The father of my child and his then-girlfriend took me to court to have me incarcerated, to have me supervised, to have my Mother’s Day weekend eliminated, my summer vacations blocked, my visitation terminated (ask them about 9/11), and my brother robbed. Our newly-wedded Deels even took me to court to have my visits with my toddler confined to the shopping mall across their marital home. By her fourth birthday, my little girl, the baby Troy Deel never wanted me to have, had endured four different dangerous and debilitating visitation schedules in less than three years. Custody changed three times. The father of my child and his now-wife took from me and my brother one hundred thousand of our dollars for lawyer fees and a lifetime of happiness for my daughter.
[Bancroft, 2008] CHILD CUSTODY JUSTICE. Why do abusive men turn up disproportionately in custody disputes? First, abusive men don't do well at separating their own needs from those of their children, so they don't consider how injurious it could be for the children to be taken away from the primary care of their mother, where they feel secure. Second, the abusive man is focused on power and control, and may ignore the harm he causes the children in his desperate race to settle old scores. And his lack of respect for the mother's humanity, a centerpin of the abusive mentality, can permit him to believe that she is the one who will harm the children, not him. Occasionally, the abusive man's main reason for seeking custody seems to be a desire to avoid having to pay child support ...
[American Bar Association, 2006] 10 MYTHS ABOUT CUSTODY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND HOW TO COUNTER THEM. Attorneys who represent victims of domestic violence in custody matters often encounter the following false claims. To assist with overcoming these myths, the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence provides these facts and statistics for use in litigation ... MYTH 5: Abusive fathers don’t get custody. Abusive parents are more likely to seek sole custody than nonviolent ones and they are successful about 70% of the time. Allegations of domestic violence have no demonstrated effect on the rate at which fathers are awarded custody of their children, nor do such allegations affect the rate at which fathers are ordered into supervised visitation (i.e. abusers win unsupervised custody and visitation at the same rate as non-abusers) ...
[Hannah, 2007] BMCC IV TRUTH COMMISSION. [T]here is a widespread problem of abusive parents being granted custody of children and protective parents, [primarily mothers], having their custody limited or denied, and/or being otherwise punished ... [O]nce abusers gain custody, they then isolate and estrange the children from the protective parents. Courts seldom punish the abusers or switch custody back to the protective parents ... The court system has failed to respond appropriately to domestic violence and child abuse cases involving custody. The Commission found many common errors made by the courts and the professionals they rely upon which contribute to these tragedies ...
[Eddy, 2006] HOW PERSONALITY DISORDERS DRIVE FAMILY COURT LITIGATION. Now that I have completed five years as a family law attorney, I have frequently witnessed the same underlying issues in hotly contested family court litigation -- yet these remain undiagnosed and, therefore, misunderstood. As those with personality disorders generally view relationships from a rigid and adversarial perspective, it is inevitable that a large number end up in the adversarial process of court. Since more flexible and cost-conscious people nowadays are resolving their divorces in mediation, attorney-assisted negotiation, or just by themselves, those cases remaining in litigation may be increasingly driven by personality disorders ... [C]ommon is Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) -- more often seen in men. There is a great preoccupation with the self to the exclusion of others. This may be the vulnerable type, which can appear similar to BPD, causing distorted perceptions of victimization followed by intense anger (such as in domestic violence or murder, for example the San Diego case of Betty Broderick). Or this can be the invulnerable type, who is detached, believes he is very superior and feels automatically entitled to special treatment.
[Summers & Summers, 2006] UNADULTERATED ARROGANCE: AUTOPSY OF THE NARCISSISTIC PARENTAL ALIENATOR. Dealing with [Narcissistic Parental Alienators] is baffling and even confounding—they will always have their reasons for what they do and their reasons are not the same as normal reasons. If truth be told, treating them as normal people by appealing to their better qualities through expecting them to “have a heart” or “conscience,” or giving them the opportunity to make amends will unconditionally make matters worse. The best advice is to avoid these abusers at all costs and sever contact with them wherever possible, as they will inevitably suppress or destroy a healthy mind in order to feed their narcissistic supply. (P408)
[Summers & Summers, 2006] PARENTECTOMY IN THE CROSSFIRE. The biggest sadness is not how the alienator lives daily in denial regarding the hideous path they pursue to hurt their former mate, but the fact that they are inept to see the truly heart-wrenching damage they do to the child(ren), who become yet again, the victim of another war ... (Page 255)
[Reader Comment, 18 Aug 2007] MS. WYVELL WROTE MR. O'BRIEN: Your article asks "Why not just simply get divorced?" These men do but not "simply." I call it "murder substitute."
Why do men kill their wives?
Could some of these murders really be no more than "divorce substitutes"? The upcoming trials of Neil Entwistle and James Keown might provide some answers.
BY KEITH O’BRIEN
THE BOSTON GLOBE
July 22, 2007
A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, LISA HARTWICK WAS RIDING IN AN elevator in Boston when she overheard a conversation between two men. One of the men was going through a divorce, and he was venting to his friend about lawyers and child support payments. At that point, Hartwick recalls, the man suggested, within earshot of everyone, that maybe he should just kill his wife, that it would be cheaper and easier that way. Hartwick, the director of the Center for Violence Prevention and Recovery at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, was stunned. "I really didn't know what to say," she recalls. "Luckily, his friend said to him, 'That's a lot of money. I understand. I'm going through it myself. But you've got kids.'"
