Personal request for your help. The 100 - 150 event

Site Index

April 23, 2014 formal letter sent by USPS

FBI New York                                                                                                 Wednesday, April 23, 2014
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd. Floor
New York, New York 10278-0004

Attention, Mr. George Venizelos, assistant director 

I Mark J. Sullivan, D.O.B. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Brooklyn, NY 11204 am writing in regards to the years long legal harassment, based upon false statements to police and the courts over the last 7 plus years. My former wife Ms Binong Xu xxxxxxxxxxx a citizen of China, address xxxxxxxxxxxxxNY xxxxxx
On August 23, 2006 MS Xu filed in family court false allegations stating “..while pregnant respondent grabbed her by her hair and slammed her against the wall, respondent was arrested due to this incident.” She goes on to state “Respondent: allegedly threatened to kill petitioner, subject child and himself…”

Excerpt from appeal on the record of September 2010:
On Appeal to the Kings County IDV Court
Docket No. 2010-09212, 09214

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Where the mother's claims of violence by the father were unsubstantiated and not worthy of belief, the testimony of three caseworkers who supervised visitation was that the father always behaved appropriately, the child loved him, looked forward to seeing him and was sad to leave at the end of the visits; the attorney for the child failed to express the desires of the child to the court and the court failed to inquire about them did the the court's refusal to order unsupervised visitation and telephone contact deny appellant and child their joint right to reasonable visitation, deny the father's constitutional right to due process, was it not in the best interest of the child and did it lack a sound and substantial basis in the record?

1. Where the lower court did not find that the testimony of either party was entirely credible and yet relied on the testimony of the mother for its ruling denying the father's petition for joint custody even though the court made a finding that the mother contradicted herself on important issues and where appellant established that the mother's initial petition was based on allegations which the mother admitted at trial were false did the court's denial of the father's petition for joint custody lack a sound and substantial basis in the record?

Furthermore:
On March 9, 2010 (Tr. L) Mark continued his testimony and stated:
1.         In August 2006 Binong made a sworn statement that Mark was arrested in China in her original “allegations that started this case”; this was perjury and so the whole case was based on perjury (L. 56). Mark pointed out that during her testimony Binong admitted that this allegation in the petition was untrue when she testified that he was never arrested in China (L. 57). Mark added that “perjury and false allegations have tied me up in court for the last three and a half years” and it all started with her original false statements in her petition (L. 57).

August 22, 2006 I filed a missing person’s report of my daughter Elizabeth and former wife Ms Xu with the 62nd precinct. Officers were dispatched and an investigation and report were taken. I was never charged with a crime, never arrested nor questioned regarding her allegations. Ms Xu spoke of an arrest for misdemeanor assault and battery in Massachusetts, Feb 11, 2005 which the detective from the 62nd failed to follow up on as is stated in his own reports. The case, (Massachusetts, Feb 11, 2005 ) was dismissed the next day at the arraignment. The Brooklyn DA’s office likewise failed to investigate this yet went on to bring charges of my violation of orders of protection which were granted based upon Ms Xu ex parte above allegations.   

 
Ms Xu alleges and as it is stated in the divorce findings, “..The proof at trial substantiated allegations of domestic violence alleged in the complaint in this action, relating to incidents that occurred in June 2003, August 2003, December 2003, June 2004, February 11, 2005, August 1, 2006, September 15, 2006. I resided in Shenzhen, China with my than wife from September 2002, with a brief return to the states in late Oct until early Nov. Than in early Feb 2005  until the end of Feb 2005 when we all returned to Shenzhen, China.

The facts are, our daughter was conceived and born in Shenzhen, China October 21, 2004. Ms Xu did not receive her visa until Aug 2004, therefore her allegations of being banged against the wall while pregnant would coincide with her allegations of June 2004. I have been informed had I been arrested in China, it would have been difficult for me to leave the country and return which I did on two occasions thereafter. I would also believe that an arrest for DV would have been reported in the visa process procedures. Ms Xu received her visa and flew to the states in Feb 2005, with our daughter. I arrived a few weeks later.  In the Feb 2005 reports to the police no mention of the alleged DV issues in China nor the alleged arrest was made. As I was questioned into the night by two women from a DV organization while being held for arraignment, I would believe Ms Xu would also have been interviewed. I would think experienced DV persons would have drawn out these alleged incidents, yet seem to not have as no report was made of them.
Ms Xu only makes detailed mention of these at trial. She makes no mention of these prior incidences other than “..respondent choked her several times throughout marriage including during her pregnancy.” the alleged pregnancy arrest in China and MA arrest, in her claims of August 23, 2006.

