Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: Walsh v. Russell From: "S Grant Russell" To: "Kelly Turnure" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 19:39:38 +0000 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: S Grant Russell< sgrussell@pm.me > Date: On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:39 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: Walsh v. Russell To: Max Di Fabio, ESQ. < md@difabiolawpc.com > Cc: Jennifer Jackman < jmj@mzw-law.com > Tara is a criminal who drugged and abused me and continues to coordinate with conmen under FBI indictment. She and her boyfriend attempted to extort me and both Kelly and I have been sent to hospital after break-ins, druggings and attacks. The evidence is that Tara and conmen were working together from the start. She not only drugged me with Lithium and Seroquel for over a year, but also with Mycophenolic Acid an immunosuppressant and LSD. Tara’s mother was recently accused by her 12 year old daughter of similar drugging. She is currently under criminal investigation in two states. The case in SF is being reopened because of recent evidence and a DA has been assigned in NY though everyone is waiting for the FBI trial and the family court hearing.  The events at the last visits also more than demonstrate the need for a criminal order.  Tara has Borderline Personality Disorder with Sociopathic traits, does not respect court orders and has been escalating issues relating to my daughter. She lies to friends and family about case details creating anger, tension and dangerous interactions. She or her mother deliberately bruised then reported those bruises in an attempt to deny visits. Then the story shifted to saying the “bruises were normal” then a letter comes to the court saying “there were no bruises at all.” When the AFC does not do her job in a mandatory reporting state and accuses me instead of making “outlandish allegations” of abuse when the same concerns are voiced by Tara initially and the Walsh history of abuse is so well documented boggles the mind.  I have a restraining order because Tara is an extremely dangerous person and she does not respect the Westchester Court’s orders because her violations have no consequence. She has only benefited from defying this courts orders. After a hearing the full facts, the Judge in SF simply did the right thing.  As for “choosing” not to see my daughter. I spent 5 months with 4 different supervisors waiting to start for Ms. Jackman to “vet.” After being denied visits for 5 months until Claudette LaMelle was permitted...without vetting.  My visits with Claudette are stopped now because of a deliberately contrived incident.  I did nothing wrong. Claudette and I were simply the victims of harassment once again. Claudette called it the worst/scariest incident she has faced in her career. Had the Walshes come to the Kittle House or simply not hidden in the woods by the road there would have been zero issue.  I have asked to continue take visits with Claudette now and no one can explain to me why this is unacceptable given revelations. I have asked to have my mother, a nurse, supervise and this is unacceptable. I have asked to allow any past supervisor to supervise without report and this is unacceptable. The Judge previously allowed both parents and “tainted” supervisors so I could see my daughter and Ms. Jackman had previously advocated for Nanny Abby Tesla, but now that approach is unacceptable. I have asked to take visits with any “licensed professional with appropriate certification and background” and this is unacceptable, because in Westchester it’s about who you know, and not whether they simply are qualified and neutral. To propagate the lie that I don’t want to see my daughter “zero zilch“ when I am fighting every day to see her and am moving my family to Chappaqua is absurd.  I am ready to see Evie any day. Get Tara to allow it.  Supervision is about to end anyway.   If Ms. Jackman wants to help me see my daughter, I would welcome her support in a new order that reinstates Claudette or any previously approved supervisor or any appropriately licensed professional with or without reports or my mother or simply states the obvious truth. I do not require supervision. I have not been permitted to see Evie because Tara has been granted de-facto veto over supervisors when the law is that consent should not be unreasonably withheld.  I have not been permitted to see Evie because supervisors that see or create reports that show the Walsh family abuse or antics are deemed “tainted” and improperly removed.  Ms. Jackman initially supported a nanny or family member for supervisor. What changed exactly? She refuses to say.  Did Tara show videos she was prevented by court order from showing because they are the product of a crime? What remaining issue does she still need Hymowitz to chime in on? She refuses to say.  Tara’s accusations have all been proven false. Every piece of sworn testimony contradicts it. Her evidence turned out to be fabricated and un-motorized letters and a set of videos that she took while I was drugged. Tara says I was a drug addict, acting crazy, thought I had security issues, and thought I was being drugged. It turns out I WAS being drugged, by Tara, and not to “help me,” but as part of a crime. After multiple days of hearings a court saw this and issued a permanent restraining order against Tara. It was a finding of fact and Ms. Jackman would be well advised to take it as such and stop with the vague notion that “serious accusations have been made by both parties.”  In any case let’s draft a new order and send it over for approval. Tara and Jackman will not agree, and I can again be accused of not taking my visits, if past is prologue. I should also note that the language of my permanent restraining order is not a “stay away” and it does not prevent visits or communication in any way. It simply prevents sig awful behavior like I have experienced in the past. My restraining order is designed to facilitate visits by allowing interaction and communication but  prevent actual bad actions.  