It was probably just talk. The man was frustrated and likely never had any real intention of murdering his wife. Then again, who knows? Spouses kill spouses for many reasons. But the most intriguing reason may be this: Sometimes men - and let's be clear here, it is almost always men - decide to murder their wives simply as a way to end a rocky, unhappy marriage and avoid a divorce that could ruin their bank accounts or trash their reputations or spoil a dream life they have concocted for themselves. It is bizarre, seemingly inexplicable choice, especially considering the type of men involved. They are not hardened criminals, by and large, but rather domesticated suburb dwellers with fine cars, big houses, and nice wives. When the cops show up after these same wives turn up dead, the neighbors are shocked. Not here, they say. Not this guy. He wouldn't choose murder over divorce, the risk of prison time over child support payments. He wouldn't do this. To observers - and ultimately to jurors - it makes absolutely no sense. And yet the list of apparently nice, normal suburban Massachusetts men who have made this decision is long and infamous.
Take Charles Stuart, perhaps the most infamous of them all. On October 23, 1989, Stuart, who worked at a furrier on Newbury Street, shot his pregnant wife, Carol, in the head and then apparently shot himself as well. Stuart lived - just as he had designed it, while his wife and unborn child died - and went on to tell a sensational story about a black man who had robbed the white Reading couple. What Stuart really wanted, authorities later determined, was to open a restaurant with the money he'd get from his wife's life insurance policy. And once it was clear in January 1990 that he wasn't going to get away with it, Stuart made a second decision: He jumped off the Tobin Bridge.
David Magraw, a real estate investor, strangled his wife, Nancy, six months later in the living room of their Walpole home to avoid what may have been a six-figure divorce settlement. Joseph Romano, a Quincy ironworker, killed and dismembered his wife, Katherine, in September 1998 with a power saw he had borrowed from a neighbor. This, rather than leave, as his wife had apparently asked him to do. The case of Dr. Dirk Greineder - a renowned Wellesley allergist who slit the throat of his wife, Mabel, to protect his secret sex life with prostitutes - captivated the media the following year. Only months after that, in July 2000, Dr. Richard Sharpe, a rich, cross-dressing dermatologist in Gloucester, shot and killed his wife, Karen, to keep her hands off $5 million in assets.
And now the state is gearing up for not one but two trials of high-profile alleged wife killers in Middlesex County. Neil Entwistle, an unemployed engineer accused of killing his wife, Rachel, and infant daughter and then fleeing to England in January 2006, is scheduled to go on trial in October. James Keown, a radio disc jockey who allegedly poisoned his wife, Julie, with tainted Gatorade in September 2004, should have his trial in November.
"It's just not that uncommon," according to Bill Mason, the elected prosecutor in Cleveland, where, he says, three seemingly law-abiding men have ended their marriages by murdering their wives in the last five years. It's become so common, in fact, that last year Mason coined a term to describe these kinds of murders: "divorce substitute." But just why men would choose to kill instead of leave remains a mystery to many.
"Honestly, I think that really is the $64,000 question," says US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan for the District of Massachusetts. "Why not just simply get divorced?"
DAVID ADAMS, A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST, HAS SPENT A DECADE trying to answer that question. Adams, mustachioed and bespectacled, is a cofounder and co-director of Emerge, a Cambridge program that in 1977 became the first in the nation to offer counseling to men who abuse women. Adams spends his days sitting in a room with men who talk about why they hit their wives or girlfriends. About 10 years ago, he began visiting Massachusetts prisons to meet men who had killed the women they once loved. He wanted to ask that question - why? - and discovered that their motivations fell into five categories: Some men were jealous; some were hopped up on drugs; some were career criminals; some were suicidal or depressed; and some, Adams found, were what he calls "the materially motivated."
Men in this last category lack emotional involvement, remorse, and a conscience. "They don't get jealous, because they don't care much about women," says Adams, whose book based on his research, Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners, is due out this fall. "They care more about the assets." They're preoccupied with money and status, and they typically live in suburban homes separated from others by fertilized lawns and manicured hedges, where neighbors can't easily overhear fights (and hence are inevitably surprised when the wives turn up dead). Cases of men killing their wives to avoid divorcing them rarely occur in urban areas - and that includes Boston, according to Deputy Superintendent Margot Hill, the Police Department's chief of the Family Justice Division. That's not to say Boston police officers don't respond to their share of murder scenes where a man has killed a wife or girlfriend. But more often than not, Hill says, these are classic cases of domestic violence, often prompted by women trying to leave, with no plotting on the men's part to avoid divorce settlements or minimize damage to assets or good names. In the suburbs, Hill says, the murder cases often take on a different twist and become "more bizarre." The men involved often have something to lose: fine cars, nice homes, reputations they've carefully crafted, or lives that others consider perfect. Yet those lives are never as perfect as they appear. Typically, Adams says, these men are keeping secrets - secrets they will do almost anything to protect. "They tend to have affairs," he says. "They tend to have a lot of financial dealings on the side. Remember Charles Stuart? His secret wish was to marry his mistress and buy a restaurant with her. And when his wife became pregnant . . . that was taking him farther away from his dream."
