1)    List of articles as they appear on blog .    SORRY- website does NOT list titles with links to each article, so you must scroll down through each entry.  They are not numbered on the site.  20 total  incl.  list,   4/18/09

2)   My comments (& NYT article below) noting Brooklyn Dist. Atty Hynes & police corruption;  ?? justice across U.S.          Published      4/18/09

3)   NY State Commission on Judicial Conduct Dismissal of Complaint vs Judge Carolyn Demarest +

       refusal to recuse     (Dismissal despite 40 pgs documented complaints)      Published on blog 3/5/09

4)    Recusal Papers filed vs Judge Carolyn Demarest re Brooklyn, NY Taub v Taub divorce case                                     Published  on blog 2/10/09

5)   One proof of lifetime advocacy - positive response letter from 1986 re improving public school education   (Begins-"If only your insights & enthusiasm could be bottled & shipped around the U.S.")                                                                                                                                                                    Published on blog 2/5/09

6)   Letter to World Jewish Congress Foundation re petition to stop discrimination (to lead must set

        better example here)               Published on blog 2/5/09)

7)  Barack Obama letter to STGlascoff re my 2005 report, "Big Pic re Legal Reform, All Topics, butEsp.Family Issues"    (Obama agreed need for reforms,liked ideas)     Published on blog 2/5/09 

8)   NYTimes Letter to Editor re, "If This Isn't Slavery, What Is," Nicholas Kristof    (re sex trafficking worldwide, but says U.S. only "sometimes," yet NYT reported 60,000/yr HERE in article couple yrs ago)

          (Jan.  4, 2009), Jan. 8                           Published 2/4/09

9)   Respected Advocate Calls for Legal System and Media Accountability.  (web press release)

                                                                                       Published on blog  2/4/09

10)   Press release -Cambridge Who's Who for member Susan T. Glascoff - legal/media accountability & win/win ideas   (member several who's whos, exs- Who's Who in Amer, WW in Amer.  Women, etc.)                                                                                             Published on blog  11/25/08  (but on web 12/5)

11)   Press release by Kipling's Who's Who for member Susan Titus Glascoff -legal and media accountability Nov.'08                                 Published  11/25/08

12)   Letters from 7 others, plus mine, re NYTimes blatantly distorting facts in Oct. 5, 2008 article re Taub court case      (I & Taub sisters interviewed by NYT for 7 hours)           Published   on blog 11/25/08

13)   NYCity Mayor Bloomberg- Request to get 225 mayor coalition to discuss legal accountability, July, 2008      (No answer ever received even though promised)       Published  on blog  11/25/08

14)   Commission on Presidential Debates, Nov. 16, 2007, Fahrenkopf, Kirk, Kennedy -request to discuss legal reform (No answer received although bd. member made request)  Published on blog   11/25/08          

15)   Impact on Taxpayers of Systematic Devastation of Families, but EspeciallyWomen and Children, in U.S. “Divorce” Courts Impedes Leadership   (prepared for my speech 4/08 at Atlanta, GA Summit on Econ. Justice for Women; NY judge estimated $4500 to operate one courtROOM for one day )                                                                                                      Published on blog  4/24/08

16)  Honorable Ariel Belen, Aug 8. 07 letter, 10/27 update, Taub case      (Said could do nothing re complaints)                                                                          Published on blog    10/30/07

17)   Professional of the Year in Advocacy (Currently Legal Accountability of all

    types, but Especially Family Courts)                                        Published on blog  5/25/07

18)   Public Demand for Presidential Campaign Debates Regarding the Need for Judicial Accountability and Legal Ethics Enforcement           (petition on web for 2004

presidential election to get public request to have legal accountability discussed-

    (petition was aborted as website was broken into & web sponsor refused to fix it)

       (11 MILLION websites were asking for reforms!)                                        Published   on blog  5/24/07

19)   (My) Presentation to the NY Matrimonial Commission  (speech by me to them in Feb.2005

                                                  Published on blog  5/24/07            

20)  Dysfunctional families and dysfunctional family courts- We MUST interrelate  

  issues.      (Gives many varied examples)                                                           Published on blog  5/23/07

At the Matrimonial Part 5 J of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse located at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the ____ day of _________, 2008.

P R E S E N T :         HON. CAROLYN E. DEMAREST

                                    Justice, Supreme Court

------------------------------------------------------------------x

CHANA TAUB,

                                                                                            Index No. 26534/07

                                                            Plaintiff,                 

                                    -against-                                          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

SIMON TAUB,                                                                    Oral argument is requested

                                                            Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

            Upon reading and filing the annexed affirmation of Chana Taub, affirmed the 26^th  day of September, 2008, upon the annexed affirmation of Chana Taub’s attorney, Neil Iovino, Esq., affirmed the 26th day of September, 2008, upon the annexed exhibits, and upon all of the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein,

Let Simon Taub, or his attorney, show cause before this Court at Part 5 J of the Supreme Court at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the 7th

Page 1 (from total of 45,+ 2,16,17,23,24,33,34,38,40,45), then pg 1, 2 from 48 more

PAGE 2         day of  October, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why an Order should not be made and entered herein:

1.      Recusing the presiding justice in connection with the above captioned case; and

2.      For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and appropriate.

SUFFICIENT CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, it is

ORDERED, that pending the hearing and determination of this Order to

Show Cause, this court shall not issue any further decisions, orders, or directives; and it is further

ORDERED, that service of a copy of this Order to Show Cause and

the papers upon which it is based upon Simon Taub’s attorneys, Mallow, Konstam & Hager, P.C., at 321 Broadway, New York, New York 10007, by overnight delivery, on or before the ______ day of _______________, 2008, shall be deemed good and sufficient service; and it is further

ORDERED, that opposition papers, if any, shall be served upon Chana Taub’s attorney and filed with the Court, so as to be received in hand by both the Court and Chana Taub’s counsel no later than 12:00 noon on                          page 2

PAGE 16      it has been shown (again) that the court has been operating under a mistaken belief? 

