Parental Rights and Justice, Supporting Jack and Casey He

Table of Contents

The Court of Judiciary has the authority over the complaints against D. J. Alissandratos............................................................................. 4

The list of charges against Mr. Alissandratos................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Charge No. 1: Mr. Alissandratos willfully distorted Jack He=s testimony in the February 7, 2002 hearing by falsely stating that the Hes have assets and sufficient collateral to borrow 1 million dollars................................................................................................................................. 7

Charge No. 2, Mr. Alissandratos based his order to require Hes to pay deposit on his distortion of Jack He=s deposition. 10

Charge No. 3, Mr. Alissandratos attempted to deprive Hes' rights to counsel by his distortion of Jack He=s deposition. 11

Charge No 4: Mr. Alissandratos lied in February 7, 2002 hearing to deceive Dennis Sossaman by stating ABakers have always been straight with this Court@................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Charge No 5. Mr. Alissandratos justified his order to require Hes to pay deposit alone with the lie that Bakers had always been truthful to him.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Charge No. 6, Mr. Alissandratos unfairly ordered the He family to borrow money in 7 days to post deposit for both themselves and the Bakers.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Charge No. 7, Mr. Alissandratos treated the Bakers with favoritism on the matter of posting deposit............... 16

Charge No 8, Mr. Alissandratos misled the disciplinary counsel on the basis of the February 7, 2002 orders by shifting dates and orders of events, by claiming that the orders were hinged on Jack He=s deposition while in fact Mr. Alissandratos issued the orders 2 months before the deposition was filed........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18

Charge No. 9, Mr. Alissandratos had ex parte communications with Larry Parrish on Feb 7, 2002, which resulted in the issue of the Guardianship order.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18

Charge No. 10_ Mr. Alissandratos had ex parte communications with Parrish on Feb 7, 2002 and Feb 8, 2002, which resulted in the issue of the No Contact order................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Charge No. 11, Mr. Alissandratos colluded with Kim Mullins and Larry Parrish to falsify testimonies regarding the No Contact order 29

Charge No. 12, Mr. Alissandratos conspired with Parrish in issuing the 2002/02/08 Guardianship and No Contact order 39

Charge No. 13, Mr. Alissandratos violated Mrs. He and Mrs. He=s rights to due process of law in issuing the ex parte Guardianship order 43

Charge No. 14, Mr. Alissandratos violated Jack He=s rights to due process of law in issuing the ex parte No Contact order 43

Charge No. 15, Mr. Alissandratos violated Casey Luo=s rights to due process of law in issuing the ex parte No Contact order 46

Charge No. 16, Mr. Alissandratos acted like a bully in the Court.......................................................................................................... 46

Charge No. 17, Mr. Alissandratos violated Mr. He and Mr. He=s rights to due process of law by effectively prejudging the matter in favor of Bakers at and immediately after the first hearing on February 7, 2002, without the Hes and Bakers giving testimony in the court 48

Charge No. 18, Mr. Alissandratos engaged Ex parte communications with Linda Holmes and Kim Mullins on Sept 26, 2003, resulted in the ex parte decision to indefinitely delay the trial....................................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Charge No. 19, Mr. Alissandratos engaged ex parte communications with Linda Holmes on Sept 26, 2003 on other matters, including stipulation of facts............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 52

Charge No. 20, Mr. Alissandratos lied and directed a show of deception in court on Sept 29, 2003 in order to conceal the fact that the agreement to continue the case had already been reached between Mr. Alissandratos and Linda Homles Ex Parte.................. 53

Charge No. 21, Mr. Alissandratos=s ex parte decision to continue to case on September 26, 2003 drained the constrained resources of the Hes and benefited the Bakers............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 55

Charge No. 22, Mr. Alissandratos lied to Disciplinary Counsel on the nature of the 09/26/2003 Ex parte communication 55

