Bandy X. Lee's Blog, page 4

Judicial Conduct Complaint against Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca

Will It Ever be Heard?

The following Complaint was submitted to the New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. Yet, for months, there has not even been acknowledgment of receipt, let alone an investigation. Meanwhile, a second criminally-indicted co-conspirator of the judge has had her charges mysteriously removed. Prosecutors have remarked on the case: “I have never heard of such a thing before.” Yet, Gallina-Mecca has a track record of removing charges against murderers she supported, such that brutal killings end up without an investigation or even a suspect! Having done this for a decade, she literally has a trail of dead bodies behind her, but will the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct ever investigate? The most unspeakable crimes occur through the Family Courts, but they bring in more profit than all the other courts combined — and it appears that no judicial board is willing even to open an investigation on a human trafficking enterprise that sends up to 100,000 children to their torture and death every year….

AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICIA J. LEE

This Affidavit Complaint is declared as a duly sworn statement against Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca for her violations of the relevant sections of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the New Jersey Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. It is supported by substantial evidence of bias, procedural irregularities, and statutory violations that question her impartiality and the integrity of the judicial process. Complainant Patricia J. Lee (hereinafter “Complainant”) states as follows:

I. Ex-Parte Communication and Judicial Misconduct

On November 12, 2021, Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca held an ex-parte conference with Plaintiff Alan T. Chan … (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and Guardian ad Litem (hereinafter “GAL”) Evelyn Nissirios to strip Complainant of her custody of her children without time limit. First, the Judge acted with “cold indifference” when she denied Complainant her first-time request for an adjournment, despite her suffering from a life-threatening medical emergency and despite her submitting a doctor’s note — which was later corroborated with medical records from the emergency room, where her symptomology was so severe, she was tested for a heart attack. Second, the Judge convened an ex-parte conference on “emergent application” by GAL Nissirios, without notice to Complainant or Complainant’s attorney, in which she issued an order transferring custody from Complainant to Plaintiff without warning, cause, statement of reason, or due process (Complainant’s custody was never in question, whereas Plaintiff was only recently regaining custody following a temporary restraining order for slamming his son’s head against a window). Third, a transfer of custody was ordered without any finding or even suggestion of a problem with Complainant’s parenting, which hitherto had an impeccable track record, where the children thrived physically, emotionally, and academically under her full-time care. Even after at least two (2) psychiatric experts reported that Complainant has “exceptional talent in parenting,” following extensive collateral interviews of other adults and parents who observed her and knew the children — interviews that GAL Nissirios notably did not perform — Complainant’s children were not returned to her….

A. Legal Standard and Analysis

[Violation of Judicial Canons, U.S. and State Constitutions, Case Law, and Rules of Evidence, as well as Documented Bias, demonstrated in over two thousand (2000) pages of evidence.]

II. Allegations of Judicial Partiality, Ethical Breaches, and Due Process Violations

The involvement of Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca in proceedings concerning Alan T. Chan and Patricia Lee raises significant concerns of judicial partiality, ethical violations, and due process breaches. Top-quality evidence, including six (6) highly-qualified medical experts warning of Plaintiff Chan’s dangerousness to his children and his spouse, and two (2) additional highly-qualified child psychiatrists alarmed about the “invariably highly detrimental” separation of young children from their primary caregiving mother, suggests potential judicial impropriety, undermining public confidence in the judiciary. These issues are further compounded by Judge Gallina-Mecca’s approval of an unlicensed, unsupervised, and unqualified “associate counselor,” who contradicted ten (10) highly-qualified doctorate psychologists and psychiatrists, because the “associate counselor” concluded in her unqualified “assessment” that some of Complainant’s answers were “tangential” — which GAL Nissirios then erroneously interpreted to mean that Complainant was “mentally incompetent.” No amount of clarification by highly-qualified psychiatrists that “tangential” speech is a normal sign of trauma, and that Plaintiff’s violent abuse must be looked into, could change her mind.

Furthermore, the Judge insisted that Complainant needed another psychiatric evaluation, against ten (10) highly-qualified psychiatric experts who reported that she has “excellent mental health” and explicitly stated that she did not need another psychiatric evaluation — and against the recommendations of her own appointed guardian ad litem for Complainant, Linda Schofel, who completed a thorough investigation and concluded that Complainant was mentally competent and in need of no further evaluation. Further demonstrating her bias, the Judge promptly fired GAL Schofel for faithfully performing her job. [GAL Nissirios was kept on, but when] confronted with her six hundred (600) documented lies and acts of perjury, she resigned, since her testimony is the sole reason two (2) children were transferred to the father who almost killed each of them. The Court’s blatant bias for Alan T. Chan’s interests and hidden financial agendas, while systematically disadvantaging Patricia Lee, needs to be scrutinized for its breaches of ethics and violations of due process.

A. Legal Standard and Analysis

[Violation of Judicial Canons, U.S. and State Constitutions, and Case Law, as well as Procedural Misconduct and Disregard for Evidence of Perjury and False Testimony, evidenced in six hundred (600) documented lies and acts of perjury]

III. Violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides remedies for individuals whose constitutional or federal rights have been violated by persons acting under color of state law, including judges, when their actions exceed judicial immunity. Judicial immunity does not apply when a judge’s conduct is outside the bounds of established law or is motivated by bias. Judge Gallina-Mecca’s documented conduct demonstrates a pattern of bias, actions outside the bounds of established law, and disregard for Complainant’s constitutional rights to fair process and impartial judgment, creating liability under § 1983. There is also a federal lawsuit in effect under this Code since August 2023. Under 28 U.S. Code § 455, judges are required to recuse themselves from any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including being sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but so far Judge Gallina- Mecca has refused to recuse herself.

A. Legal Standard and Analysis

[Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Established Law, Criminal Codes, and Judicial Canons, revealed in over two thousand (2000) pages of medical records, expert reports, police discovery evidence, and photographic documentation.]

IV. Weaponization of Judicial Process to Endanger Lives

Judges in New Jersey are beholden to human rights laws and ethical standards that require them to uphold the rights and dignity of individuals involved in legal proceedings. This includes the U.S. Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution, and international human rights treaties. Additionally, the New Jersey Code of Judicial Conduct holds judges to ethical standards that support the fair treatment of all parties and the promotion of justice. Yet, alarmingly, Complainant’s and her children’s human rights have been flagrantly violated in Judge Gallina-Mecca’s courtroom to the point of endangering their lives. Complainant brushed with death eight (8) medically-documented times during the course of this litigation. She suffered four (4) life-threatening hypertensive crises in just the past six (6) months from the stress from this litigation, with her second (2nd) hospital admission during the holidays requiring five (5) days in the intensive care unit. Prior to the Court’s interventions, which specifically enabled and augmented Plaintiff’s violent attacks against his family — including the violent abduction of his children and the total withholding of them for the last four (4) years from their mother, who was their primary caregiver since birth — Complainant was in a perfect state of health. All physicians and medical expert witnesses of her condition — now with permanent brain and heart changes from her stress-induced high blood pressures — offer no cure for her other than “justice”….

A. Legal Standard and Analysis

[Violations of International Laws, U.S. and State Constitutions, 7 Canons and 22 Rules of Judicial Conduct, and 4 Protected Characteristics of Anti-Discrimination Laws, shown in over two thousand (2000) pages of doctors’ reports, hospital records, and police discovery evidence, in addition to audio recordings.]

V. Summary of Judicial Bias and Misconduct

Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca’s conduct in this case demonstrates repeated violations of the canons of judicial ethics, undermining the principles of impartiality, fairness, and public confidence in the judiciary. Canon 1 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca colluded with a duly-diagnosed psychopath and violent perpetrator to “legalize” his kidnapping of his children through deceit, lies, and perjury. Canon 2 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca personally attacked and character- assassinated Complainant in order to traumatize her and discredit her as a witness. Canon 3 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca displayed blatant bias for Plaintiff, engaging in ex-parte communication and ruling exclusively in his favor over four-and-a-half (4.5) years, and never in Complainant’s favor. Canon 4 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca abused her judicial position to engage in tampering of evidence, fabrication of false “evidence”, and witness intimidation and retaliation outside her courtroom, which undermines the viability of a justice system. Canon 5 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca interfered with every other agency, court, or the press, in an attempt to shape the outcome of this case, which left no institution independent of her. Canon 6 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca allied 100 percent with the monied party, so that he could gain everything from the divorce and be so grateful for his illegitimate gains, that he would be likely to contribute handsomely to the Judge’s campaign. Canon 7 was violated when Judge Gallina-Mecca ordered that public criticisms of her be “immediately removed, deleted, and unpublished immediately,” which is also a violation of the First Amendment protections of a free press.

CONCLUSION

Based on Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca’s conduct in this case — including procedural improprieties, repeated denial of due process, reliance on unverified testimony, violation of statutory protections, arbitrary legal standards, assistance of criminal acts, and bias against Complainant and expert witnesses who would give truthful testimony — sanctions against her are mandatory. Further, Judge Gallina-Mecca’s removal from the bench needs to be considered for her repeated and demonstrable stretching of the facts and torturing of law and procedure to achieve her predetermined, personally-committed ends. As Chief Judge of the Bergen County’s Family Court system, she needed to set an example that is critical to any impartial and just judicial system that preserves its integrity and independence — but egregiously failed.

WHEREFORE, Complainant Patricia J. Lee requests that a formal and immediate investigation be pursued without interference from the Judge and without fear or favor, for her failure to enforce procedural evidentiary standards; her serving as her own witness in a case she was presiding over; her scheduling of unwarranted ex-parte hearings; the appearance and demonstration of incontrovertible bias; due process violations; and lack of fairness … to cause immense suffering, medically-documented torture of children, and multiple near-death episodes for Complainant, the mother of these children.

Additionally, systemic reforms in New Jersey’s Family Court may be recommended: the judiciary should implement training, oversight, and accountability measures to address systemic bias for abusive (often sadistic, violent, and cruel) parents over protective (often loving, nurturing, and devoted) parents in family court proceedings, which can lead to catastrophic harms to children and families. Family court practices that blatantly violate local, federal, and international law to privilege “pseudo-science” over sound medical expertise have been denounced by multiple medical associations as well as the United Nations Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court…. No system should reward or allow to prevail conduct of the kind that Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca has repeatedly and overwhelmingly demonstrated over multiple years in this case, and across dozens of other, near-identical cases in Bergen County Family Court.

[An Appendix of thirty-three (33) pages contains direct quotes and statements, in Gallina-Mecca’s own words, that decisively incriminate her and unequivocally prove the above without room for doubt.]

[image error]

There are No ‘Winners’ in Family Court

How Family Court Victimizes Even ‘Winners’ — and My Brother-in-Law is a Primary Example

I have a brother-in-law who is a diagnosed psychopath. He fooled me as well. Most people consider psychopaths to be scary, but they simply have a personality disorder that is easily lured into crime; they are not criminals by nature. They are lured into crime, because they do not understand human love — only that they are outside of it — and their expression of their longing is to reject it and harm it.

In my view, there is no such thing as a “successful psychopath”; a masterful appearance of success is still not success, no matter the ladders one may climb, and threatening and conning everyone into believing that one is a terrific parent does not make a true parent for the children. Ideal appearances and external actions do not compensate for the internal havoc one wreaks, wherever one goes.

This is why I call psychopathy, “the most debilitating disorder in all psychiatry.” If one had schizophrenia, at least one’s humanity can emerge once the symptoms are treated. With psychopathy, because afflicted persons deal with their lack of humanity not by working on themselves but by building an impeccable façade of the opposite, there is almost no way to reach them. But there is always something one can do: one can set limits, carefully work on behavior so that the person can participate in society without causing harm, and maybe some true satisfaction can emerge.