Ms Xu our daughter and myself returned to MA in August 2005 and in December 2005, Ms Xu absconded with our child to a domestic violence shelter. It was at this time I first contacted the U.S. State dept and the FBI to report them missing. No police report was made by Ms Xu. I was contacted by Ms Jackie Rappaport from The Children’s Rights Council, I do not know who contacted her.

My reasons for contacting the FBI once again is that this case has spanned two states and two countries, involves false statements to multiple officials which has led to my repeated arrests and incarceration, but most importantly the functional loss of my relationship with my daughter.

In 2011, Feb / March I reported in person, 26 federal Plaza, NY, NY a creditable threat of my daughter being abducted back to China by her mother based upon supervised visits with a forensic LCSW. This report was submitted to Judge P.E. Henry in the Brooklyn Supreme courts and subsequently received by all parties, the court appointed Law Guardian, the attorney for Ms Xu.  I was directed to the U.S. State Dept and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children who opened cases. I later filed a pro se motion in Judge Henry’s court to secure federally prescribed protections to prevent this possible abduction, they were denied. The court appointed attorney for the child. Attorney H. Chacker an employee of the Children’s Law Center, stated both parents fit the profile of abducing parents. I am a U.S. Citizen by birth here. What is of concern is that the Children’s law Center is a non-profit solely funded by the New York State Unified Court System and as such could be viewed as an agent of the state. In filing a number of complaints, which recently included the visit report from above against this Attorney and this non-profit with the disciplinary committee not action has been taken. The Attorney for the children compliant committee does not have jurisdiction over this organization but does over other Law guardians in the state of New York.

In September 21, 2011 I again filed a complaint in person at 26 Federal Plaza, relating that Ms Xu’s attorney from the Sanctuary for Families had filed an order to show cause to dismiss my second pro se filing in this matter, based upon failure to state a cause of action. Years later in reviewing the U.S State Dept web site regarding international parental abduction I saw that this same non-profit organization is a recommended source for help with international parental child abduction.

Since late June 2012 until now I have only seen my daughter once in October 2012. I have repeatedly submitted adults, social workers and two organizations have like wised reached out offering services with social workers and child psychologists to reunite me with my daughter.  In November of 2013, I contacted police and registered a Domestic Incident report regarding not seeing my daughter. I recently contacted NCMEC again seeking to have my daughter placed upon the NCIC data base as prior to this the police refused to submit or take a report, stating I should go back to court, the same court which denied my daughter and I federal protections.

In late February, early March I submitted a formal request to the Board of Education to review my daughter’s records. At the prescribe ending of the 45 days waiting period Ms Xu again filed false claims in court against me, securing a temporary order of protection involving my daughter in Brooklyn Criminal Court, March 21, 2014. She states “.. He threatened he will take my daughter away from me. He abducted her and he has been arrested for this.”  This is completely false and untrue. She goes on to say “He has been stalking us in the past 8 yeas, (sic) calling her previous school and stayed in her doctor’s office waiting for us.”  She also states “He has a mental illness..: Dr Mark Rand stated this are his first appearances in early 2008 and in his report, the courts failed to note that Dr. Langer a psychiatrist also testified on my behalf during this time and had a decidedly different diagnoses. Shortly thereafter Ms Xu and all parties consented to unsupervised visits. This case was transferred to the Brooklyn family courts, a hearing was held in which issues of service were brought up as I had never been served hearing of this via the Attorney for the Board of Education and then in person by the courts clerk. The case has been continued until June 11, 2014.

The reason I am again contacting the FBI is that I do not know the were abouts of my daughter. I do not know if she has been taken out of the country, adopted, placed in foster care, taken out of the state or is even alive. At the very least Ms Xu has concealed my daughter from me and with the assistance of both the law guardian and her Attorney prevented me from having court ordered visits. Ms Xu has repeatedly lied to officials in two different states and made claims of my arrest in two different countries. As a result I have been in court over 71 times, been arrested 6 or more times, spent 38 days in jail. She is legally harassing me, violating my and our daughters civil rights and the courts stand mute. In fact the state of New York also refuses to act, portraying this as a family matter.