Of course, lots of men aren't living their dreams. There are plenty who have jobs they hate but wives they love. So who are the Charles Stuarts of the world? "They're narcissists," says retired FBI profiler Candice DeLong, who lives in San Francisco. "Life is all about them." Stuart, for example, was said to show more joy over a great haircut than over the impending birth of his child. One of Greineder's reasons to get rid of his wife of 32 years was that she was "getting older" and "soft," he told a prostitute. And one expert testifying at Sharpe's trial in 2001 said the Gloucester dermatologist, who shot his wife in front of three witnesses, might have had a personality disorder that made him both arrogant and deceitful. In fact, experts agree that most men who kill their wives to avoid divorcing them are sociopaths, able to distinguish right from wrong but not caring too much about that distinction. They will do what's good for them, says DeLong, especially when the life they have carefully crafted for themselves begins to unravel.
"For narcissists, it's not just that they love themselves," DeLong says, "but it's how others see them. Their image to others, to the world, is what's really important. And to have a chink in that armor is totally unacceptable. And that chink can be anything." Often, it's a damning secret. Husbands and wives share things. They know more about each other than perhaps anyone else does. And in a divorce, especially a nasty one, issues once locked away can go public in a hurry, shattering overnight reputations that were built up over decades.
That was Greineder's fear, according to Richard Grundy, the chief of the criminal bureau at the Massachusetts attorney general's office. Grundy was a prosecutor in Norfolk County in 2001 and built the case against the Wellesley doctor, persuading jurors that Greineder not only killed his wife to protect his secret life with prostitutes but also planned the murder for months. Greineder's goal: Make it look like a serial killer did it. "And to do that particularly," Grundy said, "what he had to do was slit the throat, right down to the neck bone, of the woman who brought him three children."
But Grundy knows that protecting secrets isn't always the motive in the murder of a spouse. He also prosecuted David Magraw in Norfolk County in his 1999 retrial for the murder of his wife, Nancy. And there, unlike the Greineder case, the issue was mostly money. Magraw, whose first wife died in 1970 in a suspicious accident, didn't want his second wife, a Walpole schoolteacher, taking half of what they owned. And Nancy Magraw knew it. "He is very angry about my suggestion that I will ask for 50 percent," she wrote to her attorney months before she was strangled in her home. "He feels that I am greedy and don't deserve it because he worked for it."
The cases were different, the motivations different. But in both instances, Grundy says, these men wanted to keep what they had. And because their feelings mean everything and the feelings of others mean very little, murder becomes an option. These men actually believe they will get away with murder, says DeLong, and they begin to think like this: "Divorce is messier than a body in the bedroom."
THE NUMBER OF INTIMATE HOMICIDES - THE MURDER OF A current or former spouse or lover or a family member - has been dropping since the mid-1970s. But this year in Massachusetts, with 22 alleged intimate homicides by the beginning of this month, it's on the rise, already seven more than what the state suffered in 2005 and on pace to surpass last year's total of 31, according to Jane Doe Inc., a Boston-based advocacy group for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence.
It's a troublesome trend for Jane Doe's executive director, Mary Lauby. She worries that the statistics may be an indication that domestic violence programs are underfunded and failing to reach those who need help most. And that affects everyone, she says, no matter if they live in Boston or its finest suburbs. As she sees it, the Dirk Greineders and David Magraws, who go to great lengths to conceal the murders of their wives and later make for fantastic Court TV, aren't much different from your run-of-the-mill wife-beating husbands who get no headlines at all. Violence or threats of violence often precede their attempts to kill, says Lauby. These men feel as if they own the woman. And, most of all, they crave control. "What appears around friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers as a guy who's not 'out of control,' " says Lauby, "is somebody who's spending an awful lot of time ensuring that he or she - but mostly he - keeps in control of that relationship."
The most dangerous time for any woman in this sort of relationship is when she begins to empower herself, decides she's had enough, and makes an attempt to leave. Magraw strangled his wife four hours before they were meeting with their divorce attorneys. But sometimes the wife isn't ready to leave. Sometimes she feels as if she can't. Even now in the era of the amicable divorce, when women have greater economic independence than ever before, some women feel powerless, trapped in a relationship that grows more dangerous by the day. Take the case of Harold and Jamie Stonier.
They hit it off at their 20-year high school reunion in Plattsburgh, New York, in 1998. Both were divorced. Both had children. And Jamie was quickly taken with her old classmate. He was good-looking, a Marine. He was confident and smart. Put together, she thought. They went to the Marine Corps Ball in Washington, D.C., a few months later. She became pregnant. They moved in together in Virginia, got married on a boat on the Potomac River, and then, when Harold retired from the Marine Corps that fall, moved to Massachusetts. He had a good civilian job at an IT company. He drove a BMW, and they had a great house in Westwood.