39.  If this court is not biased and prejudiced against me, I would invite this court to search the record to find one criticism of Mr. Taub and his financial misconduct and violation of court orders.  

40.  This court has criticized and demeaned me for being on the “14^th or 15^th lawyer”.  See Exhibit 1, page 28 lines 19 to 21.  While this is false and not even close, Mr. Taub has had more attorneys than me in all these legal proceedings.  In addition, Mr. Taub has been coming to almost each court appearance accompanied by two attorneys who are both partners of the same law firm.  Yet, where is the court’s criticism of Mr. Taub?  What is the source of payment of Mr. Taub’s legal fees on the one hand, yet inability to pay even $350.00 per week as court ordered on the other hand?

  41.  There have never been any issues of fact that this is a long term marriage, that I have never worked during the marriage, that Mr. Taub did not want me to work during the marriage, that he wanted me to raise our children and maintain a Jewish home, that I do not have a college degree, and that Mr. Taub earns well over $250,000.00 per year.  Yet, and this court granted me only $350.00 per week maintenance  for my support on the one hand, yet directed me to contribute $2,000.00 on a $5,000.00 mortgage.  In effect, the court ordered me to do something that was impossible for me to do.  However, the court does state in response to comments by Mr. Taub’s attorney and my not contributing

 PAGE 17     $2,000.00 per month that the court could put me in jail.  (See Exhibit 1 page 42, lines 11 to 13.) 

42.  How can there not be prejudice and bias, or the appearance of prejudice and bias, when a court orders a person to pay $2,000.00 per month toward a mortgage, yet receive only $1,400.00 per month in interim maintenance?  As will be detailed below, this court acknowledged it did not know how I was going to get the money to make up the shortfall.

43.  With only Mr. Taub  collecting rent on his properties and my properties, yet only the properties in my name are in foreclosure, but none of Mr. Taub’s properties are in foreclosure, how can the court say there is no bias or prejudice when I am not enabled by the court to receive the rents and pay the expenses on the properties I own?  The court never questions Mr. Taub about how he is able to keep his properties out of foreclosure but not the marital residence, for example, which is just in my name.  (See Exhibit 1, page 54, lines 1 to 7; page 55, line 7 to page 56 line 5.)

44.  The court ordered Mr. Taub to pay all of the monthly mortgage charges on the marital residence.  (See Exhibit 1 page 57, lines 16 to 17.  See also Exhibit 11—Order  dated October 30, 2007.)

            45.  I then brought a contempt proceeding because Mr. Taub was not paying the mortgage on the marital residence or the $350.00 per week interim maintenance.  Rather than dealing with Mr. Taub’s violations of a  court order, the court stated “I am not concerned about contempt.  I am concerned about going forward.”  (See Exhibit 1, page 33 line 25, to page 34, line 2.)

PAGE 23         59.  On the one hand, the court does not look at my exhibits and records that prove the points I make and, on the other hand, accepts Mr. Taub’s mere say so.  For instance, on March 7, 2008, in connection with a contempt application I brought against Mr. Taub, the court states:  “Now, as to this alleged contempt, I have accepted, based upon the documents that have been produced here, the representations of defendant [Mr. Taub] that he was unable to comply.  He’s saying it’s because he doesn’t have the money, but we don’t have to get there, because the foreclosure action precluded him from complying.  But now that’s been vacated.  I’m denying the motion for contempt against Mr. Taub based on the failure to comply with the October 30th order.”  See Exhibit 13, page 43 line 21 to page 44 line 4.  Yet, as detailed below, this court has stated that Mr. Taub is the only party with resources. 

60.  If there is no bias or prejudice, how can Mr. Taub have “resources” for some purposes, yet not have “money” for other purposes?

61.  Again, the court criticizes only me and states that “Mrs. Taub helped herself to an awful lot of money, which increased the amount of payments due on this [the marital residence]”.  See Exhibit 13, page 49, line 11 to page 50 line 8.  The court has no interest in determining any financial fault on the part of Mr. Taub such as Mr. Taub’s failure to pay only $350.00 per week for many months, his removal of even larger funds of money ($300,000.00 cash from a marital safe), and Mr. Taub’s interim collecting of rents on his and my real estate properties while not paying the expenses on my properties, which has resulted in PAGE 24         my properties going into foreclosure, but his properties remaining viable money makers.  

62.  If there is no bias or prejudice, why has this court refused to appoint a receiver on all properties as opposed to allowing Mr. Taub to manage his and mismanage my properties?

63.  How can there not be bias or prejudice when this court continually refuses to get to the bottom of these issues, but at every turn, is quick to criticize or punish me, yet dismiss or defer Mr. Taub’s financial fault?  

64.  In a proceeding before this court on April 4, 2008, when it was pointed out that Mr. Taub listed in his statement of net worth only four real estate properties in his name, my attorney pointed out that Mr. Taub listed as liabilities other even more significant real estate properties, but failed to note them as assets.  (See Exhibit 14, page 16, line 10 to page 18 line 3)  Yet the court never criticizes Mr. Taub for this obvious attempt at concealing his interest in certain assets.

65.  During these same proceedings On April 4, 2008, it is represented to the court that a motion has been made for all of the properties before Judge Knipel in the constructive trust action, except 1259 52^nd Street Brooklyn, New York, to be withdrawn or removed from that proceeding.  (See Exhibit 14, page 21, line 10 to 23.)  This is further evidence that a constructive trust action was orchestrated by Mr. Taub in order to tie up our marital assets.

66.  Real estate located at 10 Grand Avenue, 6-8 Grand Avenue and 23-27 Grand Avenue, all in Brooklyn, New York, were transferred by Mr. Taub to his

PAGE 33    socks every day, that Mr. Taub threatened to chop my hands off, that most of the time I was quiet and afraid to answer or question Mr. Taub, that I was so afraid to be with Mr. Taub that I slept in our daughter’s room.  Alexander further testified that if I ever objected to Mr. Taub’s conduct, Mr. Taub would behave even more violently, but that he never saw me scream at Mr. Taub.   Alexander even testified he was afraid of his father.  See Exhibit 18, transcripts of proceedings on March 19^th, 20^th, and 21^st, 2007.