Tara’s needs boundaries or things will get worse. On the other hand Tara’s false TOP now restricts ALL communication and removed the pick up and drop off exception from her stay away clause. It is designed to specifically to prevent visits and in the hopes getting a violation as we recently saw on 2 occasions. Ms. Jackman should join us in our call that Tara drop her false TOP. Steve  On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:00 AM, Max Di Fabio, ESQ. < md@difabiolawpc.com > wrote:     Max Di Fabio, Esq. Di Fabio & Associates, P.C. 2500 Westchester Avenue Suite 107 Purchase, New York 10577 Tel. (914) 448-0000 Fax (914) 448-0001 Cell (914) 560-6010 md@difabiolawpc.com   From: Jennifer Jackman <jmj@mzw-law.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 11:59 AM To: Max Di Fabio, ESQ. <md@difabiolawpc.com>; jguttridge@gclawny.com Subject: RE: Walsh v. Russell   Okay then don’t do it. Max, how can we deescalate the situation whey your client just obtained an order of protection against the mother?  I’ll let John respond about what his client should do as a sign of good faith under the circumstances.  I will say that I met the grandmother and she seems like a lovely lady.  I don’t have any concerns about her ability to be with the child.  That said, we’re in the middle of highly contested litigation.  The forensic will be completed shortly and hopefully it will give us some insight into the allegations made by each party against the other.  In the meantime, if there’s no agreement then there’s no movement.  I am constrained to mention that your client has refused to continue supervised visits choosing instead to have no contact, zero, zilch, nothing with his baby than see her supervised.  I will never understand that position..       Jennifer M. Jackman, Esq. Partner Miller Zeiderman & Wiederkehr LLP 140 Grand Street, 5 th Floor White Plains, New York 10601 914-455-1000 (phone) 914-468-4244 (fax)   150 East 52 nd Street, Ste 1903 New York, NY  10022 212-769-3500   e-mail:  jmj@mzw-law.com   Miller Zeiderman  &Wiederkehr llp     From: Max Di Fabio, ESQ. < md@difabiolawpc.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 11:46 AM To: Jennifer Jackman < jmj@mzw-law.com >; jguttridge@gclawny.com Cc: Steve Russell < sgrussell@pm.me > Subject: RE: Walsh v. Russell   Because meeting in a library is for pedophiles. Meeting in a library is beneath the dignity of most human beings. The Kittle House is more than appropriate for a visit. The child can just as easily get familiarized with Grandma at the Kittle House as she can at the library.   It is well past time that we deescalate this situation. Tara’s consenting to some visits with grandma would be a sign of good faith and may lead to a resolution.   Thank you.   Max Di Fabio, Esq. Di Fabio & Associates, P.C. 2500 Westchester Avenue Suite 107 Purchase, New York 10577 Tel. (914) 448-0000 Fax (914) 448-0001 Cell (914) 560-6010 md@difabiolawpc.com   From: Jennifer Jackman < jmj@mzw-law.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 11:40 AM To: Max Di Fabio, ESQ. < md@difabiolawpc.com >; jguttridge@gclawny.com Subject: RE: Walsh v. Russell   Max, Tara is not consenting.  The grandmother has not seen Evie in quite a while.  Why wouldn’t she at least want to meet with her initially at the library?       Jennifer M. Jackman, Esq. Partner Miller Zeiderman & Wiederkehr LLP 140 Grand Street, 5 th Floor White Plains, New York 10601 914-455-1000 (phone) 914-468-4244 (fax)   150 East 52 nd Street, Ste 1903 New York, NY  10022 212-769-3500   e-mail:  jmj@mzw-law.com   Miller Zeiderman  &Wiederkehr llp     From: Max Di Fabio, ESQ. < md@difabiolawpc.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 11:31 AM To: Jennifer Jackman < jmj@mzw-law.com >; jguttridge@gclawny.com Cc: Steve Russell < sgrussell@pm.me > Subject: Walsh v. Russell   Dear Jennifer:   The offer to allow my client’s mom (paternal grandmother) access to Evie at the library is ridiculous. Grandma is not a criminal not has she been ever alleged to have harmed the child.   Grandma has taken up residence at the Kittle House for purposes of seeing and spending time with her granddaughter. We3 are requesting that Tara’s mom drop off Evie at the Kittle House and she can elect to wait at the Kittle House while the visit is going on or she can go home until pick up time (TBD).   Could you please support this? There is no legitimate reason why the child should not see her grandmother post haste.   Thank you.   Max Di Fabio, Esq. Di Fabio & Associates, P.C. 2500 Westchester Avenue Suite 107 Purchase, New York 10577 Tel. (914) 448-0000 Fax (914) 448-0001 Cell (914) 560-6010 md@difabiolawpc.com   This electronic transmission by the law firm of Miller Zeiderman & Wiederkehr LLP contains information that may be confidential or proprietary, or protected by the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents hereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify Miller Zeiderman & Wiederkehr LLP at (914) 455-1000. Thank you. We are required by IRS Circular 230 to inform you that any statements contained herein are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by Federal Tax Law. This electronic transmission by the law firm of Miller Zeiderman & Wiederkehr LLP contains information that may be confidential or proprietary, or protected by the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents hereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify Miller Zeiderman & Wiederkehr LLP at (914) 455-1000. Thank you. We are required by IRS Circular 230 to inform you that any statements contained herein are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by Federal Tax Law.