents/2006-10-17_memo-fromChiefJusticeMullarkey_(withHyperlink).pdf ) regarding the above-captioned court-appointed divorce-related “experts.”
In your response to Ms. Scheuerman, you explained candidly that the plenary review of mental health professionals in this context is, “left to the adversarial system.” However, the adversarial system that you oversee is failing us and your Chief Justice Directive 04-08 is being disregarded, as we’ll explain infra. In fact, it is the adversarial system, administered by the State, that is complicit in facilitating and concealing outrageous, extortionate and, perhaps, criminal transgressions relative to our children and ourselves. The State has fostered a racket –under the rubric of the divorce cottage industry (a growth industry)— that derives its revenue solely through court appointments and also the life savings of families in turmoil. Once part of the courts’ rosters, these so-called experts have no advertising costs, are not accountable to their “clients” for deliverables, have no accountability to the State’s regulatory agencies and have no collection costs (because the non-paying “customers” either are jailed or are deprived of contact with their child[ren] or both (see infra)). Many of these so-called experts have become millionaires by unjustly enriching themselves from our tumult and the tears of our children.
Because of the vacuum of regulatory oversight of mental health professionals (thanks to their successful lobbying efforts, only in divorce cases) and the disinclination of judges to regulate them (which we can assume exists only because the courts’ dockets are overcrowded and because these professionals help the judges move those dockets along by doing the fact-finding for them), these individuals enjoy power without accountability, which breeds corruption. Many of these individuals have enjoyed free reign to extort fees, seek or obtain sexual favors in exchange for favorable recommendations, coerce contractual fee “agreements” under duress and/or to simply enrich their egos.
For the purposes of this illustration, we will identify one such individual, Bill J. Fyfe of Lakewood, whose conduct is, in our collective experience, representative of similar child-and-family investigators and parenting coordinators. We have compiled a comprehensive repository of evidentiary documentation on Dr. Fyfe at
http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Fyfe/bill_fyfe.htm , which consists of legal pleadings, testimonies of parents and Dr. Fyfe’s own email, writings or other memoranda.
Dr. Fyfe has established a notorious reputation of extorting fees from the parents, who have been court-ordered to use his parenting evaluation or parenting coordinator services. Like other court-appointed so-called experts in dissolution proceedings, he has compelled parents to enter into fee “agreements,” threatening or implying that he will report that parent to the court for non-cooperation if the parent did not execute the agreement, as presented.[n.1] More than one female parents and at least one male parent has alleged that Dr. Fyfe has made inappropriate sexually-orientated advances in exchange for an implied favorable recommendation relative to the custody dispute. Dr. Fyfe has been quoted as discouraging one parent from opposing him by revealing that, “I know all the judges in the county.” He has even boldly written at least two parents (from unrelated cases) that any grievances filed against him will be dismissed, because he is not accountable to Division of Regulatory Agencies, “because of the court-appointed nature of my work.” Dr. Fyfe’s arrogance has extended into his articles on his own Web site, wherein he appears to taunt those, who have been unsuccessful with their accusations of “bias.” Several parents have alleged that Dr. Fyfe has failed to report child abuse to law enforcement, as required by law. There is even email evidence of Dr. Fyfe, while in the role of a court-ordered third-party neutral, conspiring with one party (ex parte) to outmaneuver the other party. In that same email, Dr. Fyfe acknowledged that he had been arbitrating rights without a contract Dr. Fyfe (over the opposing party’s objections) and he suggested that the parties should execute a two-month back-dated contract to retrospectively conceal the illegality of his actions.
What makes these transgressions especially outrageous, is that all of these allegations, (which are only those few that have come to our attention and, which can only be the very tip of the iceburg) have all been presented time and time again in case after case to your district judges –the only entities that have any plenary oversight of child-and-family investigator’s conduct. Yet, Dr. Fyfe, apparently, has been engaging in this conduct since the early nineties, and his conduct has been permitted with the acquiescence of these judges under your leadership. On the Web site, we have collectively gathered information from only our four or five cases and these four or five isolated cases, alone, are probative that your judges have been repeatedly apprised of allegations of sexual advances, extortion, bias, collusion, etc. – and that these judges have intentionally swept these allegations quietly under the proverbial rug. To our knowledge, every Motion to disqualify Bill J. Fyfe have been denied without comment and without a hearing.[n.2] Any suggestion that these “errors” are redressable through appellate avenues would be callous and disingenuous, because the parties to the litigation should not be required to deal with this pervasive, insidious corruption through their personal expenditure of resources in prosecuting an appeal, where the trial court’s decision is presumed correct and the heavy burden falls on the appellant to prove otherwise and, where dockets are overflowing and judicial resources are stretched as thin as they have been in recent memory.[n.3] Nevertheless, one of us did, in fact, pursue an appellate remedy, regarding Dr. Fyfe: The Colorado Court of Appeals cases (# 04CA1161 and 04CA1986), reversed Judge Jane Tidball for facilitating his extortionate scheme and for dismissing without comment one parent’s claims of unethical conduct.