Family Courts, unconscionably, do the opposite. They prey on this vulnerability in psychopathic personalities by promising them unlimited power and financial rewards — if only they took the children! The depravity behind sacrificing children for profit — using authority to plunder rather than protect the most vulnerable in society — is why I call Family Courts, “a culture of psychopathy.” Of course, psychopaths are very sick individuals, and handing them their fantasy descends them into magalomania, magnifies their violence, and may result in murder, suicide, and murder-suicide, as we so commonly see.

Hence, truly, shame on Family Courts.

My brother-in-law had a reason to feel perplexed. His wife had a relationship with her children that was the envy of anyone who observed them. Even other children noticed: “Wow, you have that with your mom!” He married her because this was what he yearned for, but he tried to seize what he did not have by pretending, and with children, a masterful imitation of humanity, empathy, and compassion does not replace the real thing.

This is how the inside story came to be so terrifying. My brother-in-law’s divorce was not so much a decision as a panicked reaction to being “found out.” He did not know that, when someone cries out in pain, it is not a personal attack on him — it just means the person is in pain. Out of aggrieved expectations and entitlement, he started taking ruthlessly and, startled at how little he was left with, he responded by taking even more — but that is not how human relationships work. Hence, he ended up injuring his children, kidnapping them to hide his injury, and almost killing their mother numerous times.

These are the pathological dynamics Family Courts magnify and even manufacture, where the problem becomes cancerous and metastasizes. It is ironic that they are allowed to bring the psychological equivalent of brass knuckles and crowbars to the most unsuspecting, innocent children and mothers who enter — expecting justice — who are suddenly shocked to discover that they are being bludgeoned if not killed. They typically never recover enough to fight, which further helps Family Courts hide their atrocities.

Psychopathic spouses may watch this with delight, but they do not know that they are only harming themselves. The smart ones leave the trap altogether, attenuate their destructive drives, and compromise at a level closer to reality, before it is too late. I still hold out hope that my brother-in-law will be smart.

Dear Alan,

You have now been served my lawsuit. This is just the very first of many, unless you decide otherwise. The choice is yours.

Have you realized by now that you have been duped by a corrupt court? You were led into believing that you could have everything, and Patricia nothing.

Notwithstanding all the money you have spent on players in your corrupt court — not to mention on compromising them with money under the table — there is no way Patricia is constitutionally capable of making the kind of money you are demanding.

The bottom line is that, despite the many promises they made to you, you have been taken for a ride. There is almost no possibility that the sham rulings of this corrupt court will not be thrown out when we are through with you.

There will be all kinds of unintended costs you have not factored in — and for all that you have spent for nothing, you could have supported your children for the next one hundred years! Hence, if you were smart, you would cut your losses. You would be reasonable and compromise, not continue to escalate your war against your family,

every time your self-inflicted wounds cause more losses. Your fantasy of gaining “everything” will never come to pass — and no amount of conning, lying, gaslighting, and contorting will alter reality, and the Truth will catch up with you.

Let the Truth set you free instead.

All your life, you have wanted to experience love. You will never have that experience until you learn to give love.

You were lucky to have a wife who is not greedy, who would have gladly done all the hard work of raising your children, and help you to have a great relationship with them in ways that all your abducting, isolating, coercing, and “brainwashing” could never do (it is not as easy as you thought, is it?).

Right now they have to pretend, as they are your prisoners, but it is a given that, when those children turn eighteen, they will never forgive you for what you have done. No matter what stories you conjure up, they will never forget your separating them from their mother — without giving them even one minute with her!

The irony is that, ultimately, it is really you who have lost your children, for holding them hostage in your house. And you dealt with their discontent by forcing them to smile, not even giving them the freedom to feel what they feel!

You do not really want these children. If you really wanted them, you would not have made an emergency recruitment of your father to fill the role as you abandoned them.

Look at your children: they stopped growing. That is a sign of extreme trauma! Any psychologist would tell you that abruptly and totally depriving children of their mother, just because you wish to punish her, is irreparably damaging for children.

X and Y do not even look like children; they look like two waifs or concentration camp inmates. If you really wanted them, if you loved them, they would not look the way they do. And there are sources that have informed Patricia of the unspeakable abuses they have endured from you.

The real irony is that, all your life you wished to experience love — but all you have done makes it impossible for you to experience love. You had the fortune of having the most loving wife and the most affectionate children one could imagine — and all you did was punish them for having what you did not have in your childhood.

Please, do the right thing, and maybe — just maybe — you can redeem yourself in the eyes of your children as well as of God, whom you seem to believe you can mock.

Keep at this, and you will come to know that the biggest victim is you!

One of the people who deluded you and colluded with you that you could have “everything” is Evelyn Nissirios. Sooner or later, she will not be able to deflect all lawsuits coming at her with her “judicial immunity,” and she will have to enter discovery. Do you know what will be revealed? Dozens of children trafficked to their torture, battery, attempted murder, rape, pedophilic sex rings, child pornography, and Satanic cults, in the most depraved way! This is the company you have kept and trusted, above your own family!

And the extreme degree to which Jane Gallina-Mecca has aided and abetted you with extreme bias — the exact opposite of what a judge is supposed to do — is now about to get her disrobed.

What you might succeed in doing is causing Patricia’s physical demise, and I promise you, if this should come to pass, I will make sure that you will be held responsible for murder. And, above all, both your children will know who is responsible for her death.

If you expect your children to take care of you in your old age, you may be shocked to discover that they will not give you the time of day.

Wake up, Alan! We were never your enemy, but you insisted on making yourself ours, and this does not serve you.

How sad, pathetic, and tragic that, after seventeen years of marriage to a woman who gave you everything she had, you now hate this woman who is incapable of hatred but can only love. How sad! How tragic for Patricia, the children, and most of all for you!

Here is your choice: we can continue this process in appellate court, civil court, criminal court, and the U.S. Supreme Court until you receive your just reckoning, or you can do the right thing and settle this in a fair and equitable manner.

It is a given that we will be in court for however many years it takes — five, ten, fifteen — until the children are returned to their mother. And the house you intend to seize — come hell or high water — will be the least of what you owe me.

You are not wise enough at this point to know what you will ultimately realize — that what you did to your wife and children, you did to yourself.

What you do not understand is that this court, pretending to support you, has made a fool of you, draining all your funds and hemorrhaging all your money. Can you see that Evelyn Nissirios and Jane Gallina-Mecca took you for a sap — a fool’s fool? What this court has “awarded” you will never come to pass, because no legitimate appellate court that operates with integrity will uphold it.

You should be able to see now that you would have been way ahead of the game, had you settled this five years ago as a responsible husband and father. There are countless examples of children who disown their parents after years of abuse in this way. If you are counting on your children to take care of you in your old age, you may be in for a rude awakening.

The solutions are all before you. We could resolve in a day what your court could not solve in the last five years, and what will be challenged over the next fifteen years.

There is still time, a last opportunity for you to rectify the situation. Otherwise, we all suffer. You have almost killed Patricia, you have taken years off of your father’s life, and frankly you have broken my own father’s heart: you almost killed three people!

You have taken years off the life of your father and my father, and the two children in your house are suffering a slow death. I thus appeal to you to do the right thing, and let this be over for all of us. If you do, then perhaps for the first time in your life, you will experience love.

I am not your enemy. What I am expressing to you is the only possible way that we could all heal. We are all in need of healing, and especially you, Alan.

Love,
Bandy

[image error]

My Letter to School District Superintendent Michael Schwarz

Family Court Corruption Corrupts All Bodies It Touches

A letter arrived from my niece’s school that she has missed an inordinate number of days of school: 16 so far. Four years since her savage abduction and imprisonment by her violent father — and Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca’s giving him full custody to help him hide his brutal crimes — she has never recovered the perfect attendance she had under her mother. At least a letter arrived — but will anyone do anything? When she missed 56 days of school in about the same period, four years ago, then “Principal” Michael Piacenza covered it up, tampered with computer records, and falsely arrested concerned professionals instead. At least he has been demoted to his previous position — but will anyone actually protect an innocent child? Few can imagine Family Courts to be the auctionhouses and the slave trade of children that they are, and therefore the fallback is to force oneself into the conviction: “There must be something wrong with the mother”; or “The child looks all right” — even though, as in my niece’s case, she has hardly grown physically in four years. But as society looks away, numbers do not lie: a thousand children are documented to have been murdered because of Family Court, a similar number to have committed suicide because of Family Court, and hundreds of thousands more to be suffering “soul murder” in silence because of Family Court. Below is my letter to the school district superintendent:

RE: Pupil in Your School District, Grade 7

February 27, 2025

Dear Mr. Michael Schwarz:

I am contacting you again because, in spite of the circumstances of our first meeting, you have come across to me as more discerning than most school officials, and thus capable of understanding the seriousness of the situation.

As you may know, I have federally sued Mr. Michael Piacenza for covering up signs of child abuse, tampering with school absence records, and falsely arresting me and a renowned forensic psychiatrist for attempting to fulfill our legally-mandated duty to report child abuse. I do not wish to take action against the entire school.

Certainly, a school exists to protect children, not to harm them. It can be misled when a corrupt judge assists in facilitating child abuse because it is profitable, but this is all the more why we need to protect children, who are voiceless in society and easily exploited. Child protective services, which should be independent, are often under the thumbs of family court judges.

The judge in this case is in the process of being referred for impeachment, as attached, for sending dozens, if not hundreds, of children to their rape, battery, attempted murder, and child sex trafficking. It is being guided by one of the nation’s top constitutional lawyers who impeached three U.S. presidents.

Also, you may wish to know that Alan T. Chan’s employer let him go, as a colleague of mine who wrote the attached letter informed me. I am also attaching my recent affidavit (the criminal charges I am bringing against him are at the end), as well as my lawsuit against him for his financial enrichment schemes — which are the true reason behind his abducting the children. Also for your reference are the federal sanctions Alan T. Chan’s employer has come under because of his financial fraud, and his temporary restraining order for his violence against his ex-wife.

Children are vulnerable. This is why educational and medical professionals have an independent duty to investigate as well as to report child abuse. The pediatrician who detected abuse in this case but chose to cover it up instead has now been criminally indicted and may even lose her license. I therefore urge you to do what is right; profit or mere convenience does not last very long, whereas injury to a child lasts a lifetime.

Cordially yours,

Bandy Lee, M.D., M.Div.

—

Attachments:

Mr. Peter Schoenfeld,

I am writing to bring to your immediate attention a matter of grave concern involving one of your key employees, Alan Chan, whose conduct toward his now former wife, Patricia Lee, and their two young children, has raised very serious issues of many kinds, including legal. Given Mr. Chan’s position within your organization, it appears that his continued employment with you may have facilitated and quite likely enabled the extremely troubling behavior in question. From what I have learned, this matter, if not addressed promptly and thoroughly, could expose your organization to significant risks, both legal and reputational.

