Why does Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Family Court Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan want to keep the record sealed in our family case and preside over all four
civil cases for my sons and daughters in a different division than her own?
FAMILY DIVISION CASE NUMBER: FD-01-001363 sealed, PACES CHILD SUPPORT CASE NUMBER: 266103882 sealed.
PERSONAL INJURY CIVIL CASE NUMBERS: GD-07-016776 M Clark, GD-11-019056 P Clark, GD-12-003338 J Clark and GD-12-015630 K Clark.
She wants to conceal her actions in our family case and she wants to deliver retribution for the complaint filed against her with the board of judicial misconduct. This
complaint was filed BEFORE she was "appointed" at the request of the criminal/civil Defendant to all three civil cases. Judge Mulligan has inserted herself into my
adult children's civil cases to preside over these cases to deny them due process which is a violation of the constitution. Now that she has cooperation of several more
democratic judges from the court of common pleas in Allegheny County in her corrupt scheme, she thinks she is untouchable and above the law.
She was "assigned" to personal injury civil division cases filed by adults based on a criminal conviction. Her assignment was requested by the criminal/civil Defendant in
a "phone call" directly to Judge Terrance O'Brien (administrative judge in the civil division) after I filed a complaint for judicial misconduct against Judge Mulligan.
A phone call was made by the Defendant's lawyer to Judge O'Brien and then Judge Mulligan (who has now stalked us into the civil division) was assigned to all four
cases at the request of a convicted criminal. These types of actions have happened in the past with the same lawyers in our family case. Apparently, special people can
approach an administrative judge directly as Mark Alberts did in our custody case with then Administrative Judge Eugene Scanlon. The other party is not noticed on
these back room transactions and orders are signed without the knowledge of the other party. The same thing went down this time and after the request was discussed
among several judges and arranged, the Plaintiff's lawyer was notified. Did you know that this goes on? I can prove it with documentation if you would like to email me at
On a non related issue that has somehow become related, we have waited for a ruling from Judge Mulligan on our child support case since November 2011. We can not
move into the appeal process until she rules in the child support case. No ruling has been entered leaving a minor child and three college students in a unstable situation
since a complaint for foreclosure has been filed against us on March 13, 2012. We have waited since November for a ruling and now Judge Mulligan is trying to settle the
civil claims with a child support order that would pay hundreds of thousands owed in back child support by the criminal Defendant. Anyone else would be in jail if they
owed this amount in child support. The child support case has nothing to do with the civil claims yet Judge Mulligan is trying to trade off one for the other.
Here is why:
Judge Mulligan desperately wants to settle the civil claims with a child support order for two reasons.
First, she does not want a civil settlement for damages to be paid out in order to further support her prior opinion in the custody case. Her opinion states that sexual
abuse never occurred in these cases.
While these cases represent the only consequences the Defendant will ever see for felony rape of his children, Judge Mulligan will remove the hope of justice in these
cases as she did in the family and criminal cases by dismissing them instead of settling them.
Second, she will appear to be enforcing owed child support for the Clark children. This will give Judge Mulligan the appearance of being a competent judge. She has
deliberately assigned herself to these cases for the purpose of protecting her own reputation for re-election and repercussions of her outrageous, suspicious and peculiar
rulings. She has silenced us from speaking about all of these cases for the same reasons. Her suggestions of child support or spousal support to settle the civil
claims and her refusal to rule on child support for six months proves this. She is up for re election in May 2013 in which she would receive tenure/retirement.
I for one, will see that she is not re elected.
She has denied this family justice in our family and criminal cases and has now stalked us into the civil division for the exact same purpose.
What judge should be supported and given the opportunity to preside over a case for a family who has filed a complaint for judicial misconduct against the same
judge prior to her appointment to preside over the case? What other case allows a party to have a judge of their own choice "assigned"? None.....
Of course Judge Mulligan has now rallied the troops to protect her even garnering the support of Judge O'Brien in an order denying a motion for reconsideration of her
corrupt "appointment" to these cases. Judge O'Brien makes false statements about facts that cannot be disputed to attack the victims of the criminal and to support
Judge Mulligan in her corrupt scheme. I say "bring it on". If nothing else, this case shows the truth about what actually happens to child victims of sexual assault in the
family division in Allegheny County. I have documented many more cases to prove the pattern of re-victimization of children by people who are supposed to protect the
best interest of the children... Read the complaint and see whose interests were protected in this case.