In March 2014 I filed a pro se federal civil rights law suit under 42 U.S.C 1983, 1986 named defendants:
Honorable Judge Patricia e. Henry, individually and in her official capacity.
Attorney Amanda Norejko
Attorney Hilaire Chacker
Ms Binong Xu

I am requesting that this office place my daughter on the NCIC data base and begin an investigation in to the civil rights violations and other criminal behavior engaged in by the above parties.

Sincerely,

Mr. Mark J. Sullivan
2255 60th St. 2RR
Brooklyn, NY 11204

CC:
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman
Office of the Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341

The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York State
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224

Hon. Jonathan Lippman
New York State Unified Court System
Office of Court Administration, Rm. 852 
25 Beaver Street 
New York, NY 10004

Mayor Bill de Blasio
City Hall
New York, NY 10007

April 17, 2014

Federal Court

March 4, 2014

 

Official Response

Feb. 13, 2014

Complaints Filed

Feb. 05, 2014

January 10, 2014 Quad Cinemas showing of Divorce Corp. Art Project

Great film! which everyone should see. It's time that this is brought into the public discourse for all of our children.

UPDATE: A Christmas Wish for Elizabeth; email sent January 5, 2014,

I have posted this to a few groups on Linkedin and now am sharing this with you once again. I will be adding to the site in the coming weeks.

Linkedin is a professional venue and as such, seldom do people break the taboo of speaking of one’s personal life.

I have decided that the up side of doing this out weights the downside and I hope many of you agree.

www.markjosephsullivan.com/CW/  is the documenting of I and my daughters personal experience in what is at once designated a public forum and a private matter. This nether land shrouded in secrecy and the bringing of facts and evidence into the light of day is the overarching aim of this website.

In the words of, JUSTICE LOUIS D. BRANDEIS;

As an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Louis Dembitz Brandeis (1856-1941) tried to reconcile the developing powers of modern government and society with the maintenance of individual liberties and opportunities for personal development.

“If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.”

Louis D. Brandeis

Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant by Barack Obama;

Delivered from the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on 28 January 2009.

“….because I firmly believe what Justice Louis Brandeis once said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I know that restoring transparency is not only the surest way to achieve results, but also to earn back the trust in government without which we cannot deliver the changes the American people sent us here to make….”

Mark

December 24, 2013

Mark Sullivan,  Binong Xu                                                                            

Beginning in Feb 2005 and later with the intervention of the children’s law center and the sanctuary for families I have successfully been painted as a predatory/serial domestic abuser in the courts of New York City despite the facts belaying a very different picture. My parental rights have been incrementally and illegally usurped over the last 7 years by suppression, biasedness and unethical acts committed by all parties, including the judge to the point that my formal written requests for court ordered contact are not even responded to. I have had no contact with my biological daughter, Elizabeth in 16 months, yet never have I been found an unfit parent.

I was arrested for domestic assault Feb 2005 in Springfield, MA. at the home of my sister. The case was dismissed the next day where the judge emphatically stated and wrote, NO DV. I had been interviewed in jail over night by two women representatives of the local DV program. In Dec 2005 Binong once again absconded with our daughter to a domestic violence shelter in Springfield, MA , there were no police reports or investigations of her claims, yet by claiming to be a victim of DV she was able to relocate to New York City. My report to police of missing persons, subsequent reports to the FBI and the State Dept. at the urging of a college roommate whose wife was an Attorney focused upon Hague Convention cases resulted in calls that Binong was safe (?) and outreach from CRC, (Children’s rights Council). I did not see Elizabeth, just 14 months old at the time, again until mid-Jan 2006 when I travelled to New York City. As a self-proclaimed victim of DV in NYC Binong benefitted quickly from this deception and moved from the second shelter she and Elizabeth were in while there to a subsidized apartment that we shared in April 2006.

By Aug 2006 she once again absconded to a DV shelter with Elizabeth this time reporting to police that I had threated to murder her, Elizabeth and myself along with my physical assault of her, an arrest in MA and an arrest in China, for slamming her head against the wall while she was pregnant. With just these words and actions, with no fact, witness, evidence or police investigation to substantiate her claims she was directed by police to the family courts in Brooklyn. Years later she admitted on the witness stand that she had lied yet the litigation continued. She with the enabling of the courts successfully succeeded in effectively removing my parental rights while suppressing the true facts of this case.  

