Friday, October 14, 2011

Dear Senator Charles E. Schumer,

I am writing to you in regards to me and my daughter’s involvement in the Brooklyn, NY court. There are documented violations of our civil rights by two non-profit organizations one of which receives both Federal and State funds and the other which is solely funded by the State of New York.

The Sanctuary for Families,
Mailing Address:
Sanctuary for Families
PO Box 1406
Wall Street Station
New York, NY 10268
Phone: (212) 349–6009
Fax: (212) 349–6810

has been representing my wife, who is Chinese, since September of 2006. At trial she admitted that she gave false statements to begin this litigation yet her Attorney has continued in this litigation knowing full well it is her ethical and professional duty as a member of the New York State bar to inform the judiciary and myself and Attorney of this and move to end this matter.

The Children’s Law Center ,
44 Court Street
11th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
TEL 718-522-3333
FAX 718-522-7376

Has failed in its representation of our child to protect her civil rights and has acted in concert with the above organization and its Attorney’s. The mission statement of this organization states it provides services to indigent children; my child has never been poor as outlined by the federal guidelines.

There is also a creditable threat that my child maybe kidnapped back to China by her mother. Elizabeth is our biological child, born in Shenzhen, China, October 21, 2004. I was married and resided with her mother in China from September 2002 until our final departure in August 2005.

My most immediate concern is to celebrate the birth of my daughter with her as due to this unjust litigation she and I have only spent her first birthday together. I ask your help and support in obtaining a court order preventing her from leaving the jurisdiction until this matter is resolved. I as a Pro Se litigant have filed two motions with this court to obtain this relief and both times they were dismissed.

Lastly I believe that legislation at the Federal and State level should be drawn up and introduced preventing others from experiencing such abuse and the trampling of citizens’ rights. This is and has been such a tightly constructed web, which even though innocent and painfully aware of the emotional damage suffered by their children, most parents are depleted by and unable to seek and receive justice.

Sincerely,

Mr. Mark J. Sullivan

Brooklyn, NY 11214
Tel: 347-713-5025
Cell: 646-206-5872
http://www.markjosephsullivanphotography.com
mark@markjosephsullivanphotography.com

Thursday, October 20, 2011
Congressman Michael Grimm
7308 13th Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11228
Phone: 718-630-5277
Fax: 718-630-5388

Dear Congressman Grimm,

This Oct 21, 2011 marks my daughters 7th birthday. I spent her first birthday with her but not one since and it would seem this upcoming one as well. I have had no contact with her since May when my insurance was terminated for no apparent reason.

This is due to the Sanctuary for Families litigating this false case now going in to the 6th year.The record as stated in the appeal establishes that the plaintiff admitted at trial that she gave false statements to begin this as well as other civil rights violations.
I will be found innocent yet SFF will continue to receive federal monies and violate more citizens’ rights just as they have done my daughters and mine.

Therefore I am writing to you in regards to me and my daughter's involvement in the Brooklyn, NY court. There are documented violations of our civil rights by two non-profit organizations one of which receives both Federal and State funds and the other which is solely funded by the State of New York.

The Sanctuary for Families,
Mailing
Address:
Sanctuary for
Families PO
Box 1406
Wall Street Station
New York, NY 10268
Phone: (212) 349-6009
Fax: (212) 349-6810

has been representing my wife, who is Chinese, since September of 2006. At trial she
admitted that she gave false statements to begin this litigation yet her Attorney has continued in this litigation knowing full well it is her ethical and professional duty as a member of the New York State bar to inform the judiciary and myself and Attorney of this and move to end this matter.

The Children's Law Center,
44 Court Street
11th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
TEL 718-522-3333
FAX 718-522-7376

Has failed in its representation of our child to protect her civil rights and has acted in concert with the above organization and its Attorney's. The mission statement of this organization states it provides services to indigent children; my child has never been poor as outlined by the federal guidelines.

There is also a creditable threat that my child maybe kidnapped back to China by her mother. Files were opened with both the U. S. State department and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Elizabeth is our biological child, born in Shenzhen, China, October 21,2004. I was married and resided with her mother in China from September 2002 until our final departure in August 2005.

My most immediate concern is to celebrate the birth of my daughter with her as due to this unjust litigation she and 1 have only spent her first birthday together. I ask your help and support in obtaining a court order preventing her from leaving the jurisdiction until this matter is resolved. I as a Pro Se litigant have filed two motions with this court to obtain this relief and both times they were dismissed. The most recent one by order to show cause filed by the Sanctuary for Families stating my Pro Se litigant’s failure to state a cause of action.