I started working on this complaint in June 2011 shortly after Judge Mulligan ruled that we could not receive the court ordered child support in the signed order dated 6-25-02 and fraudulently removed in a typed summary order dated 6-27-2002 and then later waived in a fraudulent settlement agreement dated 2-2-2006 and finally removed in a fraudulent "consent" child support order dated 11-09-2006, never seen by me or signed by me. All of these actions were suggested by Judge Mulligan and documented in a letter dated Jan. 20, 2006 that has been ordered to be removed from this web site by Judge Mulligan! You can email me for a copy at email@example.com.
Now Judge Mulligan has jumped ship from the family division to "insert herself" into my adult children's civil cases in the civil division. She will preside as the judge of civil cases for damages based on a criminal conviction that she has called "irrelevant".
Because Judge Mulligan is a family court judge with a full case load, she will have to change her family case schedule to come over to the civil division and preside over these particular cases, only.
As you read the complaint below, you will see that this is nothing new for us. She has been taking these types of extreme measures in our case for years. The criminal conviction is not only irrelevant to Judge Mulligan stated in the "sealed record" of the family case and locked down further with a gag order that applies to the victims only, but she made a ruling and order and a brief to the superior court in which she states that my son either "imagined" sexual abuse or he is a liar.
Now she will preside over a case for damages based on abuse that she states she believes never happened. In addition to this, she will decide what documents from the sealed family case can be used to prove my children's claims of sexual abuse while she covers her own conduct on the civil end refusing us discovery requests or entry of evidence or release of the sealed documents. She has used the gag order, seal and confidentiality agreement obtained by the criminal offender to silence us over and over and she has entered new ones for each and every case.
She also wants to protect the numerous other individuals who have worked hard to see that we were and are denied justice at every turn while a rapist walks free. She has no experience presiding over civil cases or with a jury trial and her stated bias in the record make her not only unfit to sit on my son's case but as you read on, you will see that she is unfit to serve in the capacity as a judge of the court of common pleas of Allegheny County.
I will proceed to attach the mountain of evidence to prove all of the claims contained in this complaint. I am hopeful but uncertain that she will see any consequences from anyone for her outrageous conduct but maybe this may help some other poor family who is going through the same corrupt nightmare that we have suffered at the hands of a tyrant for ten years and counting...
FORMAL COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST JUDGE KATHLEEN R. MULLIGAN
Valette J. Clark Plaintiff vs. Kevin D. Clark Defendant Case-FD01-01363-005 Paces Case Number: 266103882
My name is Valette Clark and I am the divorced mother of four children, Michael, Jennifer, Phillip, and Kristina Clark,
ages 23, 21, 19 and 16. We reside in Moon Township, PA and are submitting this complaint for judicial misconduct
against Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan. Judge Mulligan is a sitting judge in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas
Family Division. This complaint encompasses three cases that Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan has presided over for this
family. These cases are for child custody, support and equitable distribution matters. These cases have been presented
in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Family Division from 2002-2011. As a direct result of reporting sexual
abuse to criminal authorities perpetrated by the Defendant/father, Kevin D. Clark against his children, Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan discriminated against us in all three cases.
Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan ignored a 16 year documented history of physical and sexual abuse in our custody case.
She tailored her rulings and orders to the desire of the Defendant to be reunited with his children. Judge Mulligan made
her opinion clear at the onset of the custody case on the record and in her orders supporting reunification. A criminal case for felony and misdemeanor counts of sodomy, unlawful restraint, indecent assault, endangering the welfare of a child, and corruption of the morals of a minor was charged. Four years into the family case, and just months after the judge had ordered my children to visit unsupervised with their father, criminal charges were filed. Ignoring the criminal charges of a higher burden and furious over appearing incompetent, Judge Mulligan used her judicial authority and economic power to undermine the pending criminal case and punish our family financially in order to coerce her desired outcome in our criminal case. In doing so, Judge Mulligan obstructed justice in our criminal and family cases and clearly influenced the outcome of our criminal case. Therefore, these actions constitute an extreme abuse of judicial authority.
Judge Mulligan achieved her desired outcome in our criminal and family cases with the following actions:
•First, Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan scheduled and held the fifth custody hearing in our custody case prior to the scheduled criminal trial. This was in response to my motion to restore supervised visitation combining a motion to enforce from the Defendant. Her motives were solely to attack the credibility of the victims after a criminal case had been charged.
•Second, Judge Mulligan used this custody trial to force a 14 year old rape victim to visit unsupervised with and participate in reunification therapy with the criminal offender. Judge Mulligan told the reunification therapist not to “allow”
the victim to discuss the sexual abuse and current criminal charges with his father during therapy. Not only is thisreunification therapy and ignorance of abuse not in the best interest of a child, it is widely known that it is illegal to influence witness testimony. While the criminal trial resulted in a conviction, these visits and therapy sessions were nonetheless traumatic and damaging to the child.