Charge No. 23, Mr. Alissandratos colluded with Linda Holmes to offer false testimony regarding the 09/26/2003 ex parte communication 56

Charge No. 24, Mr. Alissandratos falsely accused and intimidated David Siegel with his false testimony............... 58

Charge No. 25, Mr. Alissandratos attempted to damage the Hes= case by by injecting irrelevant documents that attack the Hes family into the Court of Judge Robert Childers.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59

Charge No. 26, Mr. Alissandratos released confidential documents regarding the Hes= complaints against him to the Baker, Parrish team and Judge Childers........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Charge No. 27, Mr. Alissandratos delayed the case repeatedly, benefiting the Bakers side............................................. 60

Charge No. 28, Mr. Alissandratos is a strong suspect behind the intimidation of David Siegel.................................... 62

Response to Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish's personal attacks....................................................................................................................................... 64

We request that the Court of Judiciary to formally charge Mr. Alissandratos for judicial misconduct and other violations according to the law 66

List of attached exhibits................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 68

References................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 68

Charge No. 1: Mr. Alissandratos willfully distorted Jack He=s testimony in the February 7, 2002 hearing by falsely stating that the Hes have assets and sufficient collateral to borrow 1 million dollars

On Jan 23, 2002, Parrish filed a motion to require Hes to pay deposit. The motion was heard on February 7, 2002. In the motion, Parrish included excerpts of Jack He's deposition, including detailed information on the Hes family's financial condition. Jack He=s deposition had not been filed with the court until April of 2002, so Mr. Alissandratos could not have read the full text of that deposition. However, Parrish did quote in his motion the part in which Jack He answered questions about the assets he had. On Page 11 of Parrish=s motion, the quoted deposition transcript text showed that the Hes family had little assets, just small equity in a financed car with $1300 down payment, a used car worth $1500 and a computer bought at $1600, plus a TV. On page 14 of Parrish=s motion, in regards to Jack He's statement that he could borrow money, the quoted deposition transcript further clarify this point,

Q: How much money do you think he could give you?

A: $10,000

Q: $10,000. And when I say, Aunsecured@, I mean you wouldn=t --- you don=t have any property or anything you could give us collateral, do you.

A: No. They don=t -- they trust us.

Q: Okay. So you just ask, they give it to you, you pay it back?

A: I tell them why I borrow money.

Q: How long do you think it would take you to get the money together if you tried to borrow it.

A: Within a month.

The above questions were asked and answered after Jack He stated that he could borrow money. Previously, the Hes family's petition for getting their daughter back was turned down by the Juvenile Court due to concerns on their financial conditions, therefore, during the deposition, Jack He was trying to make a point that he was willing to be in debt for his daughter. Further down the page, the quoted portion of the deposition showed that Jack He had not borrowed any money at all to that point. The deposition had more details, where Mr. He testified that they only had one bank account with $2700 total balance, and no other financial instruments such as stocks and bonds.

Any rational person reading this portion of deposition, even in its out of context state, can conclude that the He family had little assets. The Hes had never borrowed anything to that point, and the only basis Jack He provided for the ability to borrow one million dollars was they were fighting for their daughter. Therefore Jack He=s statement that he could borrow money was mere personal belief in other people=s unproven support for his cause.

During the hearing, after Parrish presented his argument, Dennis Sossaman, attorney for the Hes family, objected vehemently to the idea to require the Hes to post an arbitrary amount of deposit without even a proof of the amount needed. He argued:

AWhat Mr. Parrish is trying to do is price my clients out of this lawsuit. I have appeared before this Court, Your Honor, and made statements as to the impoverishment of my clients because that was truth to the best my knowledge and abilities. I am appointed by the Juvenile Court of Shelby County pursuant to Rule 13 of the Tennessee Rules B of the Supreme Court Rules because they are entitled to be represented by counsel in a termination of parental rights in an adoption matter, and that is how I am here today.@

(February 7, 2002 Transcript, page 26, L.5-16)

To silence Sossaman=s objections, Mr. Alissandratos twisted Jack He=s deposition, in his justification of the order, he stated:

AOut of the lips of Mr. He, his sworn deposition, he has substantially more assets than he has represented directly or indirectly to this Court.

