Coming soon. The delay is in the incredible amount of lies. This page is in the process of being built.

Will be publishing soon, the fact that in EVERY SINGLE COURT date Lili Kramil Marcus has put forth false, misleading, perjured statements to the courts. This information is supported by the CAS own records. Both children have tried to fire her. The only truthful information Lili Kramil Marcus has told the court is that neither boys trust her. So true. Coming. The Children’s lawyer Lili Kramil Marcus; conversation on tape. Next conversation on tape, denying the above conversation and telling me “it’s in her records.”

This is a letter child C wrote on December 26th, 2006 while visiting my aunt over Christmas. I was not allowed to see him then. He had never met my Aunt before.

This is child T’s letter of complaint written on December 26th, 2005 while living with my Aunt. Both boys tried to fire Lili Kramil Marcus. Just after writing this letter child T was seriously misrepresented again by Lili Kramil Marcus. T was put in my Aunts home by the CAS as he would not stay with them and they would not let him live at home. She was a stranger to him. This was not a good place and it fell threw on January 5th, 2006 and he was taken back to the CAS. Neither the CAS or his own lawyer ever asked him what happened. The CAS traumatically rips a child away from home, leaves him with strangers and when that collapses they did not even ask if he was alright. . He was not even informed of this court date on January 10th that directly related to him and his placement back in CAS this also against his rights. In court on January 10th the CAS shocked me with a claimed that T attacked C with an ax while at my Aunts house. My Aunt was not used to teenage boys she reported an incident that the CAS took and greatly exaggerated. This incident was used in court to place sever restrictions back between myself and T as CAS suggested that I was a bad influence. This was also used to restrict the brothers further. Or I believe to support the extreme measures the CAS had already taken as I was totally restricted from C and both boys were already heavily supervised with each other. While the children were in CAS custody I was to be severely restricted period. This is a common practice by the CAS. In court Lili Kramil Marcus supported the allegations from the CAS affidavit without speaking with her clients. She misrepresented T and gave false information to the court that supported this sever restriction and that T has sever behavior problems. It was the day after court when I had a visit with the boys that I asked them about the incident with the ax. Both boys said that it never happened. C said the allegation was silly. It was then I became aware that no one bothered to ask them about it. The CAS workers were of course listening to this as the boys strongly denied the allegation. Never the less it was used by the CAS in a factum in March. Child T was then labeled with behavior problems in court and dangerous and should not be with his brother. He was also labeled as behavior problems for running away from them because he wanted to come home. T has no behavior problems as noted in all CAS affidavits from before they removed him from home. Before CAS removed T he was described as well mannered, polite, potential for University, no behavior issues. Most of the information I have of the many lies and misinformation to the court comes from her dealings with C. T was on the run much of the time, there for he spent very little time with her. It was when T was in custody that Lili Kramil Marcus gave the most damning evidence supporting the CAS affidavits without speaking to him. Previously she had little to comment on T as he was obviously not there. At no time during the court did the CAS or Lili Kramil Marcus give any indication that they had not spoken to the boys and confirmed the information. T did better in court without a lawyer speaking for him than C did. When I am finished with this page you will see why.

Lili Kramil Marcus told the court that C did not want to come to court. C has always wanted to uphold his right to attend court.

These letters were written during a supervised visit on January 11th, 2006. It was during this visit that I found out that neither the CAS or the children’s own lawyer spoke to the children before court on January 10th.