            91.  Our daughter, Cheryl Taub, also testified regarding what she observed.  She testified that she loves her father but not what he’s doing to me.  See Exhibit 18, page 37.  She also testified that especially the last two years, Mr. Taub would come home every day and become enraged at me and scream at me for no reason, and if I were not home the minute he arrived, he would “just fly into a rage and start screaming and cursing her,” that she was scared of her father, that he broke off a door handle to our daughter’s room when I had sought refuge in my daughter’s room and that literally for several hours he was screaming at me, that if I tried to defend myself, Mr. Taub would get “more mad and start yelling more and throwing things around more”, he never gave me any credit for working so hard to prepare for Shabbat and the 20 to 30 guests he invited each week, that he would always tear up my mail, that I was assaulted by Mr. Taub who put his hands around my neck, threw a TV at me, and so on.  See Exhibit 18.  

PAGE 34     92.  She also testified she was afraid of her father who told Cheryl on one occasion he “would have no problem getting rid of my mother”, and on another occasion that he could easily stage a car accident.

            93.  Nechama Markovics, my daughter, also testified regarding Mr. Taub’s abuse.   Without repeating what our other children observed, she testified she observed Mr. Taub always treating me “like a slave”, that I did not defend myself because “She was too afraid of being punished”, that there was a safe in the house where large sums of cash were held, and that “My mother was never permitted to take any money out of that without permission, though she was forced to open it up and allow him to take out and remove large sum,” that during one of Mr. Taub’s fits of rage and anger, “He took apart the whole kitchen.  Everything that was there, he threw it out.  He went from one end to the other.”  See Exhibit 18.

            94.  Dr Evan Stark, a renowned expert on battered spouse syndrome and domestic violence and abuse, was only allowed to testify generally about battered spouse syndrome.  Although Dr. Stark had examined and interviewed me for many hours, Dr. Stark the court did not allow him to testify as to whether, in his opinion, I met the criteria of a battered woman.   If he had been allowed to testify, he would have testified that I was a battered woman, and that I had experienced the four dimensions of coercive control (violence, intimidation, isolation and control) and that this was all consistent with the pattern of everything known to be typical in these cases from the literature and clinical experience  (Exhibit 29). Certainly, his testimony would have added to the

(STGlascoff copying end of this paragraph which is on pg 35)-  “credibility of my claims that I have been abused throughout the marriage.  Nevertheless, because of the court’s bias and prejudice against me, the court accepted Mr. Taub’s claims that this expert should not be allowed to testify and offer an opinion in this case.”

                                  PAGE 38 follows

103.   The court repeatedly said I was not to be trusted with managing my own properties (Exhibit 16, page 62, lines 3-25 & page 63, lines 1-5).   In fact, on the official nyc.gov. website under building violations, Mr. Taub is listed as having 103 violations on his properties, most not corrected.  Unpaid fines show over $50,000 outstanding, and violations listed include fire violations, illegal apts. etc…  For buildings listed in my name for when I was managing them before filing for divorce in June 2005, there were listed only 2, no fines, and I corrected my violations quickly.  (See Exhibit 33 for nyc.gov violation printouts.) 

104.  Exhibit #29, note that Dr. Evan Stark sent Susan Titus Glascoff his summary of his interview with me.  He sent his observations to her since she has attended most of the hearings, starting with February 5, 2007. She was requested to attend by Monica Getz, President of the National Coalition for Family Justice.  The coalition observes when questionable court practices have been reported.  Ms. Glascoff and Ms. Getz attended twice together, and Ms. Getz attended most of the few times Ms. Glascoff could not. Ms. Glascoff has read most of the transcripts dating from the summer of 2005.  Both Ms. Getz and Ms. Glascoff have reported bias and illegalities to higher judges regarding my case.  Ms. Susan Titus Glascoff is the Executive Director of the National Advisory Board to the Coalition for Family Justice.  She is a lifelong public advocate and is a member of three “Who's Whos”. 
             105.   I am attaching herewith as Exhibit 34 my documentary – mostly verbatim quotes from this court, whose bias and prejudice is clearly evident at each of my appearances with this court for the past two years.  

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK               PAGE 40

COUNTY OF KINGS

------------------------------------------------------------------x

CHANA TAUB,

                                                                                              Index No. 26534/07

                                                Plaintiff,                 

                        -against-                                                         Attorney’s Affirmation

SIMON TAUB,                                  

                                                Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

            Neil Iovino, being an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:

            1.  I am Chana Taub’s attorney in the above entitled actions and submit this affirmation in support of the relief requested by Chana Taub in the annexed Order to Show Cause.

            2.   This motion is not precluded by the existing bankruptcy stay that exists pursuant to the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case under case number 08-44210.  The primary purpose of the bankruptcy stay is to put the Debtor and the Debtor’s property under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court.  See Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.  That this stay involves property of the estate is also evidenced by the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 which

(AGAIN STG copying top next pg -41)   “expanded scope of marital exceptions to Automatic Stay.. Included.. maintenance…. Recusal not involve debtor property.”

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS

------------------------------------------------------------------x

CHANA TAUB,

                                                                                              Index No. 26534/07

                                                Plaintiff,                 

                        -against-                                                         Attorney’s Affirmation

SIMON TAUB,                                  

                                                Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

            Neil Iovino, being an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:

            1.  I am Chana Taub’s attorney in the above entitled actions and submit this affirmation in support of the relief requested by Chana Taub in the annexed Order to Show Cause.