•Third, Judge Mulligan used her power to find this writer in contempt of court on a motion that was never filed bythe other party. A contempt petition filed by the other party is mentioned in a false ruling and order dated August 18, 2005 while a motion to enforce was filed by the other party. Sanctions would ensue if I did not force my then 14 year old son to visit unsupervised or “provide consequences” for him because he ran away from the middle school to evade unsupervised visitation. This ruling was entered with no consideration for the fact that the father was awaiting trial for rape of the same child with a broomstick.
•Fourth, Judge Mulligan manipulated the child support and the divorce settlement to influence the outcome of the criminal case. Her “suggestion” of how this case would be settled was discussed on August 19, 2005 in a closed equitable distribution conciliation hearing and was outlined in correspondence from my lawyer to opposing counsel dated January 20, 2006.
1. A CUSTODY TRIAL WAS ORDERED RATHER THAN SUPERVISED VISITATION:
Judge Mulligan ordered a custody trial to be held in response to a motion to suspend or reinstate supervised visitation filed by the Plaintiff after criminal charges were filed against the Defendant in February of 2005. Instead of protecting the crime victims until the criminal trial had concluded, Judge Mulligan ordered a new custody trial to be held prior to the criminal trial. This custody hearing was scheduled for June 2005 but was continued by the Defendant to August 10, 2005. Judge Mulligan also granted the request of the Defendant/criminal offender to force his victims to participate in a second custody evaluation to be conducted by the same expert who admitted that he had neglected to report the sexual abuse in the earlier 2002 evaluation. Dr. Mark E. King had been hired by the Defendant in 2002. The sexual abuse ignored by this custody evaluator in 2002 is the same sexual abuse that resulted in the criminal charges filed against the Defendant in February of 2005. Dr. Mark E. King made conflicting statements to CYFS and the court concerning sexual abuse of the Clark children. Dr. King told CYFS that he had no knowledge of reported sexual abuse during his 2002 investigation and checked his "notes" and could find no notation. Under oath, 8 months later during the August 10, 2005 custody trial, Dr. King claimed that he was under no obligation to report or investigate sexual abuse because “the mother” reported it to him in 2002. Ignoring a glaring conflict of interest, Judge Mulligan court ordered the victims to participate in this charade. The judge went on to testify during the custody trial held on August 10, 2005. Criminal charges were already carried over from the preliminary hearing for trial at the time of the August 10, 2005 custody trial. Statements were made by the judge on the record during the August 10, 2005 custody trial that show a bias toward the Defendant.
Judge Mulligan testified reflecting her anger over the pending criminal case:
DR. MARK KING - RECROSS 105
4 Q. I suppose it's possible that mother could have
5 been the instigator in those criminal charges?
6 THE COURT: Anything is possible.7 A. Well, the D.A. had to be the instigator of the
8 criminal charges eventually.
Judge Mulligan went on to testify for the court ordered expert witness Dr. Mark E. King expressing her own opinion on the record:
8 Q. I'm referring to page 93 of that deposition,9 which is a matter of record.
10 "Did your wife return home to find you
11 pinning his legs down with your knees and
12 holding a broom as you were threatening to put
13 it in his rectum?"
15 "Were the other children present" –
16 MR. ALBERTS: The answer was no.
17 BY MR. MULZET:
18 Q. "Were the other children present and trying to
19 stop you?"
20 "I don't recall anything like that."
21 The following sequence of questions22 is, "Did you ever threaten Michael or his
23 mother with a butcher knife?"
24 "I don't recall threatening Michael
25 with a butcher knife at all. I am uncertain
DR. MARK KING - CROSS 101
1 whether I threatened Miss Clark with a butcher2 knife."
3 MR. ALBERTS: Your Honor, I'm going to
4 object now. I believe this is redundant,
6 THE COURT: Where are we going?
7 MR. MULZET: Well, the point is that
8 he chose to incorporate part of this into
9 his report and then ignored –
10 THE COURT: No. He talked about what
11 he admitted to. Frankly, there was enough
12 of the stuff that was admitted to in this
13 case that would give rise to a conclusion
14 of abuse.
15 This is what irks me about this whole
16 thing. This question in the deposition
17 has been what's been referred to all18 along. Nobody ever presented any evidence
19 before several months ago, any evidence,
20 other than that question, which the answer
21 was no.22 Go ahead.