At this point, perhaps, you may be thinking, “Well, there you have it --the adversarial process worked, after all!” Not quite. `Though the court remanded that case with instructions, Judge Tidball never held a hearing and she never will, because she has refused to rule on a pending recusal motion in that case, which has indefinitely suspended the proceedings. The prejudiced litigant in that case filed a Motion for writ of mandamus in your court on October 7th 2004 , which was denied on October 18th 2004 (you did not participate). As a result, Dr. Fyfe has again escaped accountability. No other case, to our knowledge, against Dr. Fyfe, has progressed this far.
Indeed, trial judges don’t want to be bothered with complaints of dissatisfaction in contested divorce proceedings; we know of no likely instance where judges in Colorado will exercise plenary review over a special advocate. If it does happen, it is seldom. In fact, the culture has been for judges to partner with and provide an infrastructure for these experts, who aid their dockets. They attend monthly symposiums in lavish hotels in Vail, Breckenridge and Denver sponsored by these experts organizations (the Colorado State Interdisciplinary Committee; the Denver Metro Interdisciplinary Committee), which purportedly gather to put on presentations about high-conflict divorce. Aside from the appearance of impropriety, these symposiums are not about ameliorating high-conflict divorce, but how to enforce fee collection; how to strengthen civil immunity and how to generate more revenue. Judge Tidball’s orders-of-appointment in such cases states, “The SA shall be immune from any civil or criminal liability to the maximum extent permitted by law.” Notwithstanding the usual applicability of quasi-judicial immunity, why should anyone be immune from criminal liability any more than any other citizen, whether laity or a government official? Would you be surprised to learn that Judge Tidball is on the Board of Governors of a self-described lobbying group with Dr. Fyfe. (See
http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Fyfe/documents/2004-2005_IDC_Board.pdf ). So it should also be no surprise that she would not be inclined to entertain any parent’s complaint against Dr. Fyfe and, thus, had to be overruled by the Court of Appeals (at the parent’s expense) in yet another case for permitting Fyfe to extort fees in violation of his Order of Appointment and the contract he had with the prejudiced parent (See Colo.App. case No. 04-CA-161). In Douglas County Case No 97DR704, a Denver-area special advocate, while under direct-examination argued that the father who had been ordered to pay his retainer should be denied the society of his daughter solely because he had not yet been paid. He explained that the father had sent him several letters and faxes relating to the case, but had not yet paid the retainer (evidently because of indigence). When asked what should be done in light of the father’s failure to pay the retainer, the special advocate responded, “I would say that it is unwise to have [a] child visiting the father since he is being entirely uncooperative with the Court order. Uh, and I would say that, until he makes the first step towards being cooperative, that there should be no contact between [father] and his daughter.” May 17th 2004 - transcript at p. 12, lines 1 ~ 6. Under subsequent cross-examination by the father, the special advocate admitted that he didn’t know any of the details of the case (other than that the father had not paid him, yet) — four times he stated, “I am not aware of any of the details of your case.” Id. at p. 15.
In this same case, the trial judge made it no secret that the special advocate was his own favorite “pick” and that this special advocate could do no wrong –even before he had begun any work in the case, which dispels the notion that plenary review is an available alternative when absolute immunity bars suit. He said, “I picked the one I knew, that I trusted, Mr. Meehan. Because he’s honest, he’s not going to do a damn thing that he doesn’t believe isn’t appropriate, he’s going to listen to you and he’s going to listen to the girl, and then he’s going to make his report. And his report will be honest, straightforward, and substantiated.” –Judge Kenneth Barnill (Douglas County Case No 97DR704), November 22, 2004 Transcript at p. 26, lines 8 – 15.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
footnotes:
[1] As, Ms. Scheuerman mentioned, no parent entering into a custody evaluation would want to object to anything in such an agreement, for fear of alienating the evaluator. This power over parents, derived from the state’s parens patriae power, is conferred upon a special advocate by the appointment of a state judge pursuant to statute and is described by you as, “a position of influence over a family’s future.” Chief Justice Directive 04-08, cmt. § III (A)( 1); see also Ryder v. Mitchell, 54 P.3d 885, 891-92 (Colo 2002) (“[W]e agree that there is a risk of injury to a parent when a therapist expresses concern about poor parenting of one kind or another. The risks could include diminished parenting time, or in the extreme case, perhaps a change in custody. Those risks are real and potentially very damaging to the parent.” ); Galatzer-Levy & Kraus, The Scientific Basis of Child Custody Decisions (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1999 at p. 4) (“[T]he position of the court’s supporting services is so significant, that mental health professionals’ opinions are almost always adopted by the courts”).
[2] This aspect of our allegation does not include those many instances, where attorneys have advised their clients not to file a Motion to Disqualify, because it is futile and will only further alienate the evaluator. Thus, even if we had access to all the domestic relations cases (now sealed in many counties (see, e.g.,
http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Pubic_Records/docs/2006-04-27_ColoradoCourtsPublicAccessability.pdf )), we would not know the full scope of Dr. Fyfe’s abuses, unless every party from every case was interviewed. We believe that an independent investigator should undertake such a review and report the findings to your Committee on Family Issues.
[3] Source: Results of the Colorado Bar Association 2005 Judicial Survey, 34 Colo.Law. 12 (Dec. 2005) at 21.