The freedom for all network…Blog Talk Radio, The Captain
Lisa Nadig, Michael Volpe & Doreen Ludwig discuss corruption in her “family” law case in Cook County Chicago
“When a court ordered professional begins working for one side, as Dr. Fisher clearly was in this case, it is the worst of both worlds. You have a hired gun with the veneer of independence. It is something I have seen and documented repeatedly. Dr. Stanton Samenow, not only in Chris Mackney’s case, would come in as a so-called independent arbiter but end up communicating, and often being paid, exclusively with one side. He would pretend as though his so-called expert opinion was objective while being bought and paid for and that’s what it appears happened in this case as well. Not only with Dr. Fisher, but Natalie Koga and others in this case. The veneer of independence is one of many reasons why I believe all court ordered professionals should be outlawed immediately. They are not merely a waste of hundreds of thousands of…
View original post 156 more words
Ever wondered what family court corruption in Rolling Meadows Cook County, Chicago, Illinois really looks like? Natalie Koga didn’t even bother with a pretense of impartiality and professionalism in Judge Alfred Levinson’s Rolling Meadows Cook County courtroom.
Michael Volpe: “Other than complicating an already complicated situation, what purpose did appointing the child rep Natalie Koga serve, when you’ve already had a custody evaluation and CPS looked at it and they determined who the problem parent was? The child representative was the third or fourth court professional to be assigned to this case and besides making an already complicated matter even more complicated having so many court professionals holds no logical purpose. Because that’s where corruption thrives – when you can make a situation complicated.”
Letter from my former counsel Karen Conti to Natalie Koga, Child Representative, dated August 23, 2013, confronts her with eye-witness to her collusion with opposing counsel.
Although I have just recently become involved in this case, I am concerned with some of your actions which I have witnessed and of which I have become aware.
First, at the last court appearance, my friend was sitting on a bench outside the courtroom and overheard you speaking to Meg Jackson (Father’s) attorney. You obviously did not know he was my friend. You and Meg Jackson were actively engaged in joining forces against my client and making comments about getting Dr. Goldstein, (Father’s Hired Gun Psychologist) involved to ‘help out’ the problem; the problem being Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour’s desire to be a mother to her child. Your disparagement of me personally was also noted which is unprofessional and petty.
Despite the 604(b) evaluator’s two reports finding that (Father) is an alienator and that (Mother) should have sole custody, you have ignored these facts and blindly advocated that (minor child) spend as little time as possible with his mother. At trial, you vigorously fought Dr. Finn’s recommendations. Bizarrely, in court you advocated that (minor child) be put into “after school” care rather than be allowed to have the option to walk the four blocks to spend time with his mother. Even after Judge Levinson ordered that (Minor Child) attend (High School), and (Father) attempted to sabotage his enrollment, you did not advocate for actions necessary for him to attend school there. On August 22, (minor child) refused to leave the (public library) to come home with his Mother and said “Stay away from me. You are not allowed to be with me. I have spoken with my attorney.” If you did, in fact, advise (Minor Child) of that, you have violated all ethical duties as a child representative and attorney. Why haven’t you been involved in resolving this problem and encouraging your client that it is better to spend three hours after school at his mother’s house than sitting in a public library?
My client advises me of the following additional facts:
You have encouraged (Minor Child) to call you whenever he disagrees with what his mother says or when he does not get his way and then you refuse to communicate with Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour despite the fact that she is the legal custodian. By doing this, you are encouraging disrespect of parental boundaries and assisting in the alienation that has already been established by Dr. Finn. Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour has repeatedly asked for a more orderly means of communication but you have refused to respond.
Dr. Hummel noted that you crossed professional boundaries at (Hospital) interfering with (Minor Child’s) (medical) care. In August, 2011, you engaged in wildly inappropriate physical contact with (Minor Child) by forcing him to hug you.
Since September, 2010, you have refused to communicate with Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour, who has historically been the primary caretaker and the sole legal custodian. The vast majority of conferences and telephone calls with (minor child) have occurred only when he was with Mr. Mehdipour.
At Ms. Nadig’Mehdipour’s request, you interviewed Dr. Naila Wilcox-Avery, and Dr. Rodney Avery. who told you that they had concerns that (Father) was physically abusing (Minor Child) and coaching him to make false abuse allegations against Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour. Those doctors have reported that your refused to listen to their concerns.
You have been disrespectful and rude to (Mother) in the presence of (Minor child) and have attempted to interfere with (Minor Child’s) medical treatment by telling him, “Your mom shouldn’t take you for these assessments.” You told (Minor Child) “I’ll yell at your mom and make her a better mom to you.“
You failed to communicate with therapist Stephanie Simpson for 11 months even though Ms. Simpson attempted to contact you repeatedly. Rather than speaking to Ms. Simpson., you filed a Rule To Show Cause against Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour.
I have not seen you once make a negative comment about (Father) despite findings that he is abusive, an alienator, and a parent who sabotages his child’s education. Strangely, you have nothing but negative things to say about Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour. While I have not always agreed with GALS and Child Representatives, I have never seen one who is so actively opposed to one parent’s involvement in parenting, despite her having sole custody.
I am told that you are not being paid. It defies logic that you are still so actively and aggressively involved despite this fact. Please assure me as an officer of the Court that neither (Father) nor anyone else on his behalf is paying you. Also, assure me that you are not going to use your offices to contact (Minor Child’s) high school and poison them against Ms. Nadig-Mehdipour. I do not see that you have any reason to contact them. You are not a parent and have no business asserting your will into this family’s issues.