            2.   This motion is not precluded by the existing bankruptcy stay that exists pursuant to the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case under case number 08-44210.  The primary purpose of the bankruptcy stay is to put the Debtor and the Debtor’s property under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court.  See Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.  That this stay involves property of the estate is also evidenced by the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 which

(AGAIN STG copied top next pg- 41)  “expanded scope of marital exceptions to Automatic Stay...Exceptions..maintenance.. Recusal not involve debtor property.”

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK                     PAGE 40

COUNTY OF KINGS

------------------------------------------------------------------x

CHANA TAUB,

                                                                                              Index No. 26534/07

                                                Plaintiff,                 

                        -against-                                                         Attorney’s Affirmation

SIMON TAUB,                                  

                                                Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

            Neil Iovino, being an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:

            1.  I am Chana Taub’s attorney in the above entitled actions and submit this affirmation in support of the relief requested by Chana Taub in the annexed Order to Show Cause.

            2.   This motion is not precluded by the existing bankruptcy stay that exists pursuant to the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case under case number 08-44210.  The primary purpose of the bankruptcy stay is to put the Debtor and the Debtor’s property under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court.  See Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.  That this stay involves property of the estate is also evidenced by the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 which

(AGAIN STG copying top next pg- 41)  “expanded scope of marital exceptions to Automatic Stay...Included...maintenance...Recusal not involve Debtor property.”

Recusal Motion Exhibits                               PAGE 45

1. 10/30/07 transcript
2. 7/6/06 transcript
3. 8/21/06 transcript
4. 9/7/06 transcript
5. 2/16/07 transcript
6. 5/1/07 transcript
7. Letter from court dated 10/1/06 adjourning Chana’s emergency application
8. Mr. Rosenthal’s letter dated October 11, 2006 in response
9. HUD Settlement Statement on refinance of marital residence
10.  Order to Show Cause only, with restraint, dated September 20, 2006 signed by Judge Krauss
11.  Order dated 10/30/07
12.  1/29/08 transcript
13.  3/7/08 transcript
14.  4/4/08 transcript
15.  “Simon’s Income”, prepared by client regarding several properties, and list of 10 Grand rentals—tenant, premises, annual rent
16.  11/14/06 transcript
17.  12/11/transcript
18.   Transcripts, jury divorce trial, children’s testimony, Dr. Stark, Osgood, etc. 3/19/07, 3/20/08, 3/21/08, 3/22/08, 3/26/08
19.  2/5/07 transcript
20.  2/15/07 transcript
21.   Order dated 6/1/07
22.  7/17/07 transcript
23.  Order to Show Cause dated 6/20/08
24.   Medical Records from Maimonides Medical Center re:  Mr. Taub having “eloped”
25.   Transcript of proceeding on July 1, 2008
26.   1^st page of Bankruptcy petition showing date when filed
27.   Note from court rejecting responsive/cross-motion papers
28.  Copy of rejected responsive/cross motion papers, with proof of service upon opposing counsel
29.  Dr. Stark’s e-mail to Ms. Glascoff, testifying re: Chana Taub—abused wife
30. Transcript of Tape not allowed in jury trial
31.  Mr. Taub’s conviction on three counts of Federal fraud
32.  Mr. Taub’s forgeries (bank)
33. nyc.gov printout of violations on Mr. Taub’s properties vs. Mrs. Taub’s properties
34.  Mrs. Taub’s documentary of bias and prejudice by the court 

   (STGlascoff- note there were 48 more pages submitted with above by Chana Taub, including lots documentation- BELOW is just opening summary pg + next pg which goes onto 3rd pg since different size print in originals)

      JUDGE DEMAREST SHOULD BE RECUSED BECAUSE OF:

1.    BIASED STATEMENTS, BIASED DECISIONS, BIASED ORDERS

2.    ABUSE OF DISCRETION & ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWERS

(A)    Since first taking the case, July 2006, refused to ENFORCE HER OWN OR Chana’s lawyer’s requests for discovery FOR TWO YEARS (still not done)!

(    Refused to order that Simon Taub give an accounting for the over $200,000.00 income he collects and pockets EACH AND EVERY MONTH from his large properties, in addition to Chana’s two small properties, while completely depriving Chana of any rental income.  Denied all Chana’s motions and pleadings for an accounting - at least of rents stolen from her own properties.

(C)    Refused to order/enforce child support or pendente lite, no “status quo.”

(D)   Denied every single one of Chana Taub’s motions

(E)    Refused to order legal fees.

(F)     Distorting & Obstructing the truth, in order to assist Simon against Chana.

(G)   Deliberate “ignorance” of the law, so as to deprive Chana. 

(H)   Refused to address prejudice against Chana when Simon refused “Get”

(I)      Judge Demarest ordered Simon to pay marital mortgage several times, TWICE Chana filed Contempt Motions when Simon violated her orders, TWICE  Judge Demarest vacated her own orders, to assist Simon in WASTING the marital assets.

(J)     Made improper and unreasonable orders against Chana.

(K)   Continuous inflammatory, BIASED statements against Chana

(L)    ADVOCATING AND/OR ORDERING MARITAL ASSETS TO BE WASTED AND LOST.

(M)                       SIGNED INAPPROPRIATE AND POSSIBLY ILLEGAL RESTRAINING ORDER, PRECLUDING CHANA FROM GOING TO FAMILY COURT (4/4/08).

Judge Demarest supported, condoned, endorsed and awarded all of Simon Taub’s flagrantly wrong and unethical actions throughout the legal proceedings which have led to absurd and harsh orders against Chana Taub and enormous legal fees.   Chana Taub is petrified to step into Judge Demarest’s Court, knowing that she will not be given a fair determination before her, and even worse – will be target of some new, bizarre and abusive Order endangering her and her children’s lives.

*   *   *   *   *

FROM THE TRANSCRIPT  OF 9/7/06:

1)  P. 6, Lines 2-21:   ATTY. ROSENTHAL:   “On the calendar for today, it was my understanding, was the issue of spousal support and child support.  That motion has been kicking around.  This case is about 14 months old, and to date there has been no decision on the issue of spousal and child support and it’s one of tremendous importance.”