Apparently, the evidence of a criminal burden met and charged by the state in spite of a bitter divorce process was not important. All of the other abuses denied by the Defendant in the deposition and later admitted by the Defendant in other custody hearings were not evidence to Judge Mulligan. Progress notes from Dr. Fischer verifying sexual abuse reported two years earlier on January 20, 2003 were not evidence. Prior acts of violence, an arrest for nudity and a long history of nudity in front of his children admitted by the Defendant were not evidence.
Testimony from the victims was not evidence. Questions submitted to the court (ignored by the judge) referring to sexual abuse of Phillip Clark to ask Phillip Clark before unsupervised visitation was ordered were not evidence. Last, the criminal Defendant never took the stand to deny these acts. All of this was not enough for Judge Mulligan to allow the criminal trial to come to a natural conclusion. Instead, this judge was going to see to it that justice would be aborted for us even using the threat of foster care for one of the crime victims. Custody of Phillip and Kristina Clark would be given to a foster parent in order to facilitate unsupervised visitation with their father rather than giving the father/criminal defendant custody of the children.
Conversely, statements made by custody evaluator Dr. Mark E. King, who had acknowledged that he was aware of sexual abuse in 2002 but did not report it, was considered evidence. The judge made her opinion known both on the record during the August 10, 2005 custody trial and in her ruling and order dated August 18, 2005 based on the August 10, 2005 custody trial. The ruling and order states that we are not credible and more specifically “the mother had not met her burden” while the victims were 14, 16 and 17 when the case was criminally charged as a result of her own order. As a result, the judge penned an order stating that “Father is to have partial custody every Thursday from 3:30 PM to 9:30 PM. Failure of mother to comply with the terms of this order shall result in award of counsel fees and additional financial sanctions for each violation.”
2. THE AUGUST 18, 2005 ORDER AND RULING ACCOMPLISHED TWO OF JUDGE MULLIGAN’S GOALS:
The first goal and the most important goal of this order and ruling was to force a rape victim to visit unsupervised with the criminal Defendant in a pending criminal case. She also forced the same victim to participate in reunification therapy with the criminal Defendant. These actions prove an extreme abuse of judicial authority. When the court ordered reunification therapist asked the court to end reunification therapy in November of 2006 prior to the criminal trial, Judge Mulligan instructed the therapist to continue reunification therapy. Dr. William Fischer was told to tell the victim Phillip Clark to refrain from discussing or confronting his father/criminal offender about sexual abuse. In this way, Judge Mulligan was able to intimidate a witness and victim and interfere in a pending case.
The second goal achieved by Judge Mulligan with the entry of the August 18, 2005 order and ruling was to undermine our credibility for the criminal case and to prevent me from protecting my own children from the criminal offender through the process of a criminal trial. Judge Mulligan rendered falsehoods in the order and opinion dated August 18, 2005 referring to motions that were never filed by the other party with the purpose of punishing or finding this party in contempt. These actions prove and confirm abuse of the contempt power, filing a false document and bias demonstrated by Judge Mulligan.3. THE AUGUST 19, 2005 PRIVATE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION CONCILIATION HEARING SEALED THE FATE OF THE CRIMINAL AND FAMILY CASES PER JUDGE KATHLEEN R.MULLIGAN:
In spite of the custody trial attacking the victims and her false ruling and order, Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan could not prevent the criminal case from moving forward to trial. In order to achieve her desired outcome in our criminal case, she would have to tie the family’s survival economically to the criminal case disposition. She did this by making her “suggestions” for a settlement that would include only one retirement 401K account to pay the lawyers and expert constituting an extreme abuse of judicial authority.
Anything else, such as our portion of the medical practice, would be “double dipping” according to the judge. Then she instructed my lawyer to withhold the agreement and distribution of funds until a criminal plea was signed for the Defendant. Then, my lawyer would get paid for the case.
This is precisely what happened and how it was orchestrated by Judge Mulligan.My lawyer drafted a letter to opposing counsel on January 20, 2006. This correspondence documents the suggested outcome from Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan during the conciliation on equitable distribution held on August 19, 2005:
“Val receives: non-modifiable, unallocated alimony and child support of $5,000 per month for 60 months; Kevin would be entitled to a modification hearing on alimony and child support if he suffers a significant decrease in income (greater than a 20% decrease in his adjusted gross income reported on his 2005 Federal Income Tax Return)”
“Using the amount paid for the purchase of Kevin's share of the medical practice eliminates the use of the income of the practice in the valuation, and therefore eliminates the issue of the double dip. Agreeing to alimony at the rate suggested by Judge Mulligan in the conciliation, and making it non-modifiable except for a catastrophe, eliminates the prospect of repetitious litigation. We will not need to be reviewing Kevin's tax returns annually, and he will not be risking annual increases.”