I strongly urge that you initiate a full investigation into Mr. Chan’s actions, as it appears to me the potential for serious consequences to your organization is great. There are notable precedents where similar situations have resulted in substantial financial and reputational damage. One such case is that of Allan Kassenoff, formerly employed by the law firm Greenberg Traurig. Once details regarding his conduct became public, the firm was forced to sever ties with him and to address the situation via this carefully prepared statement, no doubt after realizing it had to fire him and protect its own reputation and integrity, I imagine with some kind of agreement that prevented legal action and much greater negative consequences and notoriety:

“The firm has concluded its review of the situation to determine Allan Kassenoff’s status with the firm. Our primary obligation is to maintain and protect the core values and best interests of our firm, our clients, our lawyers and our professional staff. Allan has been on a short leave of absence and has now resigned from the firm, effective immediately. The firm is sensitive to the needs of the three children, the primary victims of the situation, and therefore will be creating a dedicated trust fund with an independent trustee for the sole benefit of these children, to be voluntarily funded by the lawyers and staff of our firm. We wish healing and privacy to the children during this very difficult situation.”

I refer you to a couple of articles that summarize that situation:

https://msmagazine.com/2023/06/12/allan-kassenoff-resigns/ https://msmagazine.com/2023/06/20/catherine-kassenoff-family-court-divorce-bandy-lee/

I have become aware of this matter through my longstanding association with Dr. Bandy Lee, a distinguished professional (https://bandylee.com) whose integrity and stature in her field are impeccable and beyond reproach in all regards. At my request, she has shared with me some details of this situation with her sister, niece, and nephew caused by the deeply troubling pattern of completely false accusations and the outrageous manipulations of the Family Court system by Alan Chan. Introduced by Dr. Lee, I have also come to know her sister, Patricia Lee and as a result have looked into this whole matter in detail. I can with total surety attest to her exemplary character and the profound injustice and unconscionable wrongs she has suffered by the contemptable actions of your associate, Alan Chan.

Among other things, Dr. Lee is a New York Times bestselling author, and my understanding is that she is working on an exposé of the Family Courts that have been corrupted enough for Alan Chan to weaponize unconscionably and unjustly against his family. That in itself is a matter of considerable public importance, which I know Dr. Lee and others are currently pursuing, in the form of a documentary and a television series, not to mention possible major media appearances once Dr. Lee’s book is out. I have reviewed very extensive, now publicly available legal filings about this situation and urge you to do so also. Among the information publicly available are Dr. Lee’s writings on her Medium publication (https://bandyxlee.medium.com/) and her books, Exposing Family Court and Judicial Violence: Anatomy of a Family Court Case, which are available on Amazon (my understanding is that the big book is still coming).

Dr. Lee has been in consultation with several prominent legal figures, including Laurence Tribe, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School, and Bruce Fein, among the best-known and most respected attorneys in Washington, who have expressed deep concern over what Alan Chan has done so grossly and wrongly, and how his ongoing association with your firm has facilitated his egregious actions. Given the severity of the situation, I believe it is imperative that you take immediate action to investigate Alan Chan’s past and current conduct and determine the appropriate course of action under all the circumstances, including a recent court-ordered legal restraining order issued against him.

I do not know if you have previously been aware of this serious situation in which your firm is so involved, but now with this communication there is no excuse for your not knowing and not acting. Failure to respond in the face of such information would be not just morally wrong but I think quite possibly legally implicating for you. Failure to take action now could indicate a gross lack of accountability, serious disregard for the extreme abuses against his family caused by Alan Chan, a lack of due and required professional diligence, and complicity by yourself and your firm with Alan Chan, who has been your associate for many years. Though I do not practice law myself, I do have a J.D. degree from NYU Law School, where I was a prestigious Root-Tilden Scholar, and after extensively looking into this matter I have become aware of what seem to me serious potential liabilities and ramifications for your firm. Consequently, I strongly encourage you to address this matter with the urgency and seriousness it warrants, before it is too late, to avoid what may now happen in both the courts of law as well as media and public opinion that could substantially involve and impact your firm.

Taking everything urgently into consideration, I trust that you will quickly take the necessary steps to investigate this matter thoroughly and take appropriate actions. Please consider this communication as a formal request for your prompt response, as two children and an ex-spouse are literally in mortal danger, even as Alan Chan is on a restraining order, because of his ability to maneuver the courts. I have sent this letter via receipted delivery, and I ask that you contact me by email, phone, or mail within three days of receiving this information. If you would like, I can and will provide additional information and assistance to you, your firm, and any legal or media representation you may have. Should I not hear from you, however, I will be forced to conclude that further steps are necessary, including contacting additional individuals and entities associated with your organization.

N.C.

—

CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST ALAN T. CHAN (from the Affidavit of Bandy Lee, submitted on behalf of Patricia Lee under Durable Power of Attorney, due to Family Court-caused disability)

N.J.S.A. 2C:33–4. Harassment

N.J.S.A. 2C:12–1. Aggravated Assaults

N.J.S.A. 2C:5–1. Criminal Attempts at Homicide

N.J.S.A. 2C:14–2. Sexual Assaults

N.J.S.A. 2C:15–1. Robbery

N.J.S.A. 2C:18–2. Burglary

N.J.S.A. 2C:12–3. Terroristic Threats

N.J.S.A. 2C:17–3. Criminal Mischief

N.J.S.A. 2C:12–10. Stalking

N.J.S.A. 2C:13–5. Criminal Coercion (as Added to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991)

[image error]

DR. BANDY LEE FILES LAWSUIT WITH IMPEACHMENT INITIATIVE TO BRING TRANSPARENCY TO STAR CHAMBER-LIKE…

DR. BANDY LEE FILES LAWSUIT WITH IMPEACHMENT INITIATIVE TO BRING TRANSPARENCY TO STAR CHAMBER-LIKE FAMILY COURT

Press Release — For Immediate Distribution

New York City

Contact: (917) 328–2492

Family Courts are notoriously secretive, like the Star Chamber in England, which was abolished approximately four centuries ago.

Transparency is indispensable for deterring Family Court abuses, including judicial bias or witness perjury.

Dr. Bandy Lee’s lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey challenges the constitutionality of the secrecy cloud that hovers over Family Courts nationwide. The Judge in Dr. Lee’s case censored her writing about Family Court proceedings, ordering it removed from the Internet and holding her in contempt under threat of imprisonment if she speaks or writes about the serious abuses she has professionally witnessed— a prior restraint in blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Both Doctor Lee and her constitutionally acclaimed Attorney Bruce Fein are available to media — bandy@bandylee.com & bruce@feinpoints.com.

Dr. Lee has appeared on many media programs and authored bestselling books. Much has been written about her, including this major article: “The Psychiatrist who Warned Us that Trump would Unleash Violence was Absolutely Right,” and many others linked at her website BandyLee.com.

Chief Judge of Family Court Jane Gallina-Mecca, who tolerates chronic abuses of due process and free speech violations, in order to hide gross human rights violations, will be referred to the New Jersey Assembly to consider impeachment proceedings guided by Mr. Fein.

###############################################################

Long Version:

DR. BANDY LEE FILES LAWSUIT TO PROTECT FREE SPEECH

IMPEACHMENT TO FOLLOW

New York City

Contact: (917) 328–2492

Psychiatrist and medical doctor, Bandy X. Lee, M.D. (bandylee.com), has just filed an important First Amendment case in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Famed constitutional lawyer and scholar, Bruce Fein, Esq., is her attorney from Washington, DC.

Both Doctor Lee and Attorney Fein are available to speak with the media about this important matter — bandy@bandylee.com & bruce@feinpoints.com

Dr. Lee previously boldly stood up to Yale University — where she taught at the medical and law schools for 17 years — at the very onset of academic censorship and violations of Free Speech in our era. She has been applauded for doing so by a large number of legal scholars and fellow psychiatrists, including such renowned persons as Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, former White House Chief Ethics Counsel Richard Painter, and eminent psychiatrists and other professionals.

Dr. Lee became nationally known for her bestselling book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. She has appeared on many media programs and has written a number of other important books, all available on Amazon. Much has been written about her, including this major article: “The Psychiatrist Who Warned Us that Donald Trump Would Unleash Violence was Absolutely Right,” and many others linked at her website, BandyLee.com, or that of the World Mental Health Coalition, of which she is President.

Now, Dr. Lee is again fighting for Free Speech. She has filed a federal case because a dangerously corrupt and grossly unjust Family Court in New Jersey is attempting to censor her writings, ordering them removed from the Internet, and holding her in contempt under threat of imprisonment if she speaks or writes about the serious abuses she has professionally witnessed and uncovered.

Far from adjudicating the Law, Family Courts ironically function more like criminal enterprises, where the most heinous crimes are being committed against the most vulnerable members of society with impunity. Thousands of children and women have died unnecessarily, and hundreds of thousands of others have endured unspeakable suffering.

Shortly after Dr. Lee began speaking about the horrors she was witnessing in the Family Court system, she was stalked, harassed, and at one point falsely arrested. It was very apparent to her that she had become a threat to a corrupt 50-billion-dollars-a-year enterprise.

She came to the recognition that abuses in Family Courts are above all a First Amendment problem. She notes: “There is a reason why Free Speech is in the very First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as the first defense against abuses of power.”

Attorney Fein notes: “Family courts are notorious for discounting claims of domestic violence against women and minors. The phenomenon has been meticulously documented by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly, 53rd session, 19 June-14 July 2023, Agenda item 3, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, 13 April 2023.”

For the past two years, Dr. Lee has been investigating the severe abuses of power in the Family Courts throughout America, having become aware of the situation through her sister, who lost custody of her children without fault or due process to a compromised Family Court and then was undermined, financially drained, and targeted to the point where her life was threatened, so that she could not fight back.

The District Court lawsuit just filed is brought against a judge who ordered the unconstitutional takedown of articles about these abuses. Chief Judge of Family Court Jane Gallina-Mecca, who tolerates chronic abuses of due process and free speech violations, in order to effectuate gross human rights violations, will be referred to the New Jersey Assembly to consider impeachment proceedings. Attorney Fein, who helped impeach three U.S. presidents, will be writing the articles of impeachment.

The critical issues Dr. Lee raises in her lawsuit about the violation of her constitutional First Amendment rights, and the impeachment of the head Family Court judge for her human rights abuses, are of considerable national importance.

###############################################################

[image error]

A Disgrace to American Jurisprudence

Darkness Cannot Hide the Corrupt Family ‘Courts’

Far from adjudicating the Law, Family Courts function more like Star Chambers, where the most heinous crimes are committed against the most vulnerable members of society with impunity. Thousands of children and women have died unnecessarily over decades in the “anti-Courts” of Family Court. They are the epitome of judicial abuse par excellence, trafficking innocent lives in a(n at minimum) 50-billion-dollar industry, but no reform is possible as long as they keep Sunlight away from their atrocities. Their genocide-level crimes are hidden through the isolation and decimation of victims, elimination of witnesses, intimidation of reporters, and mayhem and murder — much like in totalitarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia or Russia.

As I started to speak about the horrors I was witnessing, it became clear to me that Family Court abuses are above all a First Amendment problem: they stalked, harassed, and falsely arrested me, while news agencies publishing my interviews were threatened and ordered to take down their articles. Then, they tried to silence me through a phony “protective order,” a bogus contempt finding, and the threat of incarceration. There is a reason why Free Speech is in the very First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as the first defense against tyranny. I have therefore filed a federal lawsuit against violators of my Free Speech, as follows:

COMPLAINT

Comes now Plaintiff, BANDY X. LEE, through her undersigned attorneys, and files this Complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages against Defendants EVELYN NISSIRIOS and MICHAEL ANTONIEWICZ for flagrant violation of Plaintiff’s right to due process and freedom of speech under color of state law in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff states as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

1. This Court possess federal question subject matter over Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because they arise under federal law, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

2. This Court possesses personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they reside in this District the transactions and occurrences that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.

