| .Refuses to shame self by wearing black robe. |
| , |
| "Disputes involving issues such as custody, visitation, support or parental relationships are disruptive to the parties and especially unsettling to the children involved. The longer a case pends on appeal, the greater the disruption and anxiety for the parties. [P]rompt resolution of cases is essential for the benefit of the children involved. For its part, the Court pledges to decide child related cases within two months after they are fully briefed and within three months, if the Court hears oral argument." Steven F. Lancaster, Administrator, Court of Appeals, March 22, 2001 (Note: This letter is dated 2001 NOT 2002) The above letter was addressed to Garry Kirk's attorney in March of 2001. Yet, as of May 17, 2002, Garry Kirk is still waiting for this"prompt resolution". Garry Kirk's appeal was filed on June 8, 2001, after six months of delay following Bonaventura's ill-fated ruling. And it was another six months before the Court of Appeals issued its ruling on December 5, 2001 condemning Bonaventura's unfair final ruling. The Indiana Supreme Court was asked to hear the case by Kathy Kirk's new attorney (her twelfth in this case, by our count) on February 8, 2002. Despite the Indiana Judiciary's politically correct professed concern for expeditious rulings to limit the anxiety of children involved in these types of cases, the Supreme Court has decided to hear this case despite the overwhelming nature of the evidence as pointed out by the Court of Appeals. Clearly, any concern they have is superficial, at best. This case will never be decided on the FACTS. The facts have been clear for years, but the elected politicians in the black robes can't force them selves to go against the politically correct sexist tide that swamps the Indiana court system. This case will be decided by the politics. And even the High Court's politics are sexist, as demonstrated by the hearsay evidence allowed in at the last moment by Shepard. While the High Court ponders ways to change the facts of this case to enable them to rule in favor of Kathy Kirk, the separation of Terry Cook from his daughter, Teri Ann, quickly approaches its 7th year. The basis of this the Supreme Court's involvement in this clear-cut case is the validity of Parental Alienation Syndrome. Is it a real syndrome or not? The truth is, it doesn't matter. Kathy Kirk's deliberate manipulation and brainwashing is extensively documented by EVERY court-appointed professional in this case. Whether or not Kathy's evil behavior is part of a "syndrome" is irrelevant. The question is: Should the custodial parent be allowed to corrupt and brainwash their children, destroying the emotional bond with the non-custodial parent and his/her extended family? The Supreme Court accepted this case AFTER it read the facts. While they cannot change the facts, they are angling for an opportunity to invalidate them. By agreeing to hear this case, it seems likely that they are setting the strange for concluding that "Since PAS isn't a real syndrome" Kathy Kirk's behavior didn't happen. Or at least, in their view, it wasn't wrong. Further indication of this is Supreme Court Justice Shepard's ruling to allow NEW evidence into the case by feminist U.C.Davis Law Professor, Carol S. Bruch, who was instrumental in changing California law to allow women to move from the state with her children without consideration of the father-child bond. Bruch's article is essentially a personal attack on Dr. Richard Gardiner while claiming to be a article objectively assessing the merits on PAS from a medical view. Brunch, is should be noted, is a Law Professor, and has no medical background or psychological training. What she lacks in knowledge, she makes up for in anti-fatherhood zeal. Nothing from Bruch was ever introduced as evidence over the entire 6-year course of this case, yet, Justice Shepard, apparently finding favor with Bruch's perspective granted this hearsay article into evidence. This is all reminiscent of Bonaventura's personal quest for evidence to support her preferred ruling, while ignoring the facts that were presented in accordance with legal procedure. While appeals of court cases are supposed to be base on the evidence admitted in the lower court, one can see here that if the evidence doesn't fit the desired ruling , allow in irrelevant evidence that does. Law in Indiana is a lie. The courts are corrupt and politically motivated. And if the Courts lie, where does one go for justice? For people living in Indiana, apparently, one must go to another state. |
| ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
| "All the cards were marked in advance. The trial was a pig-circus, he never had a chance." - Bob Dylan, Hurricane |
 |
| Home |
 |
| Justice Delayed is Justice DENIED! |