This letter describes the true nature of the conciliation hearing held on August 19, 2005 in which Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan told the lawyers privately to settle the case per her instructions. This equitable distribution conciliation was held just one day after the false August 18, 2005 ruling and order was entered by Judge Mulligan based on the August 10, 2005 custody trial. My lawyer was told to allow opposing counsel to write the agreement including items that would protect the Defendant and punish us economically. Judge Mulligan instructed the lawyers to enter this document without my knowledge, hold back the agreement, distribution of funds and last, to allow opposing counsel to enter a fraudulent child support order. All of this was done prior to the resolution of the criminal case to influence the outcome of the criminal case. These actions constitute an interference in the attorney client relationship by instructing my lawyer to act in ways that were not in my best interest.
The settlement agreement document was entered and filed on February 2, 2002 but I was denied a copy of the signed binding agreement per Judge Mulligan’s instructions. I repeatedly requested a copy of the signed binding agreement because I could not prove income without it since the old child support order was still in place and the Defendant was still paying the old amount. In early September 2006, expert witness for this Plaintiff, forensic accountant Michael Brocks, hired a lawyer to sue me, my lawyer C. Kurt Mulzet Esq. and his firm of Raphael, Ramsden and Behers for not paying the bill. John Edson Esq. sent a letter to me and the firm of Raphael, Ramsden and Behers referring to his client Michael Brocks and his intention to sue us to pay his outstanding bill. The binding distribution date was March 2, 2006 but by September 2006, Michael Brocks was furious because he was consistently ignored by Mr. Mulzet and payment was delayed seven months past the distribution date. Mr. Brocks was very concerned that I did not have a binding copy of my own settlement agreement. This put a kink in the suggested plan put into place by Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan.
I was harassed by Mr. Brocks constantly and sued by a lawyer who had represented me earlier in the case while I attempted to “beg” C. Kurt Mulzet Esq. to provide me with a binding copy of my settlement agreement and enforce the distribution of funds. I could not obtain health insurance or social security disability for my son or apply for financial aid for college for my son or daughter because I could not provide a copy of my own settlement agreement to prove the reduction in income. I did my best to placate forensic accountant/expert Michael Brocks as Mr. Mulzet instructed me to sign a promissory note for Mr. Brocks rather than enforce the distribution of funds due several months earlier. Mr. Brocks had referred me to Mr. Mulzet. I was forced to pay the legal fees for Mr. Brock’s lawyer and a total of $29,000 dollars for a practice evaluation that Mr. Mulzet knew was not needed after the August 19, 2005 conciliation hearing. Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan told Mr. Mulzet that I would not be receiving a portion of the medical practice as this would be considered “double dipping”. There would be no need for a medical practice evaluation. Rather than telling Mr. Brocks his services would not be needed, Mr. Mulzet allowed Mr. Brocks to prepare an expert report because Mr. Brocks had referred Mr. Mulzet for this case. Mr. Mulzet was not about to remove Mr. Brocks or disclose to me the true nature of the conciliation hearing on equitable distribution held on August 19, 2005.
Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan wanted to make sure that we received no binding copy of the settlement agreement and no distribution of funds before the criminal case was resolved. This way, we would have no way to prove there was any agreement in the event of incarceration of the Defendant. To achieve this perception, the Defendant went on paying the child support amount ordered prior to the settlement agreement that modified the child support amount per month from $6149 to $5300 per month starting on March 2, 2006. The Defendant continued paying the old support amount from March 2, 2006 to December 1, 2006 verifying this attempt to use the court’s economic power and bias to influence the outcome of our criminal case.
This settlement agreement also gave the criminal Defendant the added protection of allowing him to “remove child support in the event of incarceration”. I called Mr. Mulzet to fire him on October 1, 2006. I explained that I had been ignored for months as Mr. Mulzet refused me a copy of my settlement agreement and also refused to enforce the distribution of funds. As a result, the pending criminal trial was in jeopardy and I was being sued by my own expert. Mr. Mulzet sent me a copy of the fraudulent document on October 6, 2006. It was shocking. When I showed the ADA a copy of this “agreement” after October 6, 2006, he said that there was no law to protect us financially by allowing us to collect child support through other means such as attaching assets that belonged to the Defendant if he were sent to prison.