VENUE

3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) (1) and (2) because Defendants reside in the District and the transactions and occurrences that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Dr. BANDY X. LEE is a forensic and social psychiatrist and a world expert on violence who taught at Yale School of Medicine and Yale Law School for 17 years before joining the Harvard Program in Psychiatry and the Law. Plaintiff resides in New York City.

5. DR. LEE is currently president of the World Mental Health Coalition, the largest professional organization to address the problem of dangerous leadership and its contribution to a “mental health pandemic.’’ During medical school, DR. LEE also obtained a divinity degree to expand her understanding of the human condition and later did a fellowship in social psychiatry. Trained at Yale and Harvard Universities, she was chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital and a research fellow at the National Institute of Mental Health. At Yale Law School, she taught clinical courses covering the mental health aspects of asylum law, criminal justice, and veteran legal services. Her clinical practice consists of psychiatric services at maximum-security prisons and in state hospitals, in addition to working as an expert witness for criminal and civil courts. At Yale College, she was a popular professor who taught the Global Health Studies course, “Violence: Causes and Cures.” Most recently, with multiple world experts in the field, she helped to co-found the Violence Prevention Institute, which has been commissioned to investigate reforming all forty-four prisons of New York State. Lee served as Director of Research for the Center for the Study of Violence (Harvard, U. Penn., N.Y.U., and Yale), co founded Yale’

6. DR. LEE authored what is considered the most comprehensive textbook on the subject to date, “Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences, and Cures” (Wiley­ Blackwell, 2019), used in university courses worldwide, published over 100 peer-reviewed articles and chapters, and edited 17 scholarly books and journal special issues. She penned over 300 opinion editorials in outlets such as the Guardian, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Independent, and Politico. The World Mental Health Coalition is an educational organization that assembles mental health expe11s to collaborate with other disciplines for the betterment of public mental health and public safety.

7. Defendant EVELYN F. NISSIRIOS is a New Jersey attorney. Defendant Nissirios has been appointed guardian ad /item for Plaintiff’s niece and nephew in Plaintiff’s brother-in-law’s divorce proceedings against Plaintiff’s sister.

8. Defendant Judge MICHAEL ANTONIEWICZ sits on the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division-Family Part-Bergen County.

INTRODUCTION

9. Family courts are notorious for discounting claims of domestic violence against women and minors in child custody proceedings. The phenomenon has been meticulously documented by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly, 53rd session, 19 June-14 July 2023, Agenda item 3, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, 13 April 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/en/specialprocedures/sr-violence-against-women. Among other things, the report noted, “The tendency to dismiss the history of domestic violence and abuse in custody cases extends to cases where mothers and/or children themselves have brought forward credible allegations of physical or sexual abuse. In several countries, family courts have tended to judge such allegations as deliberate efforts by mothers to manipulate their children and to separate themselves from their fathers.”

10. Parties in family court commonly are without knowledge or resources to defend their rights. Transparency thus plays a pivotal role in deterring judicial abuses. It discourages perjury, the misconduct of participants, and decisions based on secret or open bias or partiality. Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 569 (1980). Jeremy Bentham similarly noted, “Without publicity, all other checks are insufficient: in comparison to publicity, all other checks are of small amount.” 1 J. Bentham Rationale of Judicial Evidence 524 (1827).

STATEMENT

11. Plaintiff, Dr. Bandy X. Lee, has written extensively about mental health issues that often arise in Family Court or otherwise.

12. Plaintiff naturally took a keen interest in her sister’s divorce-child custody case in Bergen County, New Jersey. She posted scores of articles about the case alleging bias and unfairness on Medium and Substack often using pejoratives to characterize Co-Defendant Nissirios’ actions as guardian ad litem of her niece and nephew.

13. None of the Plaintiff’s postings disparaging Co-Defendant Nissirios prompted the latter to sue for defamation where truth is a constitutional defense under the First Amendment.

14. Instead, Co-Defendant Nissirios obtained a temporary protective order (TPO) from Co­ Defendant Judge Antoniewicz to evade truth as a defense on December 5, 2024, sub. nom. Evelyn Nissirios v. Bandy Lee, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division-Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No.: FV-02–74–25. Among other things, the TPO falsely declared, “By consent, Bandy Lee shall remove all posts regarding [Evelyn Nissirios] including any links that Bandy Lee has control over pending further Order of the Court.”

15. Plaintiff Bandy Lee immediately informed the Court that she had not authorized her then attorney to remove her posts regarding Co-Defendant Nissirios; and that she was silenced from raising this objection by the Court clerk who muted her microphone. Plaintiff later submitted an undisputed Declaration repeating that she had never authorized her attorney to consent to removing Plaintiff’s posts. Plaintiff’s former attorney Tricia Lindsay has not disputed Plaintiff’s Declaration.

16. Plaintiff’s posts regarding Co-Defendant Nissirios (four in number) are fully protected by the First Amendment. See e.g., Exhibit 1 (https://medium.com/@bandyxlee/my-proposal-to-a-family-court-judge-jane-gallina-mecca-e3eaf24e3938). No court has ever found any of the postings defamatory or otherwise unlawful. To the extent Co-Defendant Nissirios knew about the postings, it was because she voluntarily chose to visit relevant websites.

17. Notwithstanding the December 5 TPO, Plaintiff did not remove her posts regarding Nissirios because the TRO was flagrantly unconstitutional on at least two grounds: Plaintiff never consented to remove her posts; and, the posts were fully protected by the First Amendment.

18. On January 10, 2025, a hearing was held before Co-Defendant Judge Antoniewicz on Co­ Defendant Nissirios’ motion to hold Plaintiff in contempt for violating the flagrantly unconstitutional TPO in declining to remove her posts relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios.

19. Co-Defendant Judge Antoniewicz held Plaintiff in contempt of the TPO, and ordered Plaintiff to pay $5,381.25 in counsel fees to Co-Defendant Nissirios. Co-Defendant Antoniewicz prohibited Plaintiff from reiterating the twin constitutional defenses she had previously raised against the December 5, 2024, TPO but which Co-Defendant Antoniewicz also refused to entertain at that time: namely, that (1) Plaintiff did not authorize her attorney to consent to the removal of her posts relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios; and, (2) Plaintiff’s posts were protected under the First Amendment.

20. Since the January 10, 2025, hearing and contempt finding, Plaintiff has removed her posts relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios under duress. Plaintiff has been chilled against writing new posts about Co-Defendant Nissirios in violation of the First Amendment for fear of another court finding of contempt and possible jail time. Because of the chilling effect against Plaintiff, transparency in judicial proceedings-especially Family Court — that deters lawlessness, wrongdoing, or misbehavior has been diminished contrary to the public interest in the fair administration of justice.

COUNT I-FREE SPEECH-NISSIRIOS

21. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–20 as if they were alleged anew.

22. Co-Defendant Nissirios acted jointly or in cooperation with Co-Defendant Antoniewicz to issue the TPO on December 5, 2024, unconstitutionally requiring Plaintiff to remove her electronic postings relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios in violation of due process and free speech and to find Plaintiff in contempt of the TPO on January 10, 2025, and impose sanctions in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

23. The violation of Plaintiff’s free speech contravened clearly established constitutional law as expounded by the United States Supreme Court.

24. Suppression of free speech even provisionally automatically establishes irreparable harm under Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) and its progeny. Everyday Co-Defendant Antoniewicz’s December 5, 2024, TRO remains in effect is a further violation of Plaintiff’s free speech rights. See e.g., New York Times v. United States, 401 U.S. 713 (1971).

COUNT 2-FREE SPEECH-ANTONIEWICZ

25. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–24.

26. Co-Defendant Antoniewicz acted jointly or in cooperation with Co-Defendant Nissirios to issue the TPO on December 5, 2024, unconstitutionally requiring Plaintiff to remove her electronic postings relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios in violation of due process and free speech and to find Plaintiff in contempt of the TPO on January 10, 2025, and impose sanctions in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

27. The violation of Plaintiff’s free speech contravened clearly established constitutional law as expounded by the United States Supreme Court.

28. Suppression of free speech even provisionally automatically establishes irreparable harm under Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,373 (1976) and its progeny. Everyday Co-Defendant Antoniewicz’s December 5, 2024, TRO remains in effect is a further violation of Plaintiff’s free speech rights. See e.g., New York Times v. United States, 401 U.S. 713 (197 l ).

COUNT 3-DUE PROCESS-ANTONIEWICZ

29. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–28.

30. Co-Defendant Antoniewicz prohibited Plaintiff from disavowing her lawyer’s unauthorized consent to remove her postings regarding Co-Defendant Nissirios in issuing its December 5, 2024, TPO against Plaintiff and refused to entertain Plaintiff’s due process and First Amendment challenges to Co-Defendant Nissirios’ January 10, 2025, contempt motion for violating the TPO in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. An unconstitutional court order like an unconstitutional statute cannot serve as the predicate to sanction a violation, a clearly established constitutional rule expounded by the United States Supreme Court.

31. Suppression of free speech even provisionally automatically establishes irreparable harm under Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,373 (1976) and its progeny. Everyday Co-Defendant Antoniewicz’s December 5, 2024, TRO remains in effect is a further violation of Plaintiff’s free speech rights. See e.g., New York Times v. United States, 401 U.S. 713 (1971).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to grant the following relief:

(a) Enter judgment for Plaintiff on Counts 1, 2, and 3;

(b) Declare the December 5, 2024 TPO directing Plaintiff to remove her online posts relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios unconstitutional and enjoin Co-Defendant Antoniewicz from enforcing the TPO, including invalidation of the January 10, 2025, sanction imposed on Plaintiff for violating the unconstitutional order.

© Award nominal damages against Co-Defendant Nissirios and Co-Defendant Antoniewicz;

(d) Award attorney’s fees under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 1988; and,

(e) Such other relief as this Court finds just and proper in the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

ls/Bruce Fein

Bruce Fein

Law Offices of Bruce Fein

[image error]

Can an Attempted Murderer ‘Preside’ over a Restraining Order against Her Own Accomplice?

Jane Gallina-Mecca’s Gall Never Ends, but Her End is Coming

“Judge” Jane Gallina-Mecca is no ordinary attempted murderer; she is a documented serial murderer, who has facilitated the brutal murders of multiple domestic violence victims whose children she also destroyed. Yet, she knows that no criminal charges can be brought against her, as long as she operates under a guise of “judicial immunity.” Of course, immunity is not supposed to cover criminal deeds, but she has honed her “skills” of squeezing in all manner of felony crimes and acts of brutality under her “judicial” canopy and burying them under “legalese” — after all, this is her “profession”! Luckily for her, in the so-called “Family Courts,” where there is total secrecy, no accountability, and unlimited discretion, it does not take genius to do so. Indeed, it is truly ironic that society has set up conditions for the most heinous criminals to congregate as “judges” to preside over (i.e., prey upon) the most vulnerable members of society.

In following the case of my sister, Patricia Lee, I have examined intimately how a “judge” may facilitate the kidnappings, torture, and attempted murders of innocent children and the adults who try to protect them. As a forensic psychiatrist who has studied human violence for twenty-five years, I am no stranger to the behavior of criminals who, when caught in the criminal act, do not correct their behavior but attempt to eliminate witnesses. Currently, Patricia Lee is a witness of Gallina-Mecca’s felony crimes, and thus Gallina-Mecca has reinserted herself to “preside” over a restraining order against her own accomplice. There is great incentive for Gallina-Mecca to eliminate my sister, since, even though Gallina-Mecca has extended her illegal gag order beyond the end of Patricia Lee’s divorce, the revelation of her crimes is only a matter of time.