But there were already cracks in the foundation. Harold was prone to fits of rage. At first, Jamie figured her husband was just going through a stressful time. He had a new wife, new kid, new life, new job. But the problems continued. They went into counseling, separated, and got back together. And then, in April 2003, Harold asked a New Bedford mobster to kill his wife. He wanted out of what he called "that little hell of a marriage." But the mobster called the feds, and the feds set up a sting, and just when Harold thought he was getting out of his marriage, he got arrested instead.
On the stand at his trial in 2005, he gave a wandering explanation for why he wanted to hire a hit man to off his wife. There were financial problems. He alleged that she was a bad mother. That she only wanted him for his money. That he was under a lot of pressure. That his job was very demanding. That his wife was out of control. That he was having a nervous breakdown. That he was trying to do everything he could to save the marriage. But it just wasn't possible, he told the jurors, and he began to think about having her killed. As far as he was concerned, this was perfectly logical. Everyone having problems in their marriage, Harold Stonier testified, must from time to time think about these things. Right?
Contact Keith O’Brien at:
kobrien@globe.com
This article can be found at:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/07/22/why_do_men_kill_their_wives/?page=1
... Rather than being rational and protective, the Family Court process can be very unpredictable and inadvertently encourages false allegations, aggressive and sometimes violent behavior, and intense blaming of the Non-BP or Non-NP spouse. Many Nons have been unable to protect themselves and their children from abuse by the BP or NP, and instead have found themselves experiencing restraining orders, supervised visitation, financial sanctions and even incarceration, because the courts are often more persuaded by the intense emotions and blaming behavior of a Borderline or Narcissist, than by your honest presentation of the facts. I call them "Persuasive Blamers" ... -William A. Eddy, author of SPLITTING: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing a Borderline or a Narcissist
[SPECIAL NOTE BY VW] “Unadulterated Arrogance” is available as an online sample issue (for a period of 30 days) by following Informaworld’s easy sign-in instructions at http://www.informa%20world.com/smpp/content~content=a756831094~db=all. For help with access to this article, however, please feel free to write me at VWyvell@patriot.net.
Veronique Wyvell, RN
Member, Fairfax County Network Against Family Abuse
Founder, MOMMY GO BYE-BYE: Mothers Against Unjust Law
7831 Enola Street, #TA7, McLean, Virginia 22102
VWyvell@patriot.net
MAUL (Mothers Against Unjust Law) Goals:
Rebuttable PRESUMPTIONS Against Custody for Batterers
PPAs (Parenting Plan Agreements) before Litigation
Moratorium on CCEs (Child Custody Evaluations)
MINIMUM Parent-Time Schedules (UTAH Code)
JURY Trials (in Domestic Relations Cases)
PROTECTIVE Parent Reform Acts
DIGITAL Courtroom Records
ALI's Approximation Rule
TERM LIMITS for Judges
. . .
. . .
ADDENDA
19 October 2005
Veronique Wyvell, RN
M.A.U.L. ~ Mothers Against Unjust Law
7831 Enola Street, #TA7
McLean, Virginia 22102
John F. Nelson
President and CEO
Zeta Associates
10302 Eaton Place, Suite 500
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Dear Mr. Nelson:
In court today the prosecutor of Fairfax City was led by a series of legal documents filed on my behalf to Nolle Prosequi’ the first false Trespass charge instigated by your company, Zeta Associates, by or on behalf of your employee, Troy A. Deel, which my friends with legal expertise appealed for me while I was falsely imprisoned for 22 days.
On 13 October, my daughter’s 8th birthday and also the Navy’s birthday with John Paul Jones’ famous and pertinent reply “We have not yet begun to fight!” the Fairfax City General District Court judge ruled “Not Guilty” on the second instance of false charges of Trespass instigated by your company, Zeta Associates, and its agents or assigns.
Due to the continuing abusive actions of your employee Troy Deel, through his “hired gun” manipulator of the courts, this year mother and daughter were not able to be together to celebrate this great victory, but we too have not yet begun to fight for our fair and reasonable time together as was reality with the shared custody order of the J&DR Court before Troy manipulated the case by hiring a sub-judge of the Circuit Court.
Troy has a problem rooted in his childhood when he was abandoned by his father. If he had a father, I would go to that man to “talk sense” to Troy, but such is not the case.
Therefore, I write to you hoping that you may have the wisdom to see the benefits to all concerned by your assumption of such a father figure role in Troy’s life now. Troy desperately needs such help and guidance, and his/my daughter will also benefit.
Attached you will find my letter to Commonwealth Attorney Horan that forced the decision to Nol. Pros. Certainly my willingness, even demand, for true justice from a jury rather than a judge who can be too easily manipulated by “contacts,” was a factor.
I will never forget when Judge Arthur Vieregg announced in court that he had contacts with your Zeta Associates employee Tom Davis before he demonstrated his bias by ruling for your employee Troy Deel. Maybe they all play in the same Digital Sandbox?