Ten months after this agreement had been entered, it would have been impossible to appeal the case if I would have had any funds to pay another lawyer to take our case. On top of this, the very Judge who instigated this outcome was ruling in all matters in our cases. I contacted Elliott Schuchardt Esq. to confirm my suspicions about the fraudulent agreement. Mr. Schuchardt confirmed that I was not able to “challenge” the fraudulent agreement 10 months after it had been entered. Judge Mulligan denied us the appropriate amount of child support or a divorce settlement outside of a portion of one marital asset. This amount was not enough to pay the lawyers, expert and taxes. I owe state and federal taxes on the funds given to the lawyers and expert for tax year 2006. Part of the settlement distribution was paid on December 15, 2006 instead of the March 2, 2006, the binding agreement date. December 15, 2006 was the day that the criminal plea was signed. This result was completely orchestrated by Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan. These actions constitute an obstruction of justice and an extreme abuse of judicial power. The last portion of the settlement due March 2, 2006 was paid on February 28, 2007, a year later, with no interest fees. A fraudulent child support order was entered on November 9, 2006 suggested by Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan. This would be the final slap in the face to the victims of the Defendant orchestrated by Judge Mulligan. She rewarded the Defendant financially for heinous crimes committed against his own children resulting in a criminal conviction. The child support manipulation was handled in accordance with Judge Mulligan’s documented “suggestion” for 60 months of “non modifiable child support” while there is no such thing as “non modifiable child support” in PA. The fraudulent child support order entered on November 9, 2006 removed the balance of court ordered child support in the form of bonus income that had never been paid by the Defendant. The order allows the Defendant to remove support but does not allow us to modify the child support. The settlement agreement locks this arrangement down even more by “waiving all unpaid child support” and making the support taxable to me and non modifiable for us only. This order ended the child support obligation when my youngest child would only be 16 on February 28, 2011.
Judge Mulligan instructed Mark R. Alberts, opposing counsel, to enter this order as a consent order per her earlier instruction during the closed equitable distribution conciliation. Mr. Alberts signed my name to the document and then he added hand written items including an “overpayment” for the over support paid from March 2, 2006 to December 1, 2006. Judge Mulligan did not initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against Mr. Alberts for criminal fraud because she instigated the fraud. There is no such thing as non modifiable child support in PA yet my children have received non modified child support according to the fraudulent documents entered causing great financial hardship for the Clark children and certainly does not serve the “best interest of the children”. All of the support is called alimony so that I alone can bear the tax burden. Child support for Michael, Jennifer, Phillip and Kristina Clark has not been enforced for the years of 2002-2013. The judge also allowed the Defendant to use half of his documented annual income from the 2004 tax return to recommend an amount for the non modifiable child support. This reported annual income of $209,000 was discussed during the August 19, 2005 equitable distribution conciliation. The Defendant’s 2004 tax return was produced for the conciliation proving income of $389,000+ annually while the Defendant has continued to pay child support based on $209,000 dollars from 2002-2011.
The support portion of the family case has a history of fraud and corruption from the inception of the case resulting in an award of support based on only one surgical practice of the seven surgical practices from which my ex husband is earning income. Mr. Clark has been successful in refusing to pay a 41% share of the income from bonuses which are a significant income source from June 25, 2002 to November 9, 2006. The court order dated June 25, 2002 from Hearing Officer Gary Gilman ordering the 41% share of each bonus received was ignored and fraudulently replaced. Mr. Clark’s representatives claimed that an altered, unsigned, typed summary order legitimately allowed him to pay one bonus portion for December of 2002 in contrast to the actual hand written signed child support order. Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan has condoned criminal fraud in her own division after learning that an employee changed the court order for child support dated June 25, 2002 removing $200,000+ dollars from the account. Judge Mulligan did not initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against this employee for criminal fraud of which the judge became aware having ruled recently in a case to shut down my web site. The judge ordered me to remove these documents proving fraud in the child support case or face sanctions. In response to our motion to collect this unpaid balance with interest, the judge denied us. Judge Mulligan claimed that I “signed away” the child support in the fraudulent settlement agreement. The refusal of Judge Mulligan to enforce court ordered child support and to deny appropriate child support has forced Mr. Clark’s own children onto medical assistance at the tax payer’s expense. We are now in foreclosure and a family of five will be displaced as a result of criminal fraud and abuse of judicial authority.