Gallina-Mecca co-conspired with her violent ex-husband, Alan T. Chan, from the very beginning. The post-separation period is when victims of domestic violence are at the greatest risk of being murdered, and Gallina-Mecca acted in every way as Alan T. Chan’s hired hitwoman. I was present when she authorized a violent police raid, for no reason other than to attempt to murder Patricia Lee, within hours of her reporting to the Court her life-threatening medical emergency. The false excuse for the raid was that Patricia Lee was supposedly “absconding” with her children, but it was the weekend she was specifically assigned to have them by the guardian ad litem and agreed to by Alan T. Chan himself! The police detective instantly dropped the charges against Patricia Lee once the false pretext was exposed, but Gallina-Mecca continued to push her false narrative to keep the mother away from her children, against all evidence, so that Alan T. Chan could actually kidnap and isolate them!

Every outside agent Gallina-Mecca employed turned out to be either criminal or fraudulent: (a) the “children’s therapist” Gallina-Mecca mandated for the children was removed by her licensing board for abusing them; (b) the sole “expert” report Gallina-Mecca honored, by the Center for Evaluation and Counseling, turned out to be by an unlicensed and unqualified “associate counselor”; (c) the school principal Gallina-Mecca used, via secret court orders, to entrap and arrest medical doctors attempting to report child abuse, has been disgraced and demoted; (d) the pediatrician Gallina-Mecca enlisted, to fabricate medical records that the children were doing “glowingly” well under Alan T. Chan, has been criminally indicted; and (e) the “guardian ad litem” Gallina-Mecca relied on, for the illegal transfer of custody to Alan T. Chan, turned out to have lied and perjured in court six hundred (600) documented times — and is under prosecutor review for felony crimes!

Patricia Lee’s latest attempt at an emergency appeal follows, but the fact that no amount of true, life-threatening emergency would ever allow an Appellate Division to hold Chief Judge of Family Court accountable (especially when half the Appellate Court is her cronies), partly reveals how 60,000 children every year are trafficked to their rape, torture, battery, and murder through the Family Courts. Meanwhile, the parents — usually mothers — who try to protect their children are usually the only ones persecuted and prosecuted through judicial abuses, until they actually die.

Application for Permission to File Emergent Motion

What is the nature of the emergency?

[Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca], who has consistently acted in ways that assist my documented violent abuser, [Alan T. Chan], to continue his violence and attempts to murder me, is now insisting on taking over my temporary restraining order (TRO) case against him, so that my protection will be removed. She canceled a TRO against him once before, which resulted in his kidnapping my two (2) children, my suffering eight (8) medically-documented near-death episodes that included one (1) intensive care unit admission, and my currently being paralyzed from the waist down.

What is the irreparable harm, and when do you expect the harm to occur?

The irreparable harm is my imminent death, as numerous treating physicians and medical expert witnesses have attested to. There is extreme incentive, as [Judge Gallina-Mecca] allowed a documented abuser [Alan T. Chan], who nearly killed both his children by head injury, to kidnap them and hold them hostage, in order to claim all marital assets, as well as aim for the house ($1.3 million) and my life insurance ($1 million). This is consistent with [Judge Gallina-Mecca] ordering me to keep my life insurance even after my divorce, while facilitating my “medical” demise, as she has permitted Alan T. Chan to use agents to seize the house over his TRO.

What relief do you seek?

Removal of [Judge Gallina-Mecca] from all proceedings and a change of venue. The Judge is under a Motion to Recuse, a federal lawsuit, a complaint to the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, prosecutor review, and an impeachment petition, in which I participated for the irreparable injuries she has already caused me. I am also in a documentary and in two (2) books about her that are soon to be published. She is simply too conflicted, biased, personally involved, and furious with me to be an impartial arbiter in any proceeding. Her involvement would simply be to carry out her personal vendetta against me.

Have you filed for a stay before the trial court or agency?

Yes. None are ever addressed, no matter how many I file, since the incentive to protect [the innocent] is not there. Only the extreme opposite, or the incentive to harm, because of my daring to demand justice of an unjust court [and to interfere with the Judge’s and Alan T. Chan’s plans for financial profiting through the illegal kidnap of my children].

If you did not immediately seek a stay from the trial court or agency, or if you did not immediately file this application with the Appellate Division after the trial court or agency denied your stay application, explain the reasons for the delay.

This is a new motion, based on new attempts by [Judge Gallina-Mecca] to retain control over all my cases, since her extreme violations and endangerment of lives are certain to leave any reasonable observer aghast. She has kept her misconduct from scrutiny through an illegally-issued Sealing Order, threats and intimidation against my attorneys, retaliation against my witnesses, and replacement of other judges (once, she canceled an already-scheduled judge to force in her crony, who was not even available until last minute; on another occasion, she herself returned from vacation to ensure that no one else would hear my case).

What is the essence of the order, judgment or agency decision?

The decision lays down a predictable path for [Judge Gallina-Mecca] to cancel a temporary restraining order (TRO) against her favored litigant [Alan T. Chan], which was issued by another judge. [Her] decisions are all predetermined to favor Alan T. Chan, no matter how injurious, violent, and murderous he becomes. No amount of proven criminality on his part, or his financial incentives and history of financial fraud — reaching millions of dollars in fines and federal sanctions by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — has caused [Judge Gallina-Mecca] to change her mind. She throws temper outbursts when facts and evidence do not match her preferred world view [that favors Alan T. Chan], and expresses visible pleasure at the suffering of domestic violence victims — and apparently, at least six (6) are reported to have been murdered under her watch.

Has any aspect of this matter been presented to or considered by another judge or part of the Appellate Division by emergent application or prior appeal proceedings?

Yes. The Appellate Division has been unresponsive, even rebuking at times of my supposedly “frivolous” filings. Yet, my life continues to be at risk, and the dangers are only escalating. A foremost constitutional scholar has advised that this may be a sign that the New Jersey court system is irredeemably corrupt.

Please give a brief summary of your case.

A Motion to Recuse has been filed, followed by a Notice of Withdrawal requesting all proceedings to be removed from [Judge Gallina-Mecca] until her Motion to Recuse could be heard. Nevertheless, [she] reinserted herself in a new motion as well as a new temporary restraining order (TRO) case, in order to control the outcome and to ensure the protection of a [violent criminal, Alan T. Chan,] she has been shielding from prosecution for the last four-and-a-half (4.5) years. The reason my life is endangered, and I almost died eight (8) medically-documented times under her watch, is because Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca is not presiding over a divorce but using the excuse to grant a violent criminal and financial fraudster everything he desires. What she gave Alan T. Chan is what I deserved: full, sole custody of my children, child support, alimony, and penalties for his litigation fraud. Instead, in order to reverse victim and offender and to reward him with all that I was due, she struck down my pleading for supposedly “contumacious” behavior — namely, seeking justice — and blocked me from access to all court documents, including motions filed against me and secret court orders that were used to suppress evidence and to retaliate against witnesses. All the facts, evidence, and witnesses support my side. Yet, [Judge Gallina-Mecca] negated six (6) reports by highly-qualified medical experts declaring the plaintiff a dangerous psychopath who should not have my children, and ten (10) reports by highly-respected psychiatric experts unanimously stating that I have “excellent mental health” and “exceptional talent in parenting.” [Judge Gallina-Mecca] even suppressed her own appointed guardian ad litem’s report that I am fully mentally competent, in order to push ahead with her committed agenda to railroad me. She accepted six hundred (600) documented lies and perjury by her favored court appointee, Evelyn Nissirios, and over one thousand (1000) documented acts of perjury by [Alan T. Chan], as fact, to strip me of everything, including my life. She was deemed to be mentally unfit by experts, but nothing has been done.

*Please join our effort to impeach Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca . We are now moving ahead with the articles of impeachment, and are collecting affidavits! If you have an affidavit to contribute, please write to: bandy@bandylee.com .

[image error]

A Lack of Transparency Leads to a Lack of Accountability in Family Court

Murder and Mayhem are Par for the Course — and will Remain So as Long as Family Courts are Allowed Secrecy

tone deaf to human suffering, indifferent to the loss of lives

Our Challenge to the Ban on Naming Sara Sharif Judges was Always about Scrutiny, Not Blame

Light must be shed on the vital life-changing decisions that are made behind closed doors in Britain’s family courts

Louise Tickle and Hannah Summers

26 Jan 2025

In the wood-panelled courtroom, with low winter light filtering through high windows, our barrister sat down after making his final submissions, and Mr Justice Williams began to speak. It had taken us 14 months to reach this moment at the Royal Courts of Justice, to hear the high court judge’s decision on our application for disclosure of confidential documents in three sets of family court proceedings relating to the murdered schoolgirl Sara Sharif — and whether we would be allowed to publish the information they contained.

And for a few minutes, from a press freedom perspective, it seemed that things were going well: Williams gave what we believe is unprecedented permission for disclosure of dozens of documents.

And then he dropped a bombshell: none of the three judges who had made decisions about the Sharif children’s safety and welfare could be named. Two of them had made single, urgent protective orders; the third had presided over most of the proceedings, and made the final order placing the children with their father, Urfan Sharif, and stepmother, Beinash Batool, who went on to murder Sara.

It is a cornerstone of open justice that the names of judges — from magistrates up to supreme court justices — are known to the public in respect of the weighty and life-changing decisions they make. Their powers are derived from us, through laws enacted by parliament, and exercised on behalf of us all. And despite hearing cases behind closed doors, family courts are no exception to this principle: it is children whose privacy the law protects, not professionals. And this includes — well, had always included up to that moment — the judges. We looked at each other, appalled. Our barrister, Chris Barnes, who had represented us pro bono for more than a year and whose advocacy had been pivotal in securing the reporting permissions, glanced round at us, his eyebrows raised. No application for anonymity had been made by the judges. No evidence of a threat had been put before the court. Throughout many hearings regarding the media’s wish to scrutinise and publish information relating to a case of high public interest, and at a point when murder convictions in the criminal trial looked almost certain, there had been no mention of anonymising the family court judges. Not that day. Not ever.

In fact, their names could have been lawfully published at any time up to that point. We raised objections. Williams maintained his order. Within hours, we asked for leave to appeal against his decision. He did not grant it, saying instead we had to wait for his judgment with full reasons for him imposing the ban, and giving us no date for when this might land. It was now evening on Friday 13 December. We had no option but to go over his head and ask the court of appeal.

By the Monday, we had lodged our application. By Thursday, we had been granted permission to appeal by the master of the rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos. And he had grasped the urgency: a hearing was listed to take place on 14 and 15 January. Williams, on holiday, was asked to expedite his judgment, and did. And then the second bombshell dropped. In his judgment, Williams publicly branded our journalism as unfair, inaccurate and irresponsible after we reported in this newspaper that he had “refused” us permission to appeal. Now, as well as the ability to scrutinise the judges at the apex of the child protection processes which had led to Sara Sharif being placed with those who would go on to murder her, our hard-won reputations as responsible reporters on the family justice system were on the line too. As freelancers in respect of our work on this case, we are hugely grateful to Tortoise Media and Law for Change for support with the costs of bringing this challenge to what we believed was an unlawful ban on freedom of expression. On 14 January, we arrived at court hopeful but apprehensive. Ten days later, on Friday, the judgment was handed down. We had won — on all three of the grounds on which we had appealed.

Three court of appeal judges ruled that Williams did not have the power to order that the judges should not be named, and agreed with us that the process he had undertaken in making that decision had been procedurally irregular. Furthermore, they said that he had been “inappropriate” and “unfair” to us personally, and to the media in general.