Even though I had contacted the Administration for Children Services, (ACS) to investigate in Sept 2006, by Oct 2006 the case was moved from family court to IDV court and I was given supervised visits with Elizabeth which continued past Jan 2007 when ACS completed their report finding neither parent negligent.

I was awarded unsupervised visits after hearings were held In March 2008 where testimony by a psychiatrist and director of the counseling center I had attended, visit reports and a court appointed forensic psychologist were heard. The judge’s biasedness was evident in this as the psychologist could not meet the standards of law to be qualified as an expert under either Daubert or Frye and later the law guardian and others made much of his redacted report and testimony including the Appellate Judges who denied my appeal based upon this. This Judge also changed her orders, placing more restrictions on my visits at the request of Binong and her Attorney as she handed down the orders. This further impacted Elizabeth’s relationship with her own father, while the trial and final orders were not to be determined until some 2 and a half years later in Sept 2010.

Binong’s interference continued culminating in claims of sexual molestation of Elizabeth, August 2008 which resulted in her filing an emergency hearing that was held ex parte where Elizabeth’s visits with her father were terminated. No investigations where ordered by the judge, the law guardian or others, I have since that date never had unsupervised contact with Elizabeth and 2 years later with the judges written decision and her admission of these claims being baseless, with years of reports by 12 different social workers of my being a loving caring in tune father and review by the Appellate judges this has not changed and the damage of Elizabeth’s relationship to her father continues to this day.  

My repeated attempts to bring facts to light, requesting new court appointed attorneys, stating on the record as pro se litigant days prior to the above illegal hearings that the court appointed Law Guardian had acted unethically in suppressing facts to imply my arrest for DV in MA was a pattern of serial abuse. My later formally requesting both attorneys be recused due to complaints I had filed including a federal civil rights violation suit which was denied due to lack of jurisdiction, civil suits against both Attorneys which the judge required a certification by an attorney to proceed and finally formal complaints against the IDV court judge. As no satisfaction or intervention was secured by the above I than filed  complaints with the New York Attorney General’s office, later the United States Attorney General’s office and a number of U.S, Senators, and Congressmen.

The appeal of the Sept 2010 decision which was denied on Jan 17, 2012, which outlined “On June 11, 2010 Mark, while represented by court-appointed counsel,filed a pro se petition for modification of the pendente lite order of visitation, raising constitutional and other federal law claims.” The judge dispatched with this by inducing me along with the help of my Attorney to allow this petition to be included with the final arguments.  All of my actions were insufficient to effect change.

In March 2011, as reported by a forensic LCSW who supervised visits from December 2010 to this time when there was a documented creditable threat of abduction of Elizabeth back to China by her mother. This report was submitted to the Law Guardian, the mothers Attorney and the Judge by the social worker. At that time I visited the Manhattan FBI office which instructed me to contact the U.S. State Dept. and NCMEC, where cases were opened with each agency. Given all this I was still unable to be heard in this mayoral appointed city judge’s court room. My two pro se motions, the first with those reports and later my second motion with an affidavit from a staff Attorney for NCMEC to effect federal protections to prevent abduction to a non-Hague country were both denied, once again imperiling Elizabeth’s relationship to her father.

Over the years other pressures have been brought to bear upon me to dissuade me from perusing my relationship with Elizabeth. Including a recent Oct 2012 arrest, numerous incarcerations totaling 38 days, 1 year of probation, contempt charges, the ruining of my reputation and credit which has impacted my career and profession all to prevent the truth and facts of the matter to emerge. I am guilty of nothing more than being a loving caring and determined father, as reported by 14 different expert social workers over the years, who has reached out to all manner of people and agencies at the local, state, federal and international level, (US Embassy and vice counsel in China to secure the no police record which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt my innocence), all to no avail in my effort to parent my daughter and receive simple justice. Neither Elizabeth nor I have received even a modicum of human decency from this court.  