After the Defendant forced his victims to endure the stress and cost of five custody trials, he abandoned unsupervised visitation with Phillip and Kristina in 2007. This was shortly after a criminal plea was entered for the Defendant on December 15, 2006 and after the divorce was final on December 20, 2006. While the facts in this case support a generous settlement, the Defendant escaped with 95% of the marital estate including a medical practice. The Defendant was also financially rewarded by Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan with a “non modifiable” child support orderprotected by a fraudulent settlement agreement and fraudulent child support order. The “best interest of the children” appears to have taken a back seat to “the best interest of the Defendant” in this case proving extreme abuse of judicial authority and bias exercised by Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan.
This point is illustrated even more by Judge Mulligan’s actions after the final custody case and the criminal case had concluded. There was a guilty plea/no contest in the criminal case and a confirmation of this plea from the ADA to the court ordered reunification therapist. Judge Mulligan still refused to enforce health insurance for Michael Clark. She also refused to enforce life insurance to secure child support for the Clark children. The family court left our adult, disabled dependent son with no health insurance. After the father had been convicted of abusing this child, this was the order. The court also allowed Mr. Clark to name his girlfriend as the beneficiary on the life insurance policy. This policy was to secure child support for my children and was contained in the fraudulent settlement agreement. This extreme bias toward the Defendant made Judge Mulligan incapable of enforcing the small settlement we were entitled to receive in the fraudulent settlement agreement dated 2-2-06 instigated by Judge Mulligan.
Judge Mulligan went on to spend the years from October 28, 2004-June 27, 2011 delivering her economic sentence to this family. This is payback for the criminal charges filed in February 2005 and initiated on October 28, 2004 and a criminal conviction on December 15, 2006 in which the Defendant escaped jail time. We were denied justice. We were forced to accept a plea of three first degree misdemeanors of endangering the welfare of a child or face homelessness. Judge Mulligan’s actions in this case support criminal charges against Judge Mulligan of endangering the welfare of children, corruption of the morals of a minor, witness tampering and obstruction of justice in five cases relating to the Clark children. These cases include our child custody case, our child support case, our equitable distribution case, our criminal case, our complaint against Dr. Mark E. King Ph.D. and our civil rights violation case.
After Judge Mulligan succeeded in denying us justice in our family and criminal cases, she went on to rule in two other matters denying us justice to compound her extreme misconduct and proven bias toward the Defendant.
JUDGE MULIGAN INTERFERED IN AND OBSTRUCTED THE STATE INVESTIGATION OF A PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST CUSTODY EVALUATOR DR. MARK E. KING (Listen to attached recordings of conference calls!)
Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan abused her judicial authority by using her power to thwart the state’s investigation and prosecution of a private complaint that I filed against custody evaluator Dr. Mark E. King. The judge ignored and then refused the state prosecutor’s request for sealed documents after she had sealed our case. In response to my motion asking the judge to release documents for the state to investigate my complaint, the judge refused. Her order dated March 8, 2007 stipulated release of the documents to the state if the state filed their own motion for documents. On September 19, 2007, the state filed their own motion asking for a list of certified documents. The judge ignored the motion until January of 2008 constituting an improper delay in addressing court matters. The judge refused to honor her prior order dated March 8, 2007 and arranged two separate conference calls including the state prosecutor, Dr. King’s lawyer, the Defendant’s lawyer and myself to argue about the release of documents. She openly discussed whether the documents should be released to the state for a private complaint all before the state had filed any case against Dr. Mark E. King. Furthermore, the judge insisted that I provide a copy of my private complaint to Dr. King’s lawyer Robert Hoffman Esq., opposing counsel Mark R. Alberts and the court so that they could decide if my private complaint was valid and merited release of documents. The state prosecutor acknowledged that no other complainant has ever had to provide a private complaint to the Defendant before any action has been taken by the state. The judge delayed the release of documents allowing Dr. King’s lawyer Robert Hoffman Esq. and Mark R. Alberts Esq, the Defendant’s attorney, to ask for reconsideration purposely allowing the time to run out on the statute to prosecute. Dr. King’s lawyer had no standing to be included on any conference referring to the investigation of a private complaint filed against his client. The Defendant’s lawyer had no right to be included either. State prosecutor Ken Suter Esq. acknowledged this when he admitted he did not expect to have a problem obtaining records in the first place based on the prior order from Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan. Again, Judge Mulligan obstructed and denied us justice in this case.