This is important, not just to us, but because, as our barrister stated, press organisations do not expect to have their reporters’ integrity questioned when they turn up to do their job in court; the negative comments about us and the wider media were not ones Williams was entitled to make. It is an approach that flies in the face of serious and sustained efforts by the senior judiciary to encourage more journalists to attend family courts, and could not sit more uncomfortably with the full rollout of the successful “reporting pilot” to all family courts in England and Wales on Monday. This switches the presumption against journalists being able to report on what takes place in family courts, so that subject to strict anonymity rules, they can.

If Williams’ criticism of us had not been addressed, it could have had a chilling effect on our ability to face down future challenges when seeking disclosure and publication permissions in crucial public interest cases — creating a disservice to the public understanding of the decisions taking place behind closed doors for tens of thousands of families across the land.

In stinging language not often seen in a judgment, Vos went on: “The mistake the judge made was to think that he could properly trawl through his own experiences to create a case for anonymising the judges. He should not have done so. Courts operate on the basis of the law and the evidence, not on the basis of judicial speculation and anecdote… In short, the judge’s judgment demonstrates, to put the matter moderately, that he got carried away.”

The key function of a judge is to be fair, not to speculate, and in particular not to get “carried away”. And it is such a shame he did, because we believe that the permissions Williams gave the media — to publish information in the public interest regarding a vulnerable family where safety concerns were well known to the child protection and family justice system — were an important win for transparency and public accountability, and a credit to him.

Unfortunately, he has arguably increased the intensity of any public reaction to the judges by placing them so firmly in the spotlight. By banning their names from being published, he intensified the media coverage and aroused suspicion about their conduct. Yes, he may have said in his judgment that they did nothing wrong, but that will not have been the takeaway of the general public. The average person is not going to read his lengthy judgment — all they will hear is that he wanted to protect his fellow judges.

Our appeal was never about naming and shaming individual judges; it was about the wider principle that those who exercise state power need to be known. If we anonymise these judges, where does it end? Many state organisations and professionals were involved in the child protection concerns relating to the Sharif children. It is our hope that the judges will be seen as just one element in that broader picture. What is needed now is real effort to work out what went wrong in this heartbreaking case where a young girl’s life was taken, and what might need to change. Information and scrutiny are vital tools in this endeavour.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/26/our-challenge-to-the-ban-on-naming-sara-sharif-judges-was-always-about-scrutiny-not-blame?CMP=share_btn_url&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Sara Sharif Murder: ‘Sadist’ Father and Stepmother Jailed for ife

Urfan Sharif, 43, and Beinash Batool, 30, sentenced for killing 10-year-old who was found dead in Surrey home

Emine Sinmaz

17 Dec 2024

Sara Sharif’s mother called her daughter’s murderers “sadists and executioners” as they were jailed for life.

Olga Domin joined the Old Bailey hearing remotely as Urfan Sharif, 43, and Beinash Batool, 30, were sentenced for killing the schoolgirl.

On Tuesday the judge, Mr Justice Cavanagh, described the campaign of abuse meted out on Sara as “torture” as he condemned the defendants for not showing “a shred of remorse”.

His voice shook as he described some of the injuries suffered by Sara, who was “trussed up” with masking tape and a skipping rope and hooded with plastic bags, saying: “This treatment of a 10-year-old child is nothing short of gruesome.” Had she lived, he said, one of her burns would have caused permanent disfigurement.

Sharif and Batool were found guilty of Sara’s murder last Wednesday after an eight-week trial at the Old Bailey. Sara’s paternal uncle, Faisal Malik, 29, who was living with the family at the time, was found not guilty of murder but was convicted of causing or allowing her death.

Cavanagh sentenced Sharif to a minimum term of 40 years and Batool to a minimum term of 33 years. Malik was jailed for 16 years.

The judge said: “Sara’s death was the culmination of years of neglect, frequent assaults and what can only be described as the torture of this small child, mainly, but not entirely, at the hands of you, her father, Urfan Sharif.

“The degree of cruelty involved is almost inconceivable. This happened in plain sight, in front of the rest of the family, including, for the last eight months of Sara’s life, in front of you, Faisal Malik.

“The courts at the Old Bailey have been witness to many accounts of awful crimes, but few can have been more terrible than the account of the despicable treatment of this poor child that the jury in this case have had to endure.”

The prosecutor, William Emlyn Jones KC, said Sara was subjected to serious violence from at least the age of six, with a variety of weapons such as a cricket bat, a domestic iron and an improvised metal truncheon made from the broken leg of a high chair.

In a victim impact statement read out at the Old Bailey, Domin said she had been under “constant psychological supervision” since her daughter’s death as she called the defendants “cowards”.

She said: “Sara was always smiling. She had her own unique character. The only thing I had left to give to my daughter was to give her a beautiful Catholic funeral that she deserves. She is now an angel who looks down on us from heaven, she is no longer experiencing violence. To this day I can’t understand how someone can be such a sadist to a child.”

Addressing the defendants in the dock, Domin, who joined the hearing from her native Poland, said: “You are sadists, although even this word is not enough for you. I would say you are executioners.”

Sara was found dead in a bunk bed at the family home in Surrey on 10 August 2023. The couple had killed her two days earlier and fled to Pakistan, from where Sharif called police to say he had beaten her up “too much” for being naughty. He had left a handwritten “confession” near her fully clothed body, saying: “I swear to God that my intention was not to kill her. But I lost it.”

Sara Sharif when she was 4 years old. Photograph: Surrey Police/Reuters

A postmortem examination found Sara had 71 external injuries, including bruises, burns and human bite marks. She also had at least 25 fractures, including 11 to her spine.

The judge said Sharif “plainly derived grim satisfaction” from the sustained violence, and that he had done everything possible to avoid punishment for murder, saying: “You are suffused with self-pity.” He added it was hard to contemplate the “stress, pain and trauma” suffered by Sara, who must have been “in a constant state of terror”.

He said Sara was treated as “a skivvy” in the family from a young age and was made to do the washing, tidy the house and care for her youngest sibling. Cavanagh added he had no doubt that Sharif singled out Sara for abuse because she was a girl, she was not a child of his current marriage and she was prepared to stand up to him.

Addressing Sharif’s motives, the judge said: “Sara was a brave, feisty and spirited child. She was not submissive, as you wanted her to be. She stood up to you.”

The judge said Sara could be seen smiling and dancing in a video taken two days before her death even though her mobility was impaired by that point. He said: “It is clear that Sara stood up for herself and remained positive and cheerful in the most terrible circumstances. She was a very courageous little girl, with an unquenchable spirit.”

He said the assaults on Sara took place in front of other children, which would have had a “brutalising effect” on them, and that “grotesque” punishments were inflicted on her in the weeks before she died.

The judge said: “Sara was tied up and was even hooded, by a grotesque combination of parcel tape, rope, and a plastic bag. She was not even allowed to go to the toilet, but was put in pull-up nappies, and was left to wallow in her own urine and faeces. The torture got worse. She was burned with an iron and boiling water was poured on her ankles.”

He said Batool encouraged and assisted Sharif in the assaults and was “prepared to sacrifice Sara” because she was frightened of losing her own children.

He added: “I can be sure that you took part in the tying up and hooding of Sara: this was not the work of one individual, and Sara was tied up even when Urfan Sharif was not in the house.

“Still further, I have no doubt that you were present at and involved in the burning of Sara with an iron, which led to the terrible burns on her buttocks. This was a two-person job: one to hold Sara and one to press the iron on to her body.”

The judge said Malik had failed to take any steps to protect Sara.

The jail terms will take into account time served on remand, with a minimum term of 38 years and 272 days for Sharif and 31 years and 272 days for Batool.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/17/sara-sharif-father-and-stepmother-jailed-for-her-murder

[image error]

The Circular Circus of Family Court (and the Courts that Surround It)

A Family Court Judge Interfered with Civil Court to Protect Her Underling; Will She Interfere with Appellate Court, Too?

Much has happened since my first article on Evelyn Nissirios almost two years ago. However, since she had a Family Court judge issue an unconstitutional prior restraint on publication — one of the worst violations of the First Amendment — I simply copy here what is on the public record. Below is Patricia Lee’s appeal of Nissirios’ sanctions against her for filing a lawsuit at all:

Your Honors,

This lawsuit is far from frivolous, and the actions of Respondent Evelyn Nissirios demand full accountability. Respondent Nissirios’ claim of absolute judicial immunity does not shield her from the egregious, unlawful actions she committed outside the scope of her court-appointed duties. Her conduct not only violated my rights but also inflicted irreparable harm on my children and others involved.

The following are actions for which Respondent Nissirios is directly and unequivocally guilty:

1. Orchestrating a violent, unlawful police raid to abduct my children without warning or due process: On the very weekend Respondent Nissirios authorized me to have my children, she lied to law enforcement to forcibly seize them, violating my constitutional rights and traumatizing the children.

2. Perpetrating six hundred (600) documented lies and acts of perjury in official proceedings: Respondent Nissirios knowingly and willfully lied in court to strip me of custody and deprive me of any contact with my children, whom I raised successfully since birth.

3. Suppressing exculpatory evidence: Respondent Nissirios concealed ten (10) psychiatric reports unanimously confirming my mental health and parenting competence. This deliberate suppression of evidence ensured an unjust outcome.

4. Violating Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and jeopardizing the safety of others: Respondent Nissirios unlawfully disclosed the identities of victim informants who reported on the father’s dangerousness, directly placing their lives in danger. This blatant disregard for federal law and basic ethics demonstrates her malicious intent.

5. Conspiring with the father to facilitate abuse and cover up his crimes: Respondent Nissirios actively colluded with my ex-spouse to secure illegitimate custody of the children he abused, injured, and nearly killed. Her criminal involvement in this conspiracy is undeniable.

6. Retaliating against witnesses: Respondent Nissirios weaponized her authority to intimidate and punish witnesses through malicious prosecution and false arrests, suppressing critical testimony that could have exposed her misconduct.

7. Attempting to cause my medical demise: Respondent Nissirios’ actions led to six (6) near-fatal episodes, as documented by my treating physicians and medical experts. Her conduct left me with post-traumatic stress disorder and required a five (5)-day hospitalization in the intensive care unit.

These actions go far beyond her duty to represent the best interests of children under Section 5:8B of the New Jersey Court Rules. Her claim of immunity fails under Hawkins v. Harris (1995), which limits immunity to communications “made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; [that] that have some connection or logical relation” to them. Her criminal actions — including acting as the abuser’s personal attorney, daily phone collusion, and violation of my constitutional rights — fall outside this protection.

Proof of Guilt

Respondent Nissirios’ guilt is further cemented by the following facts:

• Intentional perjury: six hundred (600) documented lies in court proceedings were instrumental in depriving me of custody without just cause.

• Traumatizing children: Respondent Nissirios weaponized her authority to alienate me from my children, telling them I abandoned them and would never see them again. This inflicted severe emotional harm on innocent children.

• Suppression of truth: Respondent Nissirios intentionally suppressed evidence that vindicated me, further proving her intent to manipulate the judicial process for personal and unlawful gain.

• Endangerment of lives: By violating HIPAA, Respondent Nissirios endangered informants and witnesses, an action both criminal and ethically indefensible.

• Bias and interference: Respondent Nissirios’ influence over Judge Gallina-Mecca and others corrupted the legal process, turning the courts into an instrument of her personal vendetta.