While I do not expect Mr. Horan will do his job properly to investigate and prosecute Zeta, Troy, or you as I have suggested, I can and will if necessary file a Civil Case for false arrest, false imprisonment, pain and suffering for the two false arrests and the 22 days false imprisonment instigated by your employees.
I am quite confident that a jury will be outraged by the actions and behavior of Zeta and its employees’ multiple abuses of me, all in support of Zeta employee Troy Deel.
I do not want to waste any more money on the legal leeches in the corrupt courts of Fairfax any more than they have already stolen from me and my child, Brigitte, who your employee Troy Deel used the courts to seize, and now withholds from me, her loving mother. You, Sir, can change this grotesque scenario by how you counsel Mr. Deel.
In the extensive research by a team of supporters and investigators and by me, we found some valuable information such as at http://www.dss.mil/.
“A personnel security investigation is an inquiry into the following qualities of an individual: Honesty, Trustworthiness, Character, Loyalty, Financial Responsibility, Reliability. All of these areas present a view of the individual’s entire character to the appropriate DoD officials so that DoD adjudicators have complete and accurate information on which to make an appropriate security determination.”
Of course, I have a dossier of provable facts and information that would cause an honest personnel security investigator to study further about Troy Deel in the areas of Honesty, Trustworthiness, Character, and Reliability.
And while appearances are that with Zeta Troy has his act together in the area of financial responsibility, how responsible was it to allow his previous child with a woman other than me to be adopted so Troy could avoid and terminate child support obligations?
Then there are the “birds of a feather flock together” where his wife Lisa gave up her child so not to interfere with her career then as a mortgage loan officer and now earning money as a stock broker. When “money talks” those two do not listen to a child.
In addition, there are the traffic violations of Zeta employee Troy Deel revealed in the Virginia Courts information pages. How many of these excessive speed violations were with my dear daughter strapped in his hurling mass of metal?
During my recent Zeta caused court “visits,” my driving record was reported as Outstanding -- Plus 5! I am a calm and careful driver, likewise calm, detailed, and deliberate in other areas of life -- such as court battles fighting for my daughter’s safety or when necessary like a lioness when her “cub” is threatened.
At least in the task of safely delivering my/his child to and from school each day, if not yet proven in many other “private areas,” Brigitte’s body would be far safer with me than with your Zeta Associates employee Troy Deel, wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Nelson?
So Zeta Associates president Mr. Nelson, what shall you and I do to equitably address the underlying problems (of lying and underhanded behavior of Mr. Deel) and recompense the personal damages inflicted on me, and my daughter, by your Zeta associates?
For now, depending on how you respond, this letter will go only to you, me and a court reporter as a third party for accountability purposes. If necessary, it will be provided as an exhibit in the Civil Case trial by jury I may bring against Zeta, Troy and you.
Might a jury think fair and just that the amount of compensation in salary, profit sharing, health and retirement benefits that you pay to Mr. Deel for a 22 day time frame, equal to the time I was falsely imprisoned by Zeta actions, be paid as compensatory damages?
Or would the jury judge the time of “virtual prison” I suffered during the 91 day time frame from the first arrest on 21 July 2005 at Zeta to my finally being free from fear of repeated incarceration when my Court Motions and my letter demanding Nolle Prosequi’ were read and honored on 19 October?
How much do you think the jury would determine would be a proper amount for the pain and suffering caused to me during those 22 days of Zeta caused false imprisonment? Or more, the 91 days of “virtual prison?” Or even the past 22 months, and even years, of Zeta employee Troy Deel’s ongoing abuse of me by manipulation of the courts?
How much for the pain and suffering of my daughter Brigitte? (If they care about her too.)
And then there is the time on or before April 2004 when Troy persuaded my father’s new wife, Virgie, my step-mother, to conceal from me that my beloved father was gravely ill, saying to Virgie that I, the daughter – and a registered nurse – could not “handle” the health crisis. In an outrageous display of deviant behavior, Troy interjected falsehoods into my father’s broken family situation to cause my father and me pain and suffering.
Some months later in October, my father was released from the hospital but his wife Virgie said he could not return to his home. My father came to my home to be cared for during his last few days of life. Contrary to Troy’s false claims, as a trained nurse who has cared for other terminal patients, I was capable in caring for my beloved father.
And there was the time when on the Terrorist Attacks of 9/11 that I had my daughter. Newscasts told citizens NOT to go out on the roads, so I kept Brigitte beyond 7 p.m. Troy called the police and used that instance in his campaign to deny my access rights.
While I have lost to the legal leeches and corrupt courts over $100,000 fighting for the welfare of my daughter before the direct intervention of Zeta Associates, how much would the jury decide is reasonable for legal expenses, at a standard rate that hired gun lawyers like Havrilak charge, for the hours of legal advice and legal investigations that a team of supporters have spent on my behalf on this case since the arrests at Zeta?
Understand Mr. Nelson, I do NOT want you to terminate Troy Deel. That is not in my daughter Brigitte’s best interest, or the best interest of Troy and Lisa, and likely not even in the best interest of Zeta Associates where I perceive and hope for Troy that he is a valued or valuable employee.