Towards that end, therefore, the Court will admit B require B makes this finding: First off, he does have the present ability through his income and through his apparently very sufficient collateral, sufficient with these other persons to borrow in excess of one million dollars, a million forty thousand. That he can even borrow without any interest. The Court finds that is a remarkable state of financial security to be able to do so and is one that of course he cannot fail to give his child the benefit of.

The Court finds that he should, therefore, post ten thousand dollars promptly with this Court with regard to not only present but potentially future guardian as litem=s feeY..@

(February 7, 2002, hearing transcript, page 56)

Mr. Alissandratos is a knowledgeable judge; he is well educated to understand the meaning of words such as assets and collateral. But Mr. Alissandratos twisted Jack He=s words, with a purpose.

When Parrish was trying to trick Jack He with the word Agive@ instead of Alend@ money in the deposition, he had a purpose. When Mr. Alissandratos twisted Jack He=s words, he was to make rulings based on the twisting.

Charge No. 2, Mr. Alissandratos based his order to require Hes to pay deposit on his distortion of Jack He=s deposition.

After ordering the Hes to post $15000 deposit, Mr. Alissandratos said:

AIn other words, down the road if Mr. He is to be reimbursed, I have every confidence that the Bakers will fully reimburse him because they will adhere to an order of the Court. I do believe that.@

(February 7, 2002 hearing transcript, page 60, L16-20)

From the above, it=s clear that Mr. Alissandratos purposely distorted Jack He=s deposition to make a favorable ruling for Parrish=s motion, requiring the Hes to pay fees not only for themselves but also for the Bakers. Mr. Alissandratos switched words three times, from Aadmit@, to Arequire@ and finally to Amakes this finding@. That was the trail of a distortion and a lie in its making. Mr. Alissandratos knew that he was twisting the facts, he knew he was making lies.

Charge No 4: Mr. Alissandratos lied in February 7, 2002 hearing to deceive Dennis Sossaman by stating ABakers have always been straight with this Court@.

After Mr. Alissandratos ordered the He family to pay deposit alone, He=s attorney, Dennis Sossaman objected, and tried to argue that Bakers should also pay deposit. Mr. Alissandratos interrupted Sossaman=s argument, and overruled his objection by using lies:

Mr. Sossaman: Reasonableness of fees, no. That my client be the one that his deposit be the only one drawn against and that is not be 50 percent of his money go towards her and 50 percent of the Baker=s money go towards her. I would ask the ..

THE COURT: I=m going to overrule the objection and thank you for that because I do want to make that point. At this point in time I do find that there is no reason to believe that the Bakers will not meet their responsibility ultimately to this court. They have been straight with this Court, so to speakY When one is straight with the Court, when one is truthful all the way through, then the Court believes that that should be recognized and dealt withY.@

(February 7, 2002 transcript, page 59 L.12 to page 60 L10)

Basically, Mr. Alissandratos stated that the Bakers had been always truthful and straight to him. This was a 100 percent lie, because at the time of above ruling, the Bakers never had any direct or indirect testimony before Mr. Alissandratos >s Court. In fact, as later found out by the Hes attorney, the Bakers had a history of bankruptcies, and Mr. Baker=s job situation was very unstable.

During the February 7, 2002 hearing, Mr. Alissandratos completely ignored Dennis Sossaman=s arguments on key issues such as the economic conditions of the Hes and one-sidedly accepted Parrish presentation, including disputed allegations and quotes of deposition taken out of context. Then Mr. Alissandratos twisted the words to impose tyrannical orders on the He family.