Judicial Misconduct and Abuse of Process

The trial court’s dismissal of my lawsuit, based solely on litigation privilege without reviewing evidence, underscores the institutional bias protecting Respondent Nissirios’ criminal actions. The escalation of sanctions — from 5,000 to 27,000 dollars — was based on Respondent Nissirios introducing irrelevant material into a sanctions hearing. This manipulation turned the hearing into an indictment based on presumption, not facts or evidence.

The Respondent Nissirios’ claim that I leaked information for a news article is baseless. She has provided no proof, and I had no prior knowledge of the article. Holding me accountable for external publications is absurd and lacks both legal and factual merit.

Conclusion

The Respondent Nissirios’ actions have caused irreversible harm to me, my children, and others involved. Her criminal conduct, including six hundred (600) acts of perjury, unlawful child abduction, HIPAA violations, and conspiracy, demands accountability. If the Court allows judicial actors to act with impunity, it sets a dangerous precedent where justice is subverted, and lives are destroyed.

I respectfully urge the Court to overturn the sanctions against me and hold Respondent Nissirios accountable for her deliberate, malicious, and unlawful actions. Justice requires not only the acknowledgment of her guilt but also the imposition of appropriate legal consequences. Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia J. Lee

—

Before filing her appeal, she wrote the following motion for reconsideration to Civil Court Judge Rachelle Harz:

PATRICIA J. LEE, of full age, certifies as follows:

1. I am the plaintiff in this matter. I am fully familiar with the facts set forth here. I make this Certification in my motion for reconsideration of the amount of sanctions ordered against me.

2. The question, Your Honor, is why did you do an about face by totally contradicting yourself on January 27, 2023, from what you explicitly expressed on October 28, 2022? It is like I experienced the rulings of two different judges. On October 28, 2022, you said 5000 dollars, and then on January 27, 2023, you went up more than five times, to almost 27,000 dollars, because of an article, which you attributed to me without any evidence or proof, based solely on your anger.

3. Your anger was apparent when you read the article and then diverted your total attention to exclusively addressing only Defendant Nissirios’ very biased point of view, which obscured any objectivity or fairness on your part.

4. Your Honor also concluded the hearing in a manner that denied my attorney the opportunity to give any response, when you brought the hearing to an abrupt end. Both my attorney and I were speechless at the overall derailment of the proceedings.

5. It seemed as if you had already made up your mind and did not wish to hear another word, so that my side was not able to address Defendant’s false accusations and the abominable lies she made to this Court.

6. Instead, a session that was supposed to be a simple determination of the amount of sanctions turned into a new indictment and prosecution, in which Your Honor was saying: “I don’t like this article. I am so angry, I am going to increase your penalty five times.” In doing so, Your Honor almost exclusively cited the credentials of Defendant Evelyn Nissirios’ hirees, hardly mentioning me, despite the fact that I have lost the custody of my children, my constitutional rights, my reputation, and the intrinsic, priceless joy of being a loving mother to my children because of Defendant’s relentless campaign of slander, egregious lies, and character assassination against me.

7. It is inexplicable that, without any reason or justification, you suddenly changed your demeanor and seemed to echo the words of the Family Court Judge. Forgive me, but it was quite obvious that you were going far beyond ordinary professional courtesy. Why else would you change your mind about the $5000 penalty, after the case was already dismissed and decided upon, to raise it to more than five times the amount?

8. That I broke the court seal and somehow influenced all these third-party professionals to write their articles is a false narrative of a litigant in a court that is obsessed with making a case against me, where the court actors do not even pretend to be independent of one another.

9. Presumption of guilt without justification or proof has been the approach of Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca’s Family Court — and now it appears that the Law Division Court is following suit. It is as if Your Honor were making a case for Defendant, with the implication that I was guilty of all her baseless accusations.

10. I am reluctant to say this, but in prior court hearings, I was beyond despair when you read my pro se brief, commented on how brilliantly written it was, and then read your pre-written ruling. What does that say about this Court? I went from despair to dread when my attorney argued for forty-five minutes, made a brilliant argument himself, and you again read a pre-written ruling.

11. Your Honor emphasized that Defendant is a “practicing attorney with a reputation.” What about my reputation, having once been hailed as a hero of September 11, 2001, as the youngest appointee to the Executive Chamber of Governor George Pataki and chief coordinator for the First Responders, the Mayor’s Office, and the FBI on Ground Zero, after the greatest attack on U.S. soil in the nation’s history? Before Ms. Nissirios’ machinations to steal my children, I was a loving mother, reputed in the neighborhood to be “the best mom.”

12. Yet, Your Honor indulged Defendant Nissirios as you spent approximately thirty of the forty-minute hearing speaking about articles that Defendant exhibited. Defendant may be upset about these articles, but they have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Defendant can sue the author for defamation if anything were untrue.

13. Your Honor additionally stated that the billing rates are “extremely low for litigation billing in Bergen County” and that Defense counsel was “blatantly honest when he said that these are significant discount rates.” Your Honor additionally added: “I am certainly not going to touch the hourly rates, as they are well below reasonable hourly rates.”

14. This statement is unfathomable, as Your Honor seems to have gone out of your way to recite research in support of Your Honor’s reasoning for the exponential increases in sanctions amount.

15. Your Honor proceeded to say: “Gordon and Rees is a national law firm with over a thousand attorneys and thirty attorneys based in the New Jersey law office,” as if you were an advertisement for the Defense’s law firm.

16. This is the total antithesis of the attitude you demonstrated at the previous session, when you stated that 5000 dollars was reasonable and more than fair. What caused this inexplicable contradiction on your part? [Now, there is evidence that Judge Gallina-Mecca has intervened with at least six (6) judges outside of her court; few have exhibited such blatant influence from her as Judge Harz, who dramatically increased sanctions from 5000 to 27,000 dollars upon Judge Gallina-Mecca’s interference.]

17. Your Honor continued to spend considerable time dwelling on Attys. Mark Trokan’s and Izik Gutkin’s curricula vitae, as if you were desperately trying to make a case to justify increasing the sanctions amount more than five times of what you thought was fair less than three months before.

18. I would ask why this Court did not even spend a fraction of that time to go through the sampling of the truly stellar curricula vitae of many professionals that Ms. Nissirios willfully and intentionally suppressed in support of my husband, Alan T. Chan. These renowned, highly-reputed professionals had a medical consensus that Mr. Chan is a danger to his children and meets criteria for a dangerous psychiatric diagnosis that precludes parenting.

19. That a presiding judge could describe a defendant this way is very disturbing. By inexplicably changing your mind — you have indicated that you are unduly influenced from the Family Court, justifying your actions with contrived and tangential comments.

20. How do I address two courts, the Family Court and the Law Division Court, when both courts have exceeded their legal authority, with extreme bias against me, and in so doing violated not only my constitutional rights — but the rights of two innocent, helpless children?

21. If Your Honor has granted Ms. Nissirios an opportunity to build an entirely new indictment of me at a sanctions amount determination hearing, then allow me, in turn, to make my important case here that judicial immunity applies neither to Defendant nor to Judge Gallina-Mecca.

22. Defendant has, along with the Judge, stepped outside her legally-authorized role to perjure, criminally conspire, maliciously prosecute, and kidnap my children without due process, evidence, or justification. That Ms. Nissirios does not deserve judicial immunity, but rather deserves disbarment, prosecution, and punishment, should be plain to anyone who is willing to look at the irrefutable evidence, which I ask this Court to do in order to determine that sanctions are not even appropriate, much less the eventual exorbitant amount.

23. My husband’s crimes are recounted in Exhibit 1, whereby he lied to the police and the Family Court in his scheme to illegally abduct his children fifteen (15) months ago, causing their acute, unprecedented school absences, academic and physical deterioration, and unexplained injuries. His illegal abduction and false imprisonment of the children he is accused of abusing, and against whom he was on temporary restraining order for injuring, would not have been possible without Ms. Nissirios’ help.

24. [My sister, Dr. Bandy Lee] was barred from seeing her niece and nephew because Mr. Chan, fearing that he would be unmasked as a criminal child abuser, had intentionally made such a request to the Family Court. Dr. Lee is a psychiatrist with impeccable credentials as a world-renowned expert on violence who had assisted a United Nations (UN) Secretary-General in drafting the UN chapter, “Violence against Children.”

25. Ms. Nissirios and Judge Gallina-Mecca have nothing to say on the substance, but they all wish to silence Dr. Lee, who has been operating as an independent agent doing her own research. Now, she is writing a book, and the word is out — people are watching my case, and it does not take my breaking a seal to know that the Family Court has turned a blind eye to my children being kidnapped by their abuser, their rapid deterioration, and their not being allowed even one second to be with their mother, their beloved aunt, or a qualified medical professional. This is because Mr. Chan lives in abject terror that his abuse will be exposed.

26. It is inconceivable that judicial immunity could be applied to situations of exploitation of judicial authority and criminality under the color of law, to assist a violent offender to abduct and torture his innocent children. Such tyrannical, arbitrary actions do not warrant the enjoyment of judicial immunity but deserve removal from the bench, if not from the Bar.

27. The way this Court has acted, I am not allowed to talk to my closest support, my lawyer is not allowed to present to me key motions, and there is a seal against my knowing about critical aspects of my own case. How could a Court deny me my constitutional right to talk to my one support in the world, my own sister, about my case? In the history of jurisprudence, no judge has ever so denied the constitutional rights of a litigant.

28. The idea that this Court is using its seal to prevent me from defending myself is unconstitutional and illegal. Further, you have now changed your mind to punish me incomprehensibly because someone else wrote something that I had nothing to do with. I came to this Court seeking justice, but it is clear that this Court is not independent, that Judge Gallina-Mecca has extended her authority, and the Family Court is directing the Law Division Court.

29. The real tragedy is that this Court has illegally used its power to deny the rights of two innocent children, to irreparably damage and destroy their lives, and to unconstitutionally deprive a loving mother of the custody of my children without due process….

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

PATRICIA J. LEE

Dated: January 30, 2023

*Help us to expose the Family Courts: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-us-to-expose-the-dangerous-case-of-family-courts

[image error]

Sunshine on the Saddle River Board of Education!

Because Evelyn Nissirios will Not be Returning

The Saddle River community is celebrating, at long last, the riddance from its Board of Education a perpetrator of what would have been felony crimes against countless children — except for “judicial immunity” that has morphed into impunity. Their efforts of mobilizing and voting her out over a year ago, only to have her scheme her way back deviously and to drive out her duly-elected replacement, has been written about extensively. Evelyn Nissirios is exemplary of what corruption does: it places in positions of authority exactly those who should not be there. In turn, unfit and dangerous individuals wreak havoc and destruction upon the very system they were supposed to support. And to hide that destructiveness, they go for position after position, turning “ethics committees” into systems of criminal coverup, “the legal profession” into legalized violence, and “Family Court” into organized crime.

This is why “winning” elections is so important to them, and this past season, a small community seems to have been put through nothing short of hell:

I am writing you with great concern as I have become aware of Evelyn Nissirios’ horrific behavior through word of mouth and [now through news] articles.

I’m intimately involved with the Evelyn Nissirios situation in Saddle River…. I feel this situation is disgusting.

[Nissirios] is running again for the Board of Ed. in Saddle River [and] has mounted a horrific smear campaign against the other candidates…. The situation is beyond belief.

A group of us have been working to try and [debunk Nissirios’] lies and exaggerations about her opponents through our town’s social media groups and via phone calls.

Nissirios intentionally cheated or at the very least unethically manipulated the process.

I appreciate you bringing this situation with [Nissirios to our] attention,… reflecting the Board’s dysfunctional operation.