Also understand Mr. Nelson, this issue is NOT about the money damages suggested above, though I believe that with Troy’s money obsession some monetary cost to him is required for him to “get the point.” And Troy needs to repay my brother his $7862 bond, or a federal case, not a state court case, may well ensue.
From my years as a Registered Nurse, I have set up investment accounts that provide an ample, though not palatial environment, for me and my daughter Brigitte. While Troy and Lisa are busy pursuing the “almighty Dollar” many hours every day, dumping Brigitte on others, I have wisely positioned myself to be the loving mother who is always there for the daily duties involved with the best upbringing of my/his daughter.
And unlike your employee Mr. Deel, I do NOT want to deny my daughter time with her father as Troy has so viciously done with me -- Brigitte’s mother -- these past few years. While I would have “every right” to be vindictive, I am not, because that is not in my child’s best interest.
Mr. Nelson, I ask you to assume a father figure role, or a kindly uncle role, and offer some “avuncular advice” to your charge, Troy Deel, that it would be most wise for him to quickly come to a fair, full and amicable agreement with his child’s mother before a less pleasant arrangement is imposed upon him. While I have learned not to trust judges, I still have faith in juries.
Thank you for your consideration as a prudent businessman of the multiple layers of inter-related issues indicated in this letter, and I trust for your wise action to resolve this problem without having to waste further funds with the legal leeches and the corrupt courts. If not on that characterization of the courts and most lawyers, on these other “all in the family” matters, might you and I, and Troy, come to an agreement?
Very truly yours,
Veronique Wyvell, RN
Attachments:
A – Virginia Court webpage result revealing “Not Guilty” of 2nd arrest by Zeta
B – Letter to Mr. B. Kassabian for Nol. Pros. on instance of 1st arrest by Zeta
C – Letter to Mr. R. Horan, Commonwealth Attorney, requesting Nol. Pros.
. . .
ADDENDA
The Washington Post
LOCAL GOLF
Thursday, September 14, 2006; E06
[READER COMMENT] I am forced to wonder who in the world is caring for my precious little daughter Brigitte Veronique Wyvell-Deel of Ashburn, Virginia, when her father Troy Deel and his wife Lisa Ferry Deel, both Belmont Country Clubbers, care only about devoting all free time away from their jobs to golf games.
CC of Fairfax -- In the ladies' stableford Trixie White won with 41 points.
Chevy Chase -- In the ladies member/guest event net winners were Meredith Fulton, Kathy Coweles, Anita Baarns, Lisa Deel with 124. Gross winners were Mina Coggeshall, Jean Kenedy, Linda Fort and Mary McCormick with 145.
Columbia -- Marcia Abbo won the nine-hole club championship .
Congressional -- In the women's senior club championship Maggie Brady won low gross with 92 and Pat Leder won low net with 75.
Kenwood -- In the senior women's championship, Carolyn Clewell won low gross with 94 and Joyce O'Brien won low net with 69.
Montgomery Village -- In the senior member/guest event Mel Paisley and Dennis Callahan won with net 60.
Mount Vernon -- In the LGA nine ladies' day event, Kathy LaSauce and Terry Nunan tied for low net with 34.
Patuxent Green -- In the senior men's championship event Jerry O'Connor won top flight with 78.
Springfield -- In the WGA nine-hole championship, Mary Rietman won Flight 1, Carol Szczyrinski won Flight 2 and Judi Foster won Flight 3.
This article can be found at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301944.html
. . .
ADDENDA
"...Or was Mr. Barondess’s duty to conduct discovery for our second trial, for example, instead 'impaired' by offers of bribe money--he conducted NO discovery; to hurt my position, Mr. Troy Deel, the father of my child, had already 'fixed' Dorothy Tingen’s transcript of our first circuit court trial by paying off this court reporter..." more
. . .
ADDENDA
"...I was never once the moving party in these forty-four months of court battle. I was never married to [Troy Deel] the father of my baby nor financially supported by him. The father of my child never sees nor supports his twelve year old son by another woman--also an out of wedlock pregnancy. The father of my little girl became angry when I refused to abort my fetus, and he has now stolen her from me to avoid paying child support. The father married a woman he dislikes to impress the court--this woman also abandoned her baby son at birth seventeen years ago to avoid spending her money on him. I also crave pity, Mr. Edmonds--for my helpless child.
In the three months that have now passed, June, July, and August, my daughter, Brigitte, and I have shared only four forty-eight hour weekends together. I have completely abandoned attempts to phone her between our visits to deny the father and his wife the pleasure they derive from screening my calls, impeding conversations, and using my daughter as a pawn and as a weapon against me. It would be very difficult for the state to convince me that in rendering my daughter motherless by turning her over to a dangerously un-empathetic and violent man, a foster child himself, and his wife it has ruled in her best interest.
I made a mistake when I failed to report Ms. Dorothy Tingen, court reporter licensed by the state, for conspiring with the father to falsify the court record of our February 2000 trial to change my position. I made a mistake when I failed to report Ms. Colleen Daly, director of a daycare [Winwood Children’s Center, 12301 Lee Jackson Memorial Highway (Rt. 50), Fairfax, Virginia, 703.218.4141] licensed by the state, to Child Protective Services for conspiring with the father (we had shared custody) and allowing my three year old to spend entire days hiding in fear under a table at daycare while whimpering 'my mommy, my mommy, my mommy, my mommy'--not drinking, not eating, not using the toilet. Brigitte quickly succumbed to pneumonia..." more
. . .