JUDGE MULLIGAN REFUSED TO RECUSE HERSELF CONSTITUTUING A CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN REFERENCE TO A MOTION FROM THE DEFENDANT TO SHUT DOWN AND OR REMOVE DOCUMENTATION PROVING FRAUD AND CORRUPTION ON MY WEB SITE KNOWN AS WWW.VALETTECLARK.COM:
Judge Mulligan violated my civil rights. The way that my civil rights have been violated is by mandating that I remove documentation and language from my web site known as www.valetteclark.com with a court order dated 9-13-2010. An order has been issued on September 13, 2010 by Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan in response to a petition from my ex husband to shut down my web site known as www.valetteclark.com and or remove documentation from the site. The documentation that the judge chose to order removed proves my claims of fraud and corruption in our family case. This new order requires me to remove blogs, comments, personal emails, and correspondence between myself and my lawyers or face sanctions from the judge. This public web site has been operating for over two years. The documentation and language highlighted in the order has been categorized as “business documents” belonging to a medical practice known as Ophthalmology Associates of Osbourne at 1099 Ohio River Blvd. Sewickley PA. It is a medical practice owned by my ex husband, Kevin D. Clark M.D..
I had signed a confidentiality agreement in 2002 referring to “business documents” owned by this medical practice such as corporate tax returns, corporate minutes and financial statements etc. The recent order dated September 13, 2010, uses the 2002 agreement as its basis to remove from the website the documentation of fraudulent child support orders, a fraudulent settlement agreement, personal emails and correspondence between me and my lawyers and or the Allegheny County Family Division and information about health insurance and life insurance for my children. Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan presided over the Family Division Case since 2001.The petition filed on behalf of Mr. Clark outlined 3 orders from the original case to support the petition. Judge Mulligan put into place those orders. The orders were 1) a gag order, which applied only to me and my children, 2) an order to seal, obtained by Mr. Clark, and 3) the confidentiality agreement covering “business documents”. The petition was presented before Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan on March 25, 2010. Since the continuing Family Division Case was outlined in the website, and Judge Mulligan was part of the process in question, I presented a motion for recusal before Judge Mulligan and was denied. These actions constitute a clear conflict of interest by Judge Mulligan by refusing to recuse. The judge set down the matter for a conciliation hearing on April 27, 2010. At that hearing, the petitioner sited the confidentiality agreement covering “business documents” as a legal remedy to remove all of the documented evidence of fraud and corruption from public eye. The judge complied with this request in the recent order dated September 13, 2010. On its face the order appears to be removing “business documents” some of which do not exist and never have. The items specifically named to be removed in section 2, A-M are all of evidence of fraud such as personal emails from me to and from my own lawyers and the family division, changed court orders for child support, correspondence and court orders pertaining to child support, the settlement agreement and insurance. Judge Mulligan goes a step further in refusing me the right to speak in posts or blogs about my personal financial situation pertaining to child support or insurance now or in the future or on any other web site. She claims that this information is protected by an agreement specifically removing any documents other than corporate documents owned by the medical practice known as Ophthalmology Associates of Osbourne. These actions are a clear violation of my first amendment rights. The judge has gone on to sign into an order a new confidentiality agreement referring to the current child support case so that I can be sanctioned for proving fraud or corruption again in our current support case. I refused to sign the new agreement referring to alimony and equitable distribution matters that no longer exist. I am now bound by a new agreement that is in place to protect abuse of judicial authority and fraud from public eye in the current support case.
Because the judge left us unable to afford representation, I have waited for several years to file this complaint. Our family lives below the federal poverty level as she continues to rule in this case. The fear of her continued financial manipulation has paralyzed me. Now we are losing our home, owe taxes on a divorce settlement given to lawyers, and have no way to recover from the recent refusal to enforce court ordered child support. I will not allow this to happen to any other family. It is an extreme form of injustice that we have suffered from Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan. As a result of her ignorance toward victims of violent crime, there are many other families who have also suffered in the same way. Her inability to separate issues in each area of a case pertaining to family law, render her decisions biased and without merit. She will show partiality to a party based on her own insecurities and prior rulings, ignoring the facts and evidence of a case. She has punished this family economically for reasons that are inappropriate, illegal, and have nothing to do with the fair distribution of assets or child support.
After a careful review of the facts and evidence in our case, we are asking for Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan to be removed. I will forward and present evidence of:
All of the violations that I will present and prove to this board are covered under Canon 2A, and Canon 3 Sections A1, A3, A5, A6, B3, and C1A of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In summation, I am asking this board to review the evidence included with this complaint. This judge should no longer have the power to economically destroy any other family or influence the outcome of any other case. I am sure we are not the first family to have suffered this type of injustice from Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan but I am hoping this board will see to it that we are the last.
Valette J. Clark