In summary:
What I am seeking is the immediate and unfettered access to my daughter which a federal Judge could so order by the voiding of this Judges orders which violate both Elizabeth and my rights. As my career allows me the flexibility to parent Elizabeth daily I am seeking custody of her. Binong has shown she cannot and will not act in a manner that allows Elizabeth to have, let alone maintain a relationship with her own father and is supported by the courts and Attorneys who have been enabling this for years.

I also am seeking the dis-barment of the court appointed Law Guardian and mothers Attorney, the commencing of civil suits against both of them as well as the DA’s office and the State of New York as well as bringing this to the Federal Level. By the possible de-funding and spot light placed upon the sanctuary for families and the non-profit structure of the children’s law center, solely funded by the New York State Unified Court System being exposed and held accountable, hopefully justice and change can be achieved. While this is cold comfort to my family it is hoped that in the eyes of my daughter she will see a father, a protective loving father who did all in his powers to end this damage, hurt and pain.

Sincerely,
Mark J. Sullivan
2255 60th St 2RR
Brooklyn, NY 11204
Tel: 646-206-5872

Excerpts
From the appeal:

Binong also accused him during trial of trying to obtain her address by giving Elizabeth the address of his website. The court found that Binong had no basis for this concern and stated “the court is not persuaded that this was the father’s purpose in providing this information” (Order at 28) and “the court does not find that the father’s intent in providing his website information was anything other than to share family photographs on his website” (Order at 28).

The event which led to the court terminating Mark’s unsupervised visitation was his decision to take Elizabeth to a Chinese “Dragon Boat Festival” in Queens. He provided the visitation supervisor with an itinerary, as required, which stated he was taking her to the festival but did not specifically state that it was in Queens. Binong was aware that he was taking her there and knew where it was. Elizabeth scraped her knee at the festival; he took her back to his apartment to wash the scrape and wound up giving his daughter a bath. Upon learning of this Binong seized the opportunity to make wild accusations of sexual misconduct with no basis whatsoever. She sought and obtained an order to show cause and an immediate hearing on termination of unsupervised visitation. Rather than ensure that Mark had an opportunity to defend himself the court permitted Binong’s counsel to mail the order to show cause for over-night delivery the next day for a hearing the day after that. Specifically the order to show cause to suspend visits issued on August 13, 2008 for a hearing to occur on August 15, 2008 provided that service “upon Respondent by overnight express mail and by personal service upon Counsel for Respondent . . . on or before August 14, 2008 [would] be deemed good and sufficient service” (Order to Show Cause at 1). Mark did not receive it until three days after the hearing and when neither Mark nor his attorney appeared the court impermissibly conducted an ex parte hearing rather than adjourning so that Mark and his counsel could defend against the charges and then terminated his unsupervised visitation with his daughter. As the court later ruled in its Order, Binong's claims of sexual misconduct and mistreatment had no basis but Mark was denied his right to confront the charges against him. Notably, the court stated in its Order, two years after his unsupervised visits were terminated, “the court makes no finding that the father sexually abused the child or in any way mistreated her during the visit in question” (Order at 30).

Had the court protected Mark’s due process right to defend himself rather than permitting an ex parte hearing the court could have reached that conclusion two years earlier and Mark’s right to unsupervised visitation with his daughter would not have been summarily terminated. If the court had acted impartially rather than assuming that Binong’s claims of domestic violence were true it would have been clear that there was no basis for requiring supervision. The three caseworkers who supervised the visits over three years, who all had masters degrees in social work, testified that Mark did nothing to suggest that visitation had to be supervised. Indeed, according to the court itself:

1. “All three supervisors testified that the father and child had a warm relationship, the father’s interaction with the child was appropriate and that they did not have to intervene during the sessions. The supervisors would have intervened if any condition of visitation had been violated” (Order at 30);

2. Commenting on Binong’s accusation that during a visit Mark gave Elizabeth candy which she called “poisoned” but which had actually only been recalled the court stated, “although the recall was highly publicized and counsel for the mother tried to suggest that the father’s lack of awareness of this was negligent, the court notes that the visitation supervisor was also apparently unaware that that particular candy had been recalled” (Order at 32);

The court also noted that: Chris Hudson and Jackie McGowan . . . characterized the visits as having gone well, and not requiring any intervention. The father was consistently appropriate and engaged well with the child. The child was comfortable with the father and demonstrated affection spontaneously. She sometimes appeared sad for the visit to end, although she was always happy to be reunited with the mother. The father . . . was appropriate in the sense that he was careful not to create false expectations (Order at 34).