                                        THE COURT:   “Before we get any further than this, one of the issues that I intend to address and this is… we are going to find out whether there’s any reason to be addressing any of this…..   And the motions you referred to, some of them were made long before I got the case and I previously indicated that I felt that, at least as to some of these motions, they should probably be deemed dismissed and started again because I have no prior knowledge of any of the matters that took place in the courtroom.  So, I’m not going to try to resurrect them.”

(If one spouse has no money, shouldn’t pendente lite and child support be the first important issue to address?  Judge Demarest always found ways to refuse support by diverting from the subject (above) and by denying outright.)

P.6, Lines 19-20, Judge claims to have no “prior knowledge” of Chana’s motions pleading for support, but immediately following that, P.7, Lines 2-14, she has full knowledge of Simon’s motions!)

2)  P. 7, Lines 2-25:   THE COURT:     “I would note that there’s a motion to punish for contempt that is against your client (Chana) for failure to account for certain property that was removed from the marital home by her, prior to my ever getting this case.”     “And while I find no merit at this time in the motion to punish for contempt, because she has finally complied.”         

(At the same time, Judge Demarest has “no prior knowledge” of Chana’s motion that Simon account for his millions.  Judge does not threaten Simon to “punish for contempt” even though he is in contempt, he never gave any accounting.)

                                   ATTY.. ROSENTHAL:   “This is a Court of equity.  We have here a money spouse to my right and we have a non-money spouse here…”

As handwriting on letter shows, I sent out 60 page highly researched report to 3 pages of recipients nationwide re ideas to improve public school education.  One of the items I remain firmly committed to is limiting class size for K-3 to 15- it would pay for itself ! !  It would enable teachers to better insure a positive first impression of school via more individual attention, hence higher success rates learning the crucial basics of the 3 R's.  Less remediation would be needed later which is expensive, and there would be less class disruption not only K-3, but thereafter  since students who feel successful are more likely to pay attention, helping not only them but rest of the class.  Disruption causes more need for teaching time, which also translates into money.   Etc.  Positive first impressions affect almost everyone positively, no matter the topic!  I also discussed pay incentives for excellence in teaching, etc.  I taught high school math in the early 1970s and a few years later was elected as a school board member elsewhere.  
      My mother taught emotionally disturbed children for many years and used to say she could always tell the children of divorce without being told who they were!  An article in the 1993 "Reader's Digest" reported from a study that indicated children of divorce were far more likely to need remediation, be disruptive, and drop out compared to the rest of the population.  Much has been written about this, yet in "Leave No Child Behind" discussions, little if anything is mentioned about their specific needs though they surely form a sizeable per cent of our population.
     Please read the other blog entries to realize the connection to legal accountability.  As nearly all my advocacy below mentions, more needs to be done K-12 re incorporating teaching conflict management and the challenges of good partnering and parenting- that would help children not only to be more receptive to learning, but enable them to become better business and family partners and parents.  However, divorce can never be eliminated, hence it is imperative that courts operate FAR more fairly to limit the damage!  Add to that the legal stranglehold on schools in  terms of rules and bureaucracy  due to fear of suit.  Monkey bars, seesaws, and often even slides have been eliminated because multimillion dollar suits have been won against schools when a child gets injured, regardless of fault.  In the 2009 book (easy read and only about 210 pages) by Philip K. Howard, a lawyer, "Life Without Lawyers," with subtitle,"Liberating Americans From Too Much Law," the author notes that discipline in schools has been bureaucratized.  Mr. Howard says, "NYC requires over 60 steps and legal considerations to suspend a student for 5 days....A 2007 California study on teacher retention, trying to understand why 18,000 teachers quite each year, found that bureaucracy was the leading factor....In every successful school, teachers and principals feel free to act their best judgment.  Values don't come to life without the freedom to assert them.  Enthusiasm energizes the entire culture, but  there's no enthusiasm without spontaneity and originality."  Etc!

                                                                                                                                      10 Manitou Road

                                                                                                                                      Westport, CT  06880

                                                                                                                                      Jan. 28, 2009

World Jewish Congress Foundation                                                    203-454-3193 (1783f)

501 Madison Avenue          (petition sent to                    susantitusglascoff@hotmail.com

New York, NY 10022              P.O. Box 90400

                                                                            Wash. D.C. 20090-0400)

Executive Director Herbert Juh:

I received your plea for a signature & funding to protect Jews from renewed onslaught of anti-Semitism.   Discrimination  must be stopped, but I feel more focus has to be right here because no one can lead without setting a good example.  We keep touting democracy, yet we’re witnessing severe turmoil because we have too few checks and balances re appropriate pay, adequate healthcare, and among other items a legal system that has become primarily about who can win and not justice.  These imbalances affect mothers & children more harshly.   I would like you to address the widespread mistreatment of Hasidic Jewish women, especially those divorced or seeking to be.   In my opinion the courts are being influenced to insure most receive highly inequitable settlements & some inappropriate loss of custody.

You have probably heard about the case of Chana Taub, a gentle Hasidic Jewish mother in Brooklyn, who has been trying to get a divorce for over 3 ½ years from Simon Taub,  a leader in his religious sect, & yet about whom credible evidence exists that he has been abusive to his family in numerous heinous ways for years.  I have been attending the case for 2 yrs at the request of the National Coalition for Family Justice (NCFJ) – we only attend when unfair practices are suspected.   Four children testified at the trial about his abuse.   A renowned expert witness wasn’t allowed to testify that from 7 hrs of interviews he determined that Chana exhibits all the classic symptoms of abuse.   There is an ongoing pathetic sexual libel suit re a stepdaughter.  Simon simply took custody of their youngest son.  He was arrested for prostitution.  He had 3 federal fraud convictions in 1998-9.   Judge Carolyn Demarest has refused to recuse even though she has hardly enforced any of her own orders such as maintenance, getting the home out of foreclosure, allowing Chana to collect rent from her own properties, ETC.,  BUT she has noted his wealth!    Chana is now in bankruptcy court where good judge has noted Simon is worth at least $41M!  This makes a mockery of our system & costs all taxpayers.   A retired NYC judge prepared an estimate that it costs $4,500 to operate one courtROOM for ONE day.