Lastly I believe that legislation at the Federal and State level should be drawn up and introduced preventing others from experiencing such abuse and the trampling of citizens' rights. This is and has been such a tightly constructed web, which even though innocent and painfully aware of the emotional damage suffered by their children, most parents are depleted by and unable to seek and receive justice.

To this end I am asking to formally meet with a federal government representative in the justicedepartment or other which has jurisdiction over these non-profits to review the documentation of my claims.

Sincerely,
Mr. Mark J. Sullivan

Brooklyn, NY 11214
Tel: 347-713-5025
Cell: 646-206-5872

Tuesday, December 27, 2011
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Federal Coordination and Compliance Section –NWB
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530

Mark Sullivan

Brooklyn, NY 11214
Tel: 347-713-5025

Complaint Form Attachment:
RE:
The Childrens Law Center
44 Court Street 11th FL
Brooklyn NY 11201
718-522-3333
Fax: 718-522-7376
3*
Sanctuary for Families
110 Wall Street, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10005
212-349-6009
Fax: 212-566-0344
10*
In late Aug 2006 (on or about the 23rd) my wife, Binong Xu began litigation in Family Court,Brooklyn NY for a family offense, a temporary order of protection, address confidentiality and custody of our biological daughter Elizabeth Mie Xu Sullivan D.O.B. Oct 21, 2004, born,Shenzhen, China. This case was transferred to the IDV part shortly thereafter and the Center for Battered Women's Legal Services Sanctuary for Families (SFF) began representing her in this matter, yet failed to verify her allegations at this time and seemingly since. Ms Xu in her filings stated I was arrested in China while she was pregnant. As the Chinese Government is charged with the duty to inform the U.S. Embassy within 4 days of the arrest and or detention of a U.S. Citizen and records of such actions are easily verified SFF failed to inquire. There was no such arrest, incidence nor detention as admitted at trial by the plaintiff, Ms Xu. Both the plaintiff’s Attorney and the Law Guardian failed to move to dismiss this case, nor restore Elizabeth’s right to regular and frequent parental contact.

As a result of these false allegations and others, The Childrens Law Center was appointed by Judge P. Henry and supervised visits begun in Oct 2006, despite the fact Elizabeth was not an indigent child at this time nor prior to, as is the mission statement of this non-profit solely funded by the State of New York, Unified Court System. The Administration for Children was contacted by me, late Aug 2006; an investigation was begun and concluded in Jan 2007 with a finding of NO negligence by either parent.

In January 2007 this case was reassigned to Attorney Hilarie Chacker she subsequently became Co-Director, Brooklyn Office, The Children's Law Center, during the tenure of this case.

In Oct 2007 a forensic evaluation was completed by Dr. Mark Rand which both Attorneys
recommended on the record yet when he appeared testify neither would accepts him as theirwitness. Judge P. Henry vetted him as an expert and testimony, report was given.
Dr Rand’s evaluation failed to meet the minimum standards as set out by the American
Psychologist Association, to which he testified. His observations consisted of just 16 minutes of Elizabeth and myself, (Father) while the mother was in the next room. Dr Rand also testified that he has completed on average 50 evaluations per year over the 3 preceding years. Both Attorneys failed to object or in any way protect Elizabeth’s civil rights. Unsupervised visits were begun March 2008 at the conclusions of testimony by Dr Rand and Dr Langer for the defendant.

Aug 2008 by order to show cause which did not afford Elizabeth and my due process rights by lack of proper service and an ex parte hearing being held, visits were terminated. Since that date and despite a final decision by Judge P. Henry, Sept 2010 which finds no basis for this action, Elizabeth has only had supervised visitation with her father.

As per the final orders of visitation, Sept 2010, since May 2011 Elizabeth has had NO contact with her father, despite a forensic visit report, which speaks of the possibility she would be taken back to China by her mother, that it is recommended she have more contact with her father. And speaks of the emotional damage she is experiencing, both Attorneys have received a copy of in April 2011. Since May 13, 2011 I have the submitted of over 10 adults to supervise visits, one of which both Attorneys agreed to yet the mother denied this person who was available for an afternoon just days after Elizabeth’s 7th birthday. Currently an adult with over 20 years of experience in social services working with families has been submitted yet parties are resisting.