When Sossaman asked for 45 days for the Hes to pay the deposit, Mr. Alissandratos refused:

THE COURT: Of course, sure. You know, we still got this other forty thousand dollars here. Those are people in the United States here. I think: is that correct?

Mr. Parrish: At least three of them.

THE COURT: Three. Okay.

Mr. Sossaman: Will you give me one second, please?

THE COURT: Sure, sure. I=m going to take him at his word what he said.

Mr. Sossaman: Your Honor, we respectfully request 45 days.

THE COURT: Give me the reasoning though? I would like to know why, in other words ..

Mr. Sossaman: He=s got to B he may have let his mouth overrun his ability to borrow at his deposition, and he may have stated that B what he believed to be the fact that he could borrow this money without discussing it with people prior to B

AIt is FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, EFFECTIVE NUNC PRO TUNC February 7, 2002, at 11:30 am, CST, that respondents, on or before 4:00 p.m., Thursday, February 14, 2002, shall pay, in cash or by a cash-equivalent negotiable instrument (i.e., funds immediately available beyond the control of the respondents), to the Clerk & Master ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to be distributed to the Clerk & Masters to defray fees for professional services and for reimbursements of costs advanced by the guardian ad litem, subject to said fees and reimbursements being found by the Court to be reasonable@.

Charge No. 7, Mr. Alissandratos treated the Bakers with favoritism on the matter of posting deposit

On May 1, 2002, David Sigel filed a motion to require Bakers to deposit equal portion of guardian at litem fees, attorney ad litem fees and psychological evaluation fees. In the motion, Mr. Sigel pointed out the lack of legal and factual basis in the February 7, 2002 order, he also detailed the Bakers= unstable financial and job situation. The motion was finally heard five months later on Oct 9, 2002. During the hearing, Mr. Alissandratos was very considerate to the Bakers. He gave them three months to post the deposit, and attached no harsh conditions if the deadline was not met by the Bakers. On January 10, 2003, after repeated urges by Mr. Siegel, Mr. Alissandratos finally signed the order to require Bakers to post deposit. In his order, Mr. Alissandratos specifically added a paragraph saying:

AThe Court reserves the right to be as compassionate with the Petitioners as it was with the respondents and wishes to emphasize that in the event that the ordered payment is not paid within the time frames set forth above then it may allow the Petitioners an additional eight months after January 7, 2003, within which to pay the aforesaid sums@.

Charge No. 9, Mr. Alissandratos had ex parte communications with Larry Parrish on Feb 7, 2002, which resulted in the issue of the Guardianship order

At the hearing of February 7, 2002, there was no discussion of guardianship and visitation issues. Mr. Alissandratos signed orders titled ORDERS ON MOTIONS, ON CASE MANAGEMENT AND AN INJUNCTION for that hearing almost a week later, on Feb 12, 2002. Unknown to the He family and their attorney, Mr. Alissandratos and Mr. Parrish had a meeting in private right after the hearing and decided to grant guardianship to the Bakers. On the morning of Feb 8, 2002, they entered orders granting Bakers guardianship and prohibiting the Hes to have any direct or indirect contact with their daughter. The Hes family and Dennis Sossaman came to know about these orders only several days later, when the order were served with the counsels.

During the recent trial presided by Judge Childers, there were a lot of questions raised by the He family and their lawyers on the mysterious nature of the 2002/02/08 Guardianship and No Contact order. On March 1, 2004, Guardian Ad Litem Kim Mullins was repeatedly questioned about these two orders, and she basically gave an AI don't know@ answer. On March 2 , 2004, attorney ad litem Linda Homles called Parrish to testify. According to Parrish=s under oath testimony, on Feb 7, 2002, after the court was in recess, after others, including Sossaman and Hes left the court, Parrish and Mr. Alissandratos stayed in the courtroom and drafted the orders. Parrish claimed that Mr. Alissandratos invited him to stay and dictated the orders. He brought the drafted orders to Mr. Alissandratos the next morning.