Chana asked Atty. Nat Lewin who has worked in civil rights to help, but he refused.

NCFJ has asked administrative judges to intervene or change venue- refused.  Legal bills $3M to date!  Many media persist presenting case as “he said, she said,” despite credible data to the contrary. NYTimes interviewed Chana, her twin sister –who attends everything- & me for 7 hours at my request.  NYT assured me they'd be fair, but their Oct. 5 article in quarterly real estate Key Magazine was very misleading (see comments of others on my blog- www.advocateforlegalaccountability.com, also read my web press release,  “Respected Advocate Calls for Legal System and Media Accountability,”which mentions this case as well as a general plea for legal & media accountability, no matter the topic, as it is part of our entire financial crisis since the legal system increasingly controls every aspect of our society, including with excessively high bills).   The  NYT mentioned the sexual libel suit, but with no details so as to mislead- and that’s a real estate issue- right?   They also gave no credentials for me, not even mentioning I was requested to attend by the NCFJ  & had never met the Taubs before.   I met with a Rabbi & several Hasidic divorced or divorcing women who all lament that they rarely get equity & often lose their kids.

What is going on?   I have 3 sons, 2 stepsons, & have been remarried 16 years, so I’m surely not anti male, just pro-human!   The US hasn’t even passed CEDAW, the int’l  bill against discrimination against women.   Our 2000 Census reported that divorced women’s lifestyle drops 45%.   Brandeis U. reported that divorced women 63  & older are among our poorest.   The NYT reported that 51% of women are not married, that the average marriage age has increased 10-20 yrs & that professionals are high among those marrying & having kids latest, if at all, & that pediatricians are reporting more rude kids.   What will this do to the balance of our society?   Do you think women just might be too determined to remain financially independent because scared, & then some become insensitive, & worse, to women of “lesser status”- like Judge Carolyn Demarest in Taub case?  Could kids be getting too little attention from  parents because of lack of time?   Why is report from Pres. Task Force noting abusers are twice as likely to seek custody, & another study finding about 70% of them get it being ignored?   That’s legalized torture!!  Just how do you think those kids mostly turn out?  Tennessee Voices reported inattention to child abuse cost Tenn. $676M  (substance abuse, health issues, delinquency, lost potential, etc.)  in 2007 & that $1 prevention saves $4.   “Judicial hellholes” exist across US.   IL said they import lawsuits, export jobs.   FL said 1 in 3 small businesses have excess costs & 1 in 10 have/will go out of business due to legal abuse.  Doctors practice defensive medicine.  We must clean up our legal system- starting at home! ! We need more K-12  & societal programs re conflict management & challenges of good partnering & parenting.    How else can we lead?      OUR KIDS KANT WAIT !

[ I’m not donating, but ask you to pick some matching # in my name- it costs about $100 every time I go to Brooklyn  court & I pay $250/mo. to NCFJ.   Note I was 1^st married to very high-powered atty. for 23 yrs. ]

Most sincerely & respectfully, Susan Titus Glascoff, 4 Who’s Whos, Exec. Dir. Nat’l Advisory Bd. to NCFJ, Masters- Health Advocacy & Math, 40 yrs public advocacy

NYT letter re, If This Isn’t Slavery, What Is,  by Nicholas Kristof  Jan. 4, 2009, Jan. 8

Kristof is to be commended for his compassionate efforts to help stop sex trafficking.

However, I believe why his and other efforts don’t make more progress is because we don’t set a good enough example.  Even he downplays our own culpability by noting that “forced prostitution is remarkably similar from Pakistan to Vietnam – and, sometimes in the United States as well.”   Not long ago, maybe 3 years back, the NYT had a front cover magazine article about sex trafficking and reported an estimate of 700,000 per year worldwide, with about 60,000 right here.  60,000 is a LOT more than “sometimes!”  I was glad to see mentioned by Kristof that it is typical for brothel owners to be women.  However, he omitted what rarely is emphasized- that abusive practices often cycle.  It has been known for years that something like 80% of prostitutes were sexually abused, usually as children.

In somewhat the same timeframe the video “Breaking the Silence,” about abusive custody here was aired by PBS across the country, though not nearly widely enough, plus there was too little or innocuous advertising, and some airings were after 11 PM.   I emailed you the web link.  At the same time a 2-part 4 hour TV film ran starring Donald Sutherland with quite graphic depictions of forced sex trafficking right here.  This weekend in Albany will be the sixth annual national Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference.  Cases include whenever custody is taken from good mothers and unfair financial settlements.  (Impoverishment promotes dysfunctional behavior, which is part of our entire financial crisis on multiple fronts.)  Many concerned men are panel speakers.  I have suggested for years to the NYT and other major media that they attend, but to date coverage has been scant at best by any major media.   We sorely need legal accountability, no matter the topic.

                                     OUR KIDS KANT WAIT SO NEITHER CAN WE!

Susan Titus Glascoff, 4 Who’s Whos, Masters- Health Advocacy and Math, Exec. Dir. of Advisory Bd. to Nat’l Coalition for Justice, lifetime assorted advocacy,3 sons, 2 stepsons, 5 grandchildren, (1^st married to high-powered attorney for 23 years)

203-454-3193,  10 Manitou Road, Westport, CT 06880

PS- Meant to get this to you a couple days ago, but I had informed you earlier re above conference.