ADDENDA
Veronique Wyvell legal reactivist being held without bail in Fairfax County Jail
BY RON FISHER
DFPA
September 6, 2005
Veronique Wyvell, outstanding mother of Brigitte, a leader in family court and legal reform and an outstanding lady, is being held without bail in the Fairfax County Jail since August 23, 2005, for trespassing while simply attempting to have court ordered visitation with her daughter.
Two individuals who have visited her in jail say that Veronique is in very good spirits and very appreciative of the efforts of several who are attempting to help her.
Veronique has been blocked from seeing her daughter for months by Fairfax Virginia Courts, lawyers and Brigitte’s father [Troy Deel of Zeta Associates Inc.] despite the fact that the Code of Virginia Section 20-124.2 requires that: “in cases of separation and divorce, … The court shall assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents, where appropriate, and encourage parents to share in the responsibilities of rearing their children” and “As between the parents, there shall be no presumption or inference of law in favor of either.” [see below]
Although not frequent and continuing, Veronique does have court ordered visitation for [the first and third weekend of each month] and two weeks in the summer.
Veronique and several of her friends have repeatedly attempted to communicate with Brigitte’s father to get the weekend and summer visitation to no avail. The father lives in a “gated community” and has not responded to phone calls to his home or office.
On July 21, 2005, Veronique went to the office of Brigitte’s father in an attempt to arrange the visitation. Instead of being able to arrange the visitation, and despite the fact that Veronique was calm and soft spoken, Brigitte’s father would not discuss the visitation. An official of the company called the police and had her arrested.
Veronique was tried in Fairfax City General District Court on August 23, 2005, for trespassing, was found to be guilty and fined $100 plus $66 in fees and sentenced to 90 days in jail suspended. Veronique attempted to tell the judge about her blocked visitation and problems in the courts but the judge was apparently not interested.
August 23 was exactly two weeks before the end of summer visitation and her last chance to get the two weeks of visitation with Brigitte. She went back to the office of Brigitte’s father that same day in another attempt to arrange the visitation. Instead of being able to arrange the visitation, and despite the fact that Veronique was calm and soft spoken, Brigitte’s father again refused to discuss the visitation and an official of the company again called the police and had her arrested again.
The suspension of Veronique’s 90 sentence was revoked and she is serving without bond in the Fairfax County Jail.
She is scheduled to be tried for the second charge of trespassing on October 13, 2005, in Fairfax City General District Court.
A notice of appeal of her August 23 conviction has been filed and her appeal is scheduled as a new trial on October 19 in Fairfax Circuit Court. (Obviously the trial for her second conviction should not be heard until after her October 19 trial in Circuit Court.)
There are other injustices the courts and legal system have inflicted on Veronique over the past few years. An attorney [Sandra Havrilak] who also acts as a substitute judge at times and who represents Brigitte’s father, assisted by Fairfax County [Judge Jonathan Thacher and Judge Jane Marum Roush] and Brigitte’s father, wrongfully and unlawfully stole (confiscated bail bond money) $7,862.00 from [Veronique’s brother] for the attorney/substitute judge’s use as attorney’s fees for Brigitte’s father. Veronique filed formal complaints with the Virginia State Bar and with the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission against the attorney/substitute judge in December 2004 and January 2005 over this. [And the brother of Veronique retained an attorney to help him recover--from Sandra Havrilak, Troy Deel, and Fairfax County Circuit Court Clerk John T. Frey--his cash bail bond in a case that was heard in the Supreme Court of Virginia in early November 2004.]
Attached is one of several letters that Veronique has written to numerous court and government officials, legislators, legal educators, etc. citing specific examples of failures in the courts, legal system, the Virginia State Bar and the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission. This and her other letters and formal complaints have gone unanswered.
"W, X, Y, Z" and I have formed an ad hoc group to coordinate efforts to help Veronique. Anyone else wanting to help her and build on her efforts at reform please let us know. We will have a meeting shortly.
Veronique is allowed only one twenty minute visit each week. Up to three adults can participate in the visit however they must be together. "Z" a close friend and neighbor of Veronique will coordinate these visits. His phone numbers are...
There is no limit on letters so everybody please write Veronique at:
Ms. Veronique Wyvell, RN
Inmate No. 1998-96008
Fairfax County Adult Detention Center
10520 Judicial Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
I suggest each of us sincerely thank Veronique and tell her we admire her for what she is doing.
Thanks.
If you believe that you have accidentally received this email or wish to be removed from this list
please respond with REMOVE in the subject line.
Regards,
Ron Fisher
. . .
ADDENDA
December 30, 2004
Troy Deel
19959 Palmer Classic Parkway
Ashburn, VA 20147
Re: Visitation - Brigitte Wyvell
Dear Mr. Deel:
This letter is a follow up in reference to me trying to arrange visitation with my niece, Brigitte Wyvell. The last time I saw Brigitte was a prearrange visit through you for her birthday. On that day you had a conversation with my friend in which you stated you had no problems with me having visitation with Brigitte as long as you had a phone number to contact me and Brigitte during the visit.