To quote Parrish=s testimony:

In January 2004, the disciplinary counsel requested Parrish to provide information regarding origins of this order, but Parrish applied for extension in filing a response. During the trial presided by Judge Childers, the questions were raised again and again. Jack He talked about it bitterly in his testimony. On March 1, 2004, In the examination of Kim Mullins, David Siegel, Richard Gordon and Larry Parrish questioned her repeatedly on the No Contact order, and she denied any knowledge of or involvement in its issuance. On the next day, March 2, 2004, Linda Homles called Mr. Parrish to the witness stand, and Mr. Parrish offered the details on how this order was issued. Transcript of Parrish=s testimony is only 30 pages long, but it provided damming evidence and requires careful reading.

To quote Parrish=s testimony

ASo, the hearing ended on February 7th, and the court reporter has winding up and everybody was winding up and headed out of the court, and Mr. Alissandratos had stood up and started to leave the bench. And I can tell you exactly where I was standing in the chancery court, and he turned around to me and he said, draft me an order on making this Court the guardian. He didn=t ask me what I thought about that or anything else. He just told me that, and he said, I want No Contact until I order otherwise. Bring me an order tomorrow. He didn=t want this included in any of the other orders. I was taking instructions only.@

AI drafted as faithfully as I knew how what he told me to do. I appeared in court. He told me not to take the time to get the other attorney=s signature because there wasn=t another attorney. You were not involved. Mrs. Homles was not involved at the time, neither Mr. He or Ms. Luo had an attorney at the time. So, that=s why he told me to do it, and he told me to do a certificate of service.@

(Transcript, March 2, 2004, examination of Parrish, pages 6-8)

Parrish went on to describe in vivid detail that next morning (2002/02/08) he went to see Mr. Alissandratos alone and discussed the orders. Mr. Alissandratos added the words Aincluding the recommendation of GAL@ with his own handwriting and they made other changes.

Part of the 2002/02/08 Guardianship and No Contact order reads:

AThe Court further finds, from the record in the instant case, that the best interests and well-being of the ward requires that the ward have No Contact, direct or indirect, with the respondents, Shaio-Qiang (Jack) He and Qin (Casey) Luo, except, unless and until after, if even, this Court enters and files an order mandating otherwise.@

This Guardianship and No Contact order was signed by Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish on 2002/02/08. The Hes= attorney Dennis Sossaman and the Hes themselves did not know about the existence of this order until it was delivered to them around 2002/02/11. In the night of February 7, 2002, Dennis Sossman wrote a letter to the Hes informing them that there would be a Contempt of Court hearing on February 14 2002 at 10:00 am due to their failure to turn in the passport for Anna Mae before 4:00 p.m. of February 7, 2002. Mr. Sossaman asked the Hes to hand in the passport by February 14, 2002. In the final sentence of his letter, Mr. Sossaman wrote:

APlease give me the opportunity to win this case and have your daughter brought back to both of you.@

Mr. Sossaman, as any competent lawyer, was fully aware of the severeness of this termination of parental rights case. In the Feb 7 2002 hearing, he repeatedly emphasized this point. He pointed out the Supreme Court Rules entitled the Hes to have counsel, and he also said:

AYour Honor, this is not the normal divorce case that I usually appear in front of Your Honor wherein if my client does not prevail, he and/or she will be relegated to that every other weekend, one night a week, couple of weeks in the summer type of case. This is a termination of this man and this woman=s parental rights to this child. Zero contact ever again.@

(Transcript of February 7, 2002 hearing, page 31)

Mr. Sossaman made clear the distinction between normal custody cases and this termination of parental rights case, and he made whether there will be contact as the differentiating factor between the two. Furthermore, one thing he had promised to Mr. He and was working diligently on was to get Hes= visitation rights back. On his AAnswer to Petition For Adoption And Termination of Parental Rights and For Injunctive Relief@ filed on June 29, 2001, Mr. Sossaman asked for immediate visitation of Anna Mae for the Hes. It=s clear that Mr. Sossaman was very sensitive to the contact issue.