Excerpt:

Trial began on December 11, 2008 (Tr. A) with the testimony of Petitioner BINONG XU who, in addition to the facts described above, testified that after she became pregnant, they were discussing Mark's employment and she said to him “you’re the one who wanted the kid so you should be responsible for the kid” (A. 103).

As Judge Henry later noted in her Order, Binong then contradicted this statement almost immediately and claimed, two pages later in the transcript, that Mark didn’t “want the kid” and instead wanted her to get an abortion. When asked “what was Mr. Sullivan’s reaction when he found out you were pregnant?” Binong said. “he was very upset. He told me why don’t you go get an abortion” (A. 105). This obvious contradiction shows that she was making up her testimony as she went along and said anything she could think of to make Mark look bad. Being caught red-handed in a lie like this should have destroyed her credibility in the eyes of Judge Henry but the court disregarded it and relied on her testimony that Mark abused her for her ruling.

Excerpt:

At the appearance on December 10, 2008 (Tr. C) psychologist MARK RAND was qualified as an expert in family and forensic psychology and testified that his views were drawn from discussions with Binong in which “she reported a long history of being abused and controlled by [Mark]” (C. 22). He took her word for it. Mark never admitted to the hitting or choking Binong accused him of, but he admitted that he yelled and that he threw things on two occasions – although did not hit anyone or intend to hit anyone. He also admitted that he used “nasty words” and curse words on some occasions and it was wrong to do so).

Excerpt:

On October 20, 2009 (Tr. H) Binong continued her testimony and stated that:
1. In China the police do not do anything about a domestic violence and a man could beat his wife whenever he wanted and be sure that he would not be arrested (H. 89). She claimed that if a woman tried to tell anyone that she was being beaten by her husband “[p]eople would only laugh at you” (H. 92);

2. She also claimed that her parents would not have done anything to help her if she told them she was being beaten or choked while she was pregnant (H. 104).

3. who found her a pediatrician (K. 56);

4. At one point when she was acting angry and depressed he said that if she was not committed to the family she should leave (K. 64-65). Shortly after that she waited until she could be alone with Elizabeth and then absconded with her (K. 65-66). It was not because of domestic violence, it was because their relationship changed when she got her permanent resident status and she was arguing with him and angry at him all the time (K. 65-66). He filed a missing persons report, the police came and took information, made an investigation and then told him to wait (K. 68-69).

5. Days later a detective contacted him by phone and he could hear Binong speaking in the background (K. 70-71). Binong had made claims of domestic violence at that point but ACS conducted an investigation which concluded that neglect was not “indicated” (K. 72). After that Binong obtained an order of protection in Family Court based on claims of violence and on August 26th she came to the apartment with two officers (K. 73). They put a piece of paper on the table which turned out to be the temporary order of protection which stated Mark had to stay away from Binong (K. 74). Shortly thereafter on September 8th two officers came to his home and told him he had to vacate the apartment (K. 75). When he objected to this they placed him under arrest and escorted him out in handcuffs (K. 75). He spent the night in jail, was released temporarily and when he returned to court his attorney, who he first met just moments before, told him to accept an ACD and allocute to disorderly conduct or face a year in jail (K. 76-77), He did what his attorney told him to do;

6. After Binong had him evicted from their apartment he had no place to live or any income and he became homeless (K. 78). To obtain the order of protection which forced Mark to vacate their apartment Binong had claimed, among other things, that Mark hit her in the mouth with his elbow and threatened to kill Binong and Elizabeth and himself (K. 78). She filed a custody petition based on the same claims and the case was transferred to Judge Henry in IDV Court in September (K. 79). Based solely on Binong's allegations the court denied Mark's request for unsupervised visitation with his daughter (K. 80). He was not permitted any contact other then one visit a week, strictly supervised, and could not call Elizabeth on the phone or write to her – all based entirely on Binong’s unproven claims that he had been violent (K. 85-86);

7. The court later agreed to unsupervised visitation and, as described above, when he took Elizabeth to the Dragon Boat Festival and to his apartment Binong’s counsel sent him written notice for a hearing to take place on August 15th 2008 which he did not receive until August 18th (K. 98-99). On August 15th Mark got a call from his attorney who said the visits had been terminated (K. 99) and he learned that his attorney had also not been present at that hearing (K. 101);