11*
Beginning in Dec 2007, I submitted formal letters to the Children’s Law Center regarding the handling of the Aug 2008 OSC. Beginning first with Attorney Chacker, than in Jan 2009 to her supervisor and again to the Director in Feb 2009,I received no response.

August 12, 2009 I filed a grievance Docket # K-1235-09, Attorney Chacker related to this
matter. September 02,2009 I filed a complaint with the New York Attorney General’s Office #09CHN0395 related to this matter. October 02, 2009 I filed a complaint in this matter, Attorney Norejko Docket # 2009-2567.

Feb 04, 2010 I moved to have both Attorney’s recused it was denied by Judge P.Henry.

Mark Sullivan

Brooklyn, NY 11214
mark@markjosephsullivan.com

From: "Mark Sullivan" <mark@markjosephsullivanphotography.com>
To: "Ousman laast" <ousman_laast@gillibrand.senate.gov>
Subject: Fw: Decision
Date: Sunday, August 04, 2013 11:33 PM

Hi Ousman,

I was speaking with someone regarding the appeal..upon reading the decision, which is in the body of this email below and wanted to pass this on to you.
“”Here, the determination that visitation should be supervised was made after a hearing, and is supported by the evidence in the record, including expert opinion adduced after a forensic examination.””

This is an extreme error as the judge qualified Dr. Rand.. he could not meet either Daubert or Frye standards. The transcripts will reflect it, he completed the total eval, interviewing both parents, 16 minutes with Elizabeth and I, collateral reports and report writing in 18 hours total. APA suggests roughly 34 hours, 4 to 5 pencil and paper tests and for a diagnosis of BPD there are 4 or 5 gold standard tests, none of which were given to me nor were any tests administered to either parent. He also testified that he has done an average of 50 evals per year for the last 3 years. He went on to testify that he believed the allegations of abuse and that my former wife was a healthy, normal well adjusted person. Oct 2007

During a narrow focus hearing in jan,feb 2008 he testified and my psychiatrist, senior and director of 2 clinics, who did my intake and supervised the therapist I saw as well as 3 other meetings with him. Testified to a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with emotional components. As a result of these hearings I was granted unsupervised visitation with my daughter. Since it was NOT part of the larger trial it was not in evidence for the appeal.
What can be done to right this injustice?
Mark

From: Mark Sullivan
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:18 PM
To: Ktux@aol.com
Subject: Re: Decision

What are my next moves?
This judge violated my and Elizabeth's civil rights.

I have not seen her since May and tomorrow have an intake for visits.
Mark

From: Ktux@aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:05 PM
To: mark@markjosephsullivanphotography.com
Subject: Decision

Dear Mark:

I'm sorry to have to advise that the court ruled on your appeal and has denied it. The following is the decision of the court. I wish this could have turned out better, I know it was important to you.

Ken Tuccillo, Esq.
PO Box 576
Hastings on Hudson NY
10706
914-439-4843

MATTER OF BINONG XU v. SULLIVAN
2012 NY Slip Op 00368
IN THE MATTER OF BINONG XU, respondent, v. MARK SULLIVAN, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1). IN THE MATTER OF MARK SULLIVAN, appellant, v. BINONG XU, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2). IN THE MATTER OF BINONG XU, respondent, v. MARK SULLIVAN, appellant. (Proceeding No. 3). (Docket Nos. V-1013-06, V-1013-06/08A, V-1013-06/10B, V-1014-06, O-1012-06).
2010-09212, 2010-09214.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Decided January 17, 2012.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, N.Y., for appellant.
Amanda Norejko, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Janet Neustaetter of counsel; Tammy E. Linn on the brief), attorney for the child.
Before: Reinaldo E. Rivera, J.P., Sheri S. Roman, Sandra L. Sgroi, Jeffrey A. Cohen, JJ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the provisions of the order which are challenged on appeal were superseded by the resettled order; and it is further,
ORDERED that the resettled order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The father withdrew his petition for custody during the course of the hearing. Therefore, his contentions regarding an award of joint custody are not properly before this Court.
Although "[s]upervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child" (Matter of Bullinger v Costa, 63 A.D.3d 735, 735-736; see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 44 A.D.3d 1022, 1024; Cervera v Bressler, 50 A.D.3d 837, 839), a determination as to whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to the court's sound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound basis in the record (see Matter of Lorraine D. v Widmack C., 79 A.D.3d 745, 745-746; Matter of Smith v Roberts, 67 A.D.3d 688, 689; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d at 839). Here, the determination that visitation should be supervised was made after a hearing, and is supported by the evidence in the record, including expert opinion adduced after a forensic examination.
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit, or need not be addressed in light of our determination.
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and COHEN, JJ., concur.