The absence of any mentioning of the No Contact order in his February 7, 2002 letter clearly shows that Mr. Sossaman had no knowledge of the No Contact order at that time. When Mr. He got a copy of the No Contact order, he asked Mr. Sossaman how the order came to exist, as there was no hearing, no motion, no record, Mr. Sossaman replied that he had no knowledge of it. Months later, Mr. He asked Mr. Sossaman again, and got the same answer.

Based upon the above testimonies and facts, the Hes, Dennis Sossaman (Hes= counsel) and Kim Mullins had no knowledge of the February 8, 2002 No Contact Order until it had become a record of the Court.

The No Contact Order was issued during ex parte meetings on February 7, 2002 and February 8, 2002, between Larry Parrish and Chancellor Alissandratos.

Therefore the no contact order was issued ex parte.

Comments on the recent attempts by Ms. Mullins and Mr. Parrish to modify the testimony about the ex parte No Contact order:

In his Macrh 2, 2004 testimony during the trial, Parrish basically characterized the Ex parte communication as purely initiated by Mr. Alissandratos, essentially denying any active role in issuing the ex parte No Contact order. If issuing No Contact order without a hearing and ex parte is a serious matter, Parrish wanted to put himself out of the loop. However, in a bizarre twist, 16 days after his testimony, Kim Mullins, who was not present during the Ex Parte meetings between Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish, possibly at the urge of Mr. Alissandratos himself, claimed that Parrish erred in his testimony and requested Parrish to re-open proof. Upon Kim Mullins' request, Parrish motioned to redo his under oath testimony. In his new theory, he claimed that the Guardianship order was entered in the way he testified under oath, but the No Contact provision of the 2002/02/08 order was not entered in the way he testified under oath, but was added in a conference call with Mr. Alissandratos after 4:00 p.m. of Feb 7, 2002 due to Hes= failure to turn in the passport. Parrish came up with some phone notes, allegedly showing Mr. Alissandratos said the words Azero contact@.

u What happened AFTER the ex parte deal (between Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish right after the Feb 7 2002 hearing) CAN NOT prove something DID NOT happen during the ex parte meetings. Even if Mr. Alissandratos repeated the No Contact order later during the alleged conference call, it does not mean he and Parrish didn=t do the ex parte deal on the No Contact order right after the hearing was in recess. It is just like someone said Agood morning@ today does not mean that this is the first time the person said it and does not mean one did not say it yesterday. Parrish already testified under oath in vivid details what happened, Mr. Alissandratos asked him to draft the No Contact order and not to get Dennis Sossaman=s signature. The order was issued, Dennis Sossaman did not know how it came to be and he was not given a chance to sign it.

So the No Contact Order was issued ex parte.

Charge No. 11, Mr. Alissandratos colluded with Kim Mullins and Larry Parrish to falsify testimonies regarding the No Contact order

On March 1, 2004, Kim Mullins testified under oath regarding her involvement in this case. According to her sworn statements filed later with the court, she had studied all previous court transcripts to prepare for her under oath testimony. During her testimony, David Siegel cross-examined her with many questions asking her to provide her knowledge about the basis of the 2002/02/08 No Contact order (Transcript, Testimony of Kim Mullins, pages 81 to 89). Kim Mullins was able to recall the details of the February 7, 2002 hearing, but basically said AI don=t know@ regarding why and how the No Contact order was issued.

Then Mr. Siegel asked: AMs. Mullins, as the guardian ad litem in this case, was it not important for you to determine how the No Contact order was issued?@

Ms. Kim Mullins answered: AI guess I didn=tY.@, she went on explaining her view on the visitation issue.