8. who found her a pediatrician (K. 56);

9. At one point when she was acting angry and depressed he said that if she was not committed to the family she should leave (K. 64-65). Shortly after that she waited until she could be alone with Elizabeth and then absconded with her (K. 65-66). It was not because of domestic violence, it was because their relationship changed when she got her permanent resident status and she was arguing with him and angry at him all the time (K. 65-66). He filed a missing persons report, the police came and took information, made an investigation and then told him to wait (K. 68-69).

10. Days later a detective contacted him by phone and he could hear Binong speaking in the background (K. 70-71). Binong had made claims of domestic violence at that point but ACS conducted an investigation which concluded that neglect was not “indicated” (K. 72). After that Binong obtained an order of protection in Family Court based on claims of violence and on August 26th she came to the apartment with two officers (K. 73). They put a piece of paper on the table which turned out to be the temporary order of protection which stated Mark had to stay away from Binong (K. 74). Shortly thereafter on September 8th two officers came to his home and told him he had to vacate the apartment (K. 75). When he objected to this they placed him under arrest and escorted him out in handcuffs (K. 75). He spent the night in jail, was released temporarily and when he returned to court his attorney, who he first met just moments before, told him to accept an ACD and allocute to disorderly conduct or face a year in jail (K. 76-77), He did what his attorney told him to do;

11. After Binong had him evicted from their apartment he had no place to live or any income and he became homeless (K. 78). To obtain the order of protection which forced Mark to vacate their apartment Binong had claimed, among other things, that Mark hit her in the mouth with his elbow and threatened to kill Binong and Elizabeth and himself (K. 78). She filed a custody petition based on the
same claims and the case was transferred to Judge Henry in IDV Court in September (K. 79). Based solely on Binong's allegations the court denied Mark's request for unsupervised visitation with his daughter (K. 80). He was not permitted any contact other then one visit a week, strictly supervised, and could not call Elizabeth on the phone or write to her – all based entirely on Binong’s unproven claims that he had been violent (K. 85-86);

12. The court later agreed to unsupervised visitation and, as described above, when he took Elizabeth to the Dragon Boat Festival and to his apartment Binong’s counsel sent him written notice for a hearing to take place on August 15th 2008 which he did not receive until August 18th (K. 98-99). On August 15th Mark got a call from his attorney who said the visits had been terminated (K. 99) and he learned that his attorney had also not been present at that hearing (K. 101);

On March 9, 2010 (Tr. L) Mark continued his testimony and stated:

1. In August 2006 Binong made a sworn statement that Mark was arrested in China in her original “allegations that started this case”; this was perjury and so the whole case was based on perjury (L. 56). Mark pointed out that during her testimony Binong admitted that this allegation in the petition was untrue when she testified that he was never arrested in China (L. 57). Mark added that “perjury and false allegations have tied me up in court for the last three and a half years” and it all started with her original false statements in her petition (L. 57).

At the conclusion of that appearance Mark’s counsel requested that the court grant unsupervised visitation based on a report from the visitation supervisor that “the visits are extremely successful” and because Mark had recently been able to secure employment; had a residence and was no longer in a shelter (L. 95). The court denied the motion without stating any basis (L. 97). On March 7, 2010 (Tr. M) Mark testified that:

1. It was unfair that Binong had him arrested the day he took Elizabeth out for 3 or 4 hours in Springfield because all he did was take her out for a while without telling Binong and she’d done that many times herself (M. 57). They had argued just before she had him arrested and he admitted he cursed at her; called her names and “over-reacted” but that was no reason to have him arrested (M. 59);

2. In the past he supported himself as a free-lance photographer but the industry had changed drastically from film to digital; he could no longer find work and was reduced to taking temp jobs for about 10 dollars an hour (M. 62-64). The little money he made served only to keep him out of the shelter system (M 72);

3. He admitted he used curse words with Binong but never when Elizabeth was in the room (M. 81). He also admitted that he told her that if she was not committed to the marriage she should pack her bags and get out (M. 82). This was in reaction to similar things she said to him like she was going to have him arrested again, like she did in Springfield.