I have reported elsewhere that I received a personal letter, June 24, 2005, from Barack Obama thanking me for sending the long, but outlined and broadly researched report depicting increasingly urgent need for legal accountability, most especially as it pertained to families in distress.  He said “It is unfortunate that family courts can often be places that hinder, rather than help, the broken families who enter them, and this situation must be addressed….. I can tell you care deeply about this situation and have many good insights on what can, and should, be done.”  You also received a copy of that report and in it was a paper from the Founding Fathers, established on Fathers’ Day in 2003 with Joseph Biden as one of the founders.  I included their opening  statements- “It’s Fathers’ Day.  Sit back, Relax, and Change the World- We know the realities of violence against women and children – as witnesses and victims, as friends and companions of those who have suffered.  That’s why we, men in support of our families, communities and workplaces, have committed to turn our private concern into public action.”   I also included a page from the group, Manhood and Violence (Michael Thompson, Harvard PhD and clinical psychologist specializing in children and families, assists them) which noted “Men’s near monopoly on the perpetration of violence is the elephant in the room of this national and local discussion on the epidemic of violence (not necessarily physical, can be emotional and financial) in our communities.  Generic descriptions of violence seem to be a careful attempt NOT to see this crucial piece of evidence and a careful way of avoiding the gendered source of violence.”

           I also included several statements from an Expose- “The Failure of Family Courts to Protect Children from Abuse in Custody Disputes” by a very high-powered group.  It stated that it is a resource book for lawmakers, judges, attorneys, and mental health professionals.  It quoted Gloria Steinem exhorting readers to “get angry and act vs the courts treating children as commodities.”  It quoted Alan Rosenfeld, Esq.- “ Some analysts have suggested that if we intended to create a system that would guarantee that the smallest number of sexually abused children would be protected – that system would look very much like our current family court system.”    Yet you in your Oct. 5, 2008 Key Magazine article, supposedly focusing on real estate, implied Simon Taub and his stepdaughter, Chana Taub’s daughter from first marriage, were justified in suing Chana for sexual libel re Simon’s allegedly sleeping with this stepdaughter.  You knew  greater detail, and this just added to the abuse, as did the comment that the youngest son just decided to go live with the father.  You knew the father simply took him. You knew, too, that renowned expert witness, Dr. Evan Stark, had his testimony barred from the jury hearing it by Judge Carolyn Demarest.   Dr. Stark testified that after 7 hours of interview, he concluded Chana exhibited all the four major parameters of an abuse.

        I suspect you are never going to correct the misrepresentations in the Oct. 5, 2008 Key magazine article resulting from 7 hours of interview with Chana Taub, her sister, me, &Katalin Pota who has PhD but is on disability & was being unfairly evicted from one of Simon Taub’s apts.   Katalin wrote to me that she wondered if we were all at same interview since article differed so markedly.  I especially conclude you are not going to issue a correction since you have a new article Jan. 8, “When a Tolerable Solitude Turns Intolerable, Help Arrives.”  The man, 60, depicted surely is in a sad state at this time and needed the help he is getting from the Neediest Cases Fund.  But you make a point of noting his funds were depleted from child support and alimony payments (which I suspect ended awhile ago).   He had lost his job not too long ago because of disability from surgery, but prior to that you noted that “he was active, going to Jets and Mets games, visiting museums, making annual pilgrimages to the Six Flags amusement park in NJ and of course, playing golf.”  That all takes a fair amount of money, esp. playing golf, so he surely had not been impoverished by his requirement of paying maintenance and child support.

         How about a more level playing field re your reporting on family issues?  You never seem to write about the many more women who often find themselves totally destitute while still at home with dependent children and who have gotten very inequitable settlements and/or been subject to physical violence here, unless it is a sensational case.  Keep in mind that the U.S. census stats note that the average woman’s lifestyle drops 45% after divorce, and the men’s organizations above note that treating domestic violence issues (inequitable finance is included in the DV category) as harming both sexes equally hinders finding solutions.  This all has a very negative impact on kids, boys and girls, and lots of research shows such kids have far higher rates of growing up to be dysfunctional adults, so the cycle goes on and on & costs society plenty, including financially.   It is part of our financial crisis.

Comments re a few other articles-

1)       12/31/08 Washington Post- “The Big Bailout Lessons,”  “one of the major lessons of the year is that unregulated and underregulated capitalism ends up confronting democratic governments with a subprime choice: either let a major institution go down & watch as chaos follows or funnel gobs of the public’s money into such institutions to avoid Lehman-like chaos.”  Re ANY big ticket item, unregulated and underregulated capitalism doesn’t work.  It surely doesn’t work with our legal system and healthcare. 

2)     1/2/09 South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com- “Put an End to lawsuit Abuse,” noted that Florida has been “classified as the #2 judicial hellhole in the country and is recognized nationally as a place you wouldn’t want to do business…… more than1 in 3 small businesses say lawsuit abuse has raised their costs, made products more expensive, or forced them to restrict, reduce or change their product and service offerings….. 1 in 10 have had to consider shutting down their business due to the threat of a lawsuit……The current legal climate is driving up healthcare costs and driving doctors out of state.”  All I can say is those stats  are by no means confined to Florida and we’d better wake up soon to including establishing legal accountability as part of our top priority for solving our financial crisis.

3)     12/26/08 Galesburg.com- “Put an End to Lawsuit Abuse,” notes “Cook County, Illinois was named the #3 judicial hellhole in the country with Madison and St. Clair’s Counties being troublesome jurisdictions to watch…. They import lawsuits and export jobs and opportunities.”    Hmmmmmm………

4)     12/16/08 setexasrecord.com-  Report: Southeast Texas courts improve, but still on ‘Hellhole’ watch list.  The American Tort Foundation has moved the Texas Gulf Coast and the Rio Grand Valley to the #1 spot on the hellhole watch list.  The article stated that some trial courts are indifferent to legislative changes enacted in 2005.  It defined ‘Judicial Hellholes’ as “places where judges systematically apply laws and court procedures in an inequitable manner, generally against defendants in civil lawsuits…. The report shows that lawsuit abuse remains ‘alive and well’ in many jackpot jurisdictions….. Lisa Rickard, pres. of U.S. Chamber Institute fro Legal Reform said ‘During this global economic downturn, we encourage state leaders to commit to reforming these trial-lawyer dominated jurisdictions that are driving away local jobs, revenue and opportunity….  The state of West Virginia ranks as #1 on the judicial hellhole list.”