From: "Mark Sullivan" <mark@markjosephsullivanphotography.com>
To: "Ousman laast" <ousman_laast@gillibrand.senate.gov>
Subject: Fw: this mornings meeting, suplimental documents, M. Sullivan
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:24 PM

Dear Mr Laast,

A staff member called me this morning regarding the status of my case, thank you. I asked him at that time for the Senator’s support with the U.S. Attorney General’s Office. I have contacted them as noted below.

Attached are the documents submitted to the Public Advocate’s office. I also spoke with a Ms. McAvoy from the Mayor’s office in the legal affairs division, yesterday and emailed her documents. As Judge Henry is a Bloomberg appointee and a city Judge rather than a state Judge, it seems they would have authority over her. She was given a 3 year term before and recently, 2006 given the typical 10 year term.

My concern at this moment is my daughter, the actions of this Judge now and in the past concern me only to the extent that it has impacted my child and self. In speaking with an experienced social worker from Westchester this morning questions asked were have you asked that this Judge recues herself... yes, do you understand “Parental Alienation” yes.

Mark

From: Mark Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:05 PM
To: gethelp@pubadvocate.nyc.gov
Subject: this mornings meeting, suplimental documents, M. Sullivan

Dear Ms. George (?)
attached are documents which support my complaint. I realize that your office may not need them, but I am including them so that other agencies, your office refers me to has access to them.
It was very comforting in speaking with you, as I felt your understanding of the issues both my daughter and self are dealing with was quickly understood.
I did go directly to the U.S. Attorney Generals office after our meeting and filed a written complaint, mentioning that I had spoken with your office as well as my having filed a report with the FBI. They were very helpful in receiving my complaint and assured me that it would be reviewed and I would be contacted.
Thank you so much!
Mark

P.S. the ms app final was for my review before being submitted.. there were some errors.. most notably in the quote below the date 2005 should read 2004.. a few other minor errors were likewise corrected.

Attached please find the appeal to a decision by the Brooklyn Supreme Court, IDV part, the first 6 to 10 pages give an indication of many of the facts at issue. Having lived in China with Ms Xu, former wife, for 3 years during the period in which I applied for her visa and our biological daughter was born I was unaware of the events about to transpire. During the vetting process which took 19 months before Ms Xu was granted a visa, CR1, changed to R1 at port of entry, neither my background nor hers was a cause for concern in this. It was determined she was a trust worthy, up standing person, who by this lengthy process was acceptable to immigrate to this country.

In fact, Binong’s initial petition was based on a false statement which she later admitted was untrue and everything that followed was a result of that lie. She stated in her petition, sworn to under oath, that:

[Petitioner] states that [Respondent] choked her several times. He did this while she was pregnant. [Petitioner] states that in 2005, [Respondent] grabbed her by her hair and slammed her against the wall. [Respondent] was arrested.

In other words, she stated that Mark choked her when she was pregnant and that he was arrested for it. But, as Binong later admitted at trial, it was not true that Mark was arrested as a result of an attack while she was pregnant. The court’s order asserts that this was not a lie on Binong's part but merely a clerical error by court personnel. The record proves otherwise.

With the above verifiable facts, that my daughter has only seen me for 1 hour in the last 13 ½ months, despite the current court order of weekly contact and the frequent interference both Ms Xu’s Attorney and the Child’s Attorney have demonstrated over the years, I ask that this be address as quickly as possible.

I am attaching a visit report which all parties, including the judge received. 2 Amicus briefs, one which gives insight into this behavior and the second which speaks to the idea of a child determining their best interests along with the appeal.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Mark Sullivan

Brooklyn, NY 11204

Tel: 646-206-5872

Mark Sullivan
Photographer

Mark Joseph Sullivan Photography
Brooklyn, New York 11204
United States
Mobile: 646-206-5872
Email: mark@markjosephsullivanphotography.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/markjsullivan

Images of China

*&*