Court Watcher’s Note Book

Court Watcher’s Note Book – by James Kelly

Court Watcher’s Note Book – electronic

This is very simply a tool designed to confront errors and corruption within our
court system. It has been held that unrebutted or uncontested affidavits stand as
Prima Facie Evidence and are deemed admissible in a Court of Law.
“Affidavits alone should therefore certainly be sufficient to prove a prima facie
case…” United States v. Kis et al., 658 F.2d, 526, 536-337 (7th Circuit 1981).
In the absence of accurate transcripts, official audio and video records, the
Affidavits of Truth contained herein form the basis for court watchers to file
evidence into the record of a case where judges may be using intimidation against
a litigant by speaking in a verbally abusive manner that is not reflected into the
record or mouthing directions to an attorney that is not heard by the court reporter,
or other such judicial misbehavior. This evidence can, and has been used to remove
problem judges from cases or even from the bench.

The use is as follows:

1) In the first section fill in the blanks with neat handwriting, but leave
Page___ of __ initial __, blank until just before notarization.

2) Take neat handwritten notes on the remaining of this page and then move to
the first clean page of section 2 and continue.

3) As the event nears its conclusion, or there are reflections of violations of
rights, judicial demeanor and judicial misbehavior that will need only a few
lines of notes, notes may be continued on the first clean page of section 3.
4) All of the appropriate pages may be photocopied, stapled, counted, and
Page___ of __ initial __, may be filled in.

5) The jurat on the bottom of the page in section 3 is to be signed with proof of
identification before a notary public.

6) This may either be submitted by the litigant as an exhibit within another
document, or it may be submitted independently into the record once the
appropriate front page for the title of the case is added. All parties should be
appropriately notice as to the court’s direction such that they have been
presented with an opportunity to rebut this affidavit.

It is harder to rebut the affidavits from multiple court watchers.


Psychologist (falsely) opines that alienating parents are most often mothers

Dr. Alissa Sherry opines that alienating parents are most often mothers (see image below in court testimony given under oath).

” … most of the alienation cases I’ve seen have been mostly mothers, but I’ve had a handful where the father was the alienator”  (note this is someone who has said that they have done hundreds of cases and she admits that only a handful have shown the father is the alienator?)

She gives no valid and reliable scientific evidence to support her opinion.  This is gender bias against women. In fact, research on alienation most recently from Joan Meier and others indicates that alienation is not most often mothers.

How can a custody evaluator with a preconceived known gender bias perform unbiased custody evaluations?  It is no surprise that she sides against the mothers around 80-85% of the time in family court cases.

This transcript was provided to the TSBEP in a previous complaint years ago and that complaint was dismissed.

Gender Bias and the Myth of Parental Alienation

Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and Abuse Allegations