                 HOW, I ask, can any legal area be allowed to get so bad as to be classified as a judicial hellhole, while essentially no credible efforts are made to correct it?  One prime ex. where many know the court system remains mired in corruption is in Brooklyn, NY.  They jailed Judge Garson, but seem loathe to pursue anyone else, even knowing he could not have done all he did with only the help of the one other lawyer convicted.  Part of the problem is that rules of evidence need to be made more realistic, prosecutors need more scrutiny, recusals must be made far easier to demand, and impeachment must become a viable reality, etc, etc,.    Dec. 17, 2008 Judge Carolyn Demarest boldly declared she shouldn’t have to recuse ( 48 formal pages had been filed against her) because she wasn’t biased against Chana Taub in pursuit of her divorce for 3 ½ years.  Let’s just take one partial set of items – part of the case is now before a bankruptcy judge who noted that Simon Taub is worth at least $41 million and has gotten 3 properties in the wife’s name into foreclosure proceedings and failed to pay child support and even the $350/wk maintenance ordered for her (hence causing the bankruptcy).  HOW can the judge be doing her job when she enforces hardly any of her own orders and allows a multimillionaire to say he can’t afford maintenance or child support and has to allow the home and other properties to go into foreclosure, yet he has reported ample rental income to support it all and then some?  Don’t keeping a case in court a long time and allowing bankruptcies and foreclosures cost taxpayers and creditors, including our ailing banks, tons of money??

5) April 23, 2008 TENNESSEAN.COM,  Tennessee Voices- Invest in preventing child abuse to avoid future human financial costs.   “The human costs of child abuse and neglect are, indeed, terrible.  There are also monetary costs.  In 2007, the direct and indirect costs for Tennessee were estimated at greater than $676 million.  If that number seems high, consider that the costs of all the following are directly or indirectly affected by child maltreatment: hospitalization, chronic health problems, our mental health and child welfare systems, law enforcement, the judicial system, special education, juvenile delinquency, lost productivity and adult criminality…..One study showed that for every dollar invested in prevention, there was a cost savings of $4 to public agencies later on…. Former Vanderbilt University professor Isaac Prilleltensky wrote: ‘ It is only by massive investment in prevention that we can reasonably expect less suffering.   Such an investment, while costly at first, will more than pay for itself in dollars saved for remedial services in special education, welfare, health, and the criminal justice system.  In human terms,  savings simply defy calculation.’ “   I sent this in April.

6)     1/6/09 The Justice Hour weekly radio program, hosted by atty., Lisa Macci.  I spoke on the show 2 ½ yrs ago.  I recently updated her re the Taub case, emphasizing what I said she knew- that this is but one case among thousands of judicial abuse cases across the country.  She wrote back- “My own case was a classic example of legal abuse by the judge.  There are more than thousands of cases of judicial abuse across the country.”  Yes, indeed, per usual I was downplaying the issue somewhat as I usually do.  The number is “millions” and it will be the undoing of the U.S. if we don’t seriously curtail it and make our courts again a place where justice doesn’t depend on which judge you get, how much money and influence you have, gender, color, religion, etc.  How can we lead??

7)     I attended a local official  (part of nat’l effort) gathering in Dec. to discuss ideas we want Obama to address.  The hostess was a lawyer who had held a prominent legal gov’t job in Wash. for 5 years.  When I said I wanted to mention getting legal accountability discussed, she said this was not the appropriate forum to bring up that topic!  When having each person introduce themselves, she saved me till last (and she had never met me before), closing the meeting before I got introduced.  Maybe that was a good thing because it emphasized my point which I then made very obvious by handing out papers to everyone and explaining what had happened.

8)     1/07/09 The National Law Journal- Cravath’s presiding partner: Time to kill the billable hour.  “The billable hour makes no sense, not even for lawyers, Chesler a prominent litigator writes: If you are successful and win a case early on, you put yourself out of work.  If you get bogged down in a land war in Asia, you make more money.  That is frankly nuts…..The point I am trying to make is that at the start we should define what the goals are and what the value of the matter is to the client.  We need to create an alignment of interests between the client and the lawyer.”  Article noted that Aug. 2007 ABA journal said “The Billable Hour Must Die.”  It also noted that at Cravath a midcareer litigation partner posted his billable rate at $875 an hour, a $205 increase since 2004.”

                         Keep in mind, too, that anyone ever receiving a legal bill knows it is impossible to verify how many minutes were spent on research, on phone calls, on travel, etc., and with little incentive to finish quickly, such a system is ripe for abuse.

9)  March 16, 2008, NYT Emonomics- a book review of “Predictably Irrational- The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions,” by Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist.  I think it ought to be required reading for everyone, including periodic rereads!  Ariely’s  simple but creative experiments clearly prove what he maintains, but hardly any of us want to believe- “we aren’t cool calculators of self-interest who sometimes go crazy; we’re crazies who are, under special circumstances, sometimes rational.”  It was at least nice to learn that being reminded of any moral code- the Ten Commandments or the non-existent “M.I.T. honor system- caused cheating to plummet.  But we also need to pay attention to his simple experiment to see how arousal alters sexual attitudes.  He asked young men to answer a questionnaire, then answer it again while watching internet porn on a laptop wrapped in Saran.  He found that “in that state, their answers to questions about sexual tastes, violence, and condom use were far less respectable.”   The review states that “the book is far more revolutionary than its unthreatening manner lets on.  It’s a concise summary of why today’s social science increasingly treats the markets-know-best model as a fairy tale.”          I maintain that this further strengthens the plea that human inherent self-interest requires checks and balances re all serious topics.  

              Everything is interrelated.  Our Kids Kant Wait, So Neither Can We!