[Last year, despite] three other qualified candidates applying, the Board chose [Nissirios], highlighting their corrupt process to arrive at this decision…. the Board [despite her criminal charges] is encouraging her campaign for reelection.

I am kind of afraid of what she may try to do to me or my family…. we live in a very small community and retaliation by someone with power who appears to be unhinged is not something that I can afford.

[Nissirios] is pitting people against each other, and it’s absolutely shameful.

We need to stop this monster before she is again appointed to our School Board.

[Nissirios] has collected a few people who are working on her behalf to help spread her slander, and it feels like it’s becoming a battle of good versus evil, all over a seat on the Board. It is the most gross behavior by a mother, member of our community and representative of our school that I have ever seen.

[Nissirios] even enlisted other town residents to do her dirty work and execute a constant barrage of attacks. It was relentless, and it was disgusting.

We worked very hard and the two challengers to her and two other Board of Education trustees up for reelection were put through absolute hell by [Nissirios] and her minions.

On a positive note, [Nissirios] lost by a landslide and came in last out of five candidates. A massive blow to her inflated ego, so I’m sure she’s plotting her revenge this very moment.

I [hope] that you will get a judge that is willing to do the right thing and silence her, adding punishment where punishment is due to allow [for] justice….

It took heroic effort to get her out, but the community rose to the occasion and achieved its aim against incredible odds, and now the healing from years of destruction can begin.

In this case, the Board of Education had harbored for years, against the community’s wishes and despite its voting her out a year ago, a perpetrator of unspeakable crimes against vulnerable children! As a result, the community suffered great losses to a school culture they had built and cherished over decades, innocent children were marred in their educational opportunities for life, and caring parents fighting for justice were assaulted and traumatized — because no one expected a Board of Education member to be a violent thug.

The public still does not have full knowledge of her abuses, in part because it is beyond imagination: sending dozens of children to their torture, battery, rape, and sex trafficking, year after year, while retaliating against witnesses and attempting to murder loving parents who resist, is simply beyond credulity for most of civilized society. No one would believe that our Family Court system, under which she operates, could be so depraved and debauched as to sacrifice innocent children for profit, and that law enforcement could be so ineffectual as to let go of such big fish while catching only small fry (if not actually serve as footmen for criminals, which in the case of Family Courts they do). Yet, this is standard operating procedure in the Family Courts, which teem with those deserving of the death penalty in some states committing the same crimes under a cloak of “judicial immunity.”

Nissirios, in a sense, is a tragic figure. What causes a person to abduct children from their loving parents, force their separation, and tell the children their loving parent abandoned them, no longer loves them, and does not wish to see them? What induces a person, in a desire to eliminate witnesses, to character-assassinate the loving parent by falsely arresting them, humiliating them before their communities, and traumatizing them to a psychological breaking point if not death? (the number of young mothers who die from grief, suicide, “broken heart syndrome,” heart attack, or cancer in the Family Courts is staggering). The better the parent for the children, and the more law-abiding, upstanding, and professionally successful the person, the more viciously, maliciously, and sadistically Nissirios goes after them. She ought to be contained and be offered therapy, but instead she is given power. Nissirios betrays public trust when she abuses the “army” of the judicial system to invade your previously peaceful and prosperous home, to take your children, and to give them over to unimaginable violence, of which the Saddle River community has had an infinitesimal glimpse.

*Many have written to me with gratitude for my articles, for alerting them in advance of the dangers they faced, for helping them to make sense of an incomprehensible situation, and — God forbid if they too became victims of violence — for supporting their ability to cope by knowing they are not alone. This is psychiatrically important, since sometimes the most dangerous individuals our society produces are the least detectable and the most likely to escape accountability. This is also civically important, since the purpose of the Fourth Estate is to educate, inform, and alert the public, especially of governmental institutions that fail them. As a foremost Constitutional scholar of the country has confirmed, protections of my reporting are embedded in the founding documents of this Nation. The U.S. Constitution, to

insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

asserts the will of the People and provides checks and balances against excesses of government. The Bill of Rights, after

adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added … as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government [to] best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The very First Amendment it added says:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, since criminals upon being exposed typically do not change behavior but simply retaliate against those who speak about their behavior, Evelyn Nissirios’ course of action is as expected. Rest assured: the Law is clear. Nissirios may believe that a corrupt judiciary is her protection from all prosecution, but one day she will overextend herself, as abusers always do, and her house of cards will come crumbling down.

[image error]

Family Court Demands Surrender of First Amendment Rights in Exchange for Fair Trial

Nothing Terrifies Family Courts More than Exposure

Exposure is what Family Courts fear the most — for they would never be able to get away with their heinous crimes against innocent children and loving parents, if the public got wind of it. This is why they would do anything to force me to take down my public articles. First, Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca tried illegally to threaten that major magazine articles containing my interviews “shall be immediately removed, deleted, and unpublished immediately” — but received a stern rebuke instead for violating the U.S. Constitution, as she did in the Washington Post almost a decade earlier. Now, she has recruited Judge Michael Antoniewicz, at her beck and call as his direct superior, for Gallina-Mecca is the chief judge of Family Court, to which he belongs. Trying to step in where Gallina-Mecca failed, he must fit a square peg into a round hole by calling an unconstitutional prior restraint on publication — one of the worst violations of First Amendment Freedom of Expression — a “protective order.”

Evelyn Nissirios, minion of Gallina-Mecca, is the applicant, of course — and she requires no protective order! No one has harassed or stalked her, and her life is not in danger. My sister and I, on the other hand, have been stalked, harassed, and falsely arrested by Nissirios, who attempted to cause my sister’s “medical” demise, in proven co-conspiracy with her violent ex-husband — and almost succeeded at least twice — as well as independently threatened her life four times that required hospitalization since Nissirios’ abuse of these “protective orders” began. Judge Antoniewicz, who has turned a blind eye to these assaults, which could rise to the level of attempted murder, may be complicit.

My articles have literally kept us alive, and they are fulfilling the function they are supposed to: to criticize government officials who abuse their authority to harm the public — in this case to the point of near death. I will be spelling out what is happening, step by step, so that the public is aware of what occurs in the secretive Family Courts — “where scumbags and sociopaths gather,” in the surprising but accurate words of an eminent constitutional scholar.

December 5, 2024

Judge Antoniewicz:

First and foremost, I would like to advise the Court that I have decided to resume pro se and to proceed immediately with the trial, as early as today.

It is very unfortunate that I was not permitted to communicate or interject during the court session yesterday. I could not explain that my attorney miscommunicated what I expressed to her during our brief conference. Furthermore, my attorney needed no more than a week or two to prepare, but the Court pushed the next trial date into January, which is unacceptable to me.

My stance from the very beginning is that this temporary protective order (TPO) is simply an extreme violation of my Constitutional First Amendment rights — nothing more, nothing less. My opponent had an appropriate vehicle for addressing her grievances: a defamation lawsuit. Yet, she proceeded with this unprecedented abuse of a phony TPO, in order to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

At this point, no one wishes to proceed with this trial more than I, since the TPO itself is already an egregious violation of my First Amendment rights, ironically while denying me due process.

Atty. Conte’s stipulation that I take down all my previous articles in exchange for giving my attorney a couple weeks of preparation is quite outrageous and unprecedented in my 25 years of experience serving as an expert witness for courts of law all around the United States. It shows just how desperate my opponent is to suppress my Freedom of Speech, in order to stifle valid criticisms of her. Therefore, I have decided to forego counsel so that the trial can immediately proceed.

Atty. Conte’s suggestion that I purposely delayed the trial is offensive and more indicative of how my opponent thinks. She uses “absolute judicial immunity” and tricks of procedure — including her close affiliations with this Court — to get away with violent, felony crimes with impunity, which is the very subject of my articles: criticisms of an individual who abuses public immunity to cause public harm. She seeks illegitimate immunity for her 600 slanderous and libelous lies in my sister’s case, and 44 acts of perjury in this one, by means of a sham protective order — and this is just one example of her psychopathic ways.*

*I have previously advised this Court of my being retained to assess her level of psychopathy by a client who is planning to sue her for financial fraud. Additionally, dozens of litigants have reported to me her consistent pattern of pathological lying, which even attorneys have confirmed is beyond the pale.

The loss of even a day is unfortunate for all of us, but the truth is, I first contacted [my choice of lawyer] two months ago, but she was running for elected office and then had to go out of the country, as this Court was informed. Then, only last month did we learn that [the attorney for Patricia Lee] would not admit her pro hac vice because of conflict of interest, given her stance that our cases have no connection whatsoever — with which I happen to agree. Therefore, [my choice of lawyer] had to look for another sponsor.

This Court is already aware of my vehement objections to every adjournment. This trial, which was supposed to resume on August 13, 2024, has been continuously adjourned because of this Court’s adamant insistence on joining together the two unrelated cases of Patricia Lee and myself. Each time my co-defendant needed an adjournment or my opponent needed a vacation, I, also, ran into conflicts that required me to request unwanted postponements.

Then, the Court suddenly and inexplicably adjourned midway into the hearing hour, as we were waiting in the courtroom, on October 18, 2024 — despite the irrefutable fact that the plaintiff pulled out her unauthorized submission and both co-defendants agreed the day before that we should proceed as originally scheduled.

Indeed, I have contacted the clerk numerous times in vigorous objection of the court order that erroneously stated the hearing was adjourned by “Request of Defendant” — when in fact I experienced the Court’s arbitrary adjournment, halfway into the court session time, as extreme prejudice and further violation of my First Amendment rights.

My co-defendant, Patricia Lee, was furthermore so upset by the sudden adjournment, that she landed in the emergency room the next day with the highest, life-threatening blood pressures ever recorded for her (which, in the context of the plaintiff’s consistent pattern of behavior for the last four years, was the nefarious goal and hidden agenda of plaintiff’s constant maneuvering of “surprise attacks” — even while violating all court rules — to instigate Patricia Lee’s stress-induced high blood pressure crises*).

*I had also reported, as a physician and a family member, how the plaintiff’s TPO itself caused Patricia Lee stress-induced, life-threatening blood pressures since July 2024, which has necessitated five months of almost total bedrest and, in the past month, two hospitalizations with the second requiring five days in the intensive care unit.

I would hasten to interject and remind the Court of how it bulldozed ahead with a trial — with its unexpected and unprecedented denial of our Constitutional right to look for counsel on the very first day — which ironically became the cause of our motions to dismiss being denied. It is indeed ironic that, in this Court’s desperate attempt to conjure up a protective order for Evelyn Nissirios, it is assisting her plans to “DARVO”, or the perpetrators’ typical scheme to “deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender,” in order to hide their guilt.

To summarize, it is incorrect that I have abused process in any way, but on the contrary have been extremely prejudiced from the numerous adjournments of this case, as a TPO has turned into a presumptive First Amendment violation without due process. I have therefore decided to continue pro se, and for Your Honor to resume this trial as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Bandy Lee, M.D., M.Div.

[Of course, the trial was not resumed, and I had to let go of an attorney who was pressured into agreeing to take down my articles in exchange for the minimal preparation time for my defense. John Conte, Nissirios’ lawyer, who made the big ruckus about the trial being delayed — so much so that he demanded the said compromise of my attorney — was quiet as a mouse about the trial not being resumed.]

*Please join a public effort to impeach Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca who, as head of Bergen County Family Court, has corrupted the entire system — from the entire Family Court to civil court, appellate court, the assignment judge, a municipal judge, and Child Protective Services, not to mention the press — by extending her meddling hands into everything!

[image error]