My friend made attempts to contact you stating that we want to arrange visitation with Brigitte, however you never returned the phone call. When I finally reached you yesterday you seemed to be upset regarding all the court action. All I’m trying to do is prearrange visitation with Brigitte through you. You stated in our conversation you were sick of all the court involvement. As I’ve told you, my friend and I are neutral and the problems you and my sister have are between the two of you. The only court involvement you and I have had is regarding the bond issue, me being a court observer and/or support for my sister. I was told I would get this bond back and if the correct procedures were followed then none of the court actions regarding the bond would have happened.
Troy, I would like to see my niece and have visitation with her. I was trying to accomplish visitation during the holidays but since it didn’t happen please take in consideration that I want to coordinate visitation through you and you will have a number to reach us at all times. Please contact me at 703-477-8971, I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Chris Wyvell
- - -
January 12, 2005
Troy Deel
19959 Palmer Classic Parkway
Ashburn, VA 20147
Re: Visitation - Brigitte Wyvell
Dear Mr. Deel:
This letter is a follow up letter to my letter dated December 30, 2004 to request visitation with Brigitte. I’ve tried to contact you and only get the answering machine so I’ve left a message for Brigitte.
Out of respect you should at least let me know your decision whether it’s by mail or phone. I want to coordinate visitation through you and will look forward to hearing from you. My phone number is 703-477-8971.
Sincerely,
Chris Wyvell
. . .
ADDENDA
Misuse of Adoption [by father Troy Deel] Affecting Economic Rights [of son Jeffrey Shimer]
Adoption as a Means of Extinguishing Child Support Obligations
It is against public policy to use child support as a bargaining chip in order to obtain a birth parent's consent to an adoption. Courts look with disfavor on payments of compensation to a birth parent in exchange for that parent's consent to an adoption, including payments in the form of relief from past and future obligations to pay child support. This is true whether or not there is a second parent who is available and willing to step in and take over the responsibility of the consenting birth parent.
A mutual agreement between birth parents [Troy Deel & Carmen Shimer] to terminate the parent-child [Troy Deel & Jeffrey Shimer] relationship of one of them is void and unenforceable if it will result in a detriment to the child [Jeffrey Shimer]. The termination of a father's [Troy Deel’s] parental rights based on a convenient mutual agreement of the parents [Troy Deel & Carmen Shimer] has been held improper because losing that source of support was against the child's [Jeffrey Shimer’s] best interests, and it also foreclosed the state's ability to recover from the father [Troy Deel] any support monies it had dispensed to the child [Jeffrey Shimer, born 03/90] under a governmental benefits program. Additionally, it has been held improper and a sham for birth parents to consent to a child's adoption in order to relieve the biological father of his support duty where the child's mother proceeded to petition the court to readopt her child.
LexisNexis 2007
. . .
ADDENDA
… Perhaps your client could “show good cause” for his illegal possession of Brigitte from September 2000 to the present…because the custody and visitation order signed in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court by Judge Carr in May 1999 giving me sole physical custody of my child is our only valid court order …
. . .
ADDENDA
... 75 jury trials only might be a sign litigants in Texas are not informed of all options. Juries would certainly correct for the nonsense inherent in litigated divorces. I say to Prof. Meyer the opposite will happen: contested divorces would become LESS expensive, SHORTER & more BUSINESS-LIKE. Juries to correct for chicanery, cronyism, collusion & corruption? Where is the harm? Nine of ten litigants would rather negotiate--all it takes is one unscrupulous lawyer to create a conflict where there is none. I [Veronique Wyvell] was jailed when I stopped showing up for vexatious attacks, no judge was willing to dismiss & sanction when appropriate. Judges [Jonathan Thacher & Jane Marum Roush] instead seized the $7862 bail my brother [Chris Wyvell] posted on my behalf & gave it to the sub-judge/lawyer [Sandra Havrilak] to pay her churned legal fees--the money my child's father [Troy Deel] spent in one summer to maliciously prosecute me. A jury would have protected me from such nonsense ...
. . .
ADDENDA
… [Troy Deel] summoned the police. Within three weeks, this angered, controlling, demanding, and moneyed man had me back in the courtroom for an emergency hearing to gain temporary custody of my baby [by having me incarcerated] pending the May trial because, he claimed, I impeded visitation without good cause on that night in March…If the law could allow a man to force a woman, using a restraining order or some other type of legal tool, to not bring her baby into the world, to abort her pregnancy, the man who fathered my child would have exercised that right. When he found out that I was pregnant, he opened the yellow pages of the phone book to the abortion clinics listing, put this under my nose and urged me to “at least call and get information.” He said that he “would be there for me every step of the way.” He never wanted [his daughter] to be born and urged me to abort for three months. During my emergency room visit for severe nausea and vomiting, he reminded me that “it wasn’t too late” to abort; I was in my twelfth week …
. . .