Mr. Siegel then asked: AAll I=m asking you is just to respond to my question. Did you do anything at all to corroborate or conduct any investigation to determine why the No Contact order was issued, since we know you don=t know why it was issued, my next question is, what did you do to investigate as the guardian ad litem for this child why a No Contact order would be issued?@

Ms. Mullins' under oath answer was: AI really don=t know the answer. Sorry.@

Then, Parrish cross-examined Kim Mullins. Parrish went through a lot of details, such as Jack He=s deposition, and his purchase of a Mazda car, etc. Then Parrish led to the Feb 7, 2002 hearing (Transcript, March 1, 2004, examination of Kim Mullins, pages 162C170). In particular, he questioned about the passport of Anna Mae, Kim Mullins provided in great detail the events around the passport, and the order requiring Hes to turn in the passport before 4:00 p.m. of Feb 7, 2002. Kim Mullins talked about receiving a phone call from Mr. Sossaman informing her of the situation regarding passport.

Mr. Parrish: Did he advise the Court that that was not going to happen?

Kim Mullins: He first called you and me an on conference call and advised us, and then we all got on a conference call with Mr. Sossaman, you and I and Mr. Alissandratos wherein Mr. Sossaman advised the Chancellor that it was not going to be produced that day.

Mr. Parrish: And by the time court adjourned that day, there was a lot of milling around, a lot of press, and it was a sort of tumultuous for a courtroom, was it not?

Ms. Mullins: On the 7th?

Surprisingly, 16 days after Parrish=s testimony, Kim Mullins filed a AMotion to re-open proof@, she claimed that Parrish erred in his testimony, she basically said Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish did NOT discuss the No Contact order during the private meetings of Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish, instead, she claimed that Mr. Alissandratos talked about the No Contact order after the private meeting between Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish, she wanted to show that Mr. Alissandratos talked about the No Contact order for the first time during a conference call in which Sossaman participated. How does she know?

In her affidavit, Kim Mullins wrote:

AOn Thursday, March 18, 2004 while endeavoring to assist Mrs. Homles in working on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, requested by this Honorable Court, I contacted Mr. Larry Parrish with respect to his testimony given on the Guardianship and No Contact Order at trial, as I was concerned that there are portions of his testimony that were in error....

The circumstances now within my personal knowledge with respect to the issuance of the Guardianship and No Contact Order are as follows...Accordingly, it was during our phone conversation with Mr. Alissandratos that I reiterated my concerns on behalf of the child and, given that the Respondents were refusing to obey the Court's Order on the passport, asked for an order from the Chancey Court to protect the child. As a result Mr. Alissandratos stated that respondents were to have No Contact with the child whatsoever and reiterated that the court wanted its own order of guardianship for the Baker's. The purpose of the No Contact order was for the protection of the child... To the extent that Mr. Parrish testimony given in this cause conflicts with the statements made herein, the Guardian Ad Litem would state that such testimony of Mr. Parrish is incorrect.@

The above were the bold words of Ms. Mullins. She reversed her under oath testimony from not being involved in the No Contact Order at all to being the person who requested the No Contact Order. During testimony, she remembered perfectly well about the conference call with Sossaman, Parrish and Mr. Alissandratos, and she maintained she knew nothing about the No Contact order until after it was signed. Even more incredibly, she claimed that Parrish's testimony regarding the private meeting between him and Mr. Alissandratos prior to the conference call was erroneous.

Does Kim Mullins have taping recordings of all Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish=s private discussions of the No Contact order? We can safely say the answer to this question is NO.

Parrish quickly responded to Kim Mullins' motion and motioned to redo his under oath testimony, he also came up some phone notes for the February 7, 2002 conference call regarding the passport. According to the alleged phone notes, Kim Mullins requested orders, Mr. Alissandratos responded by granting Bakers guardianship and ordering zero contact with the child for the Hes.

Now we have two persons, Parrish and Mullins who are willing to change their under oath testimony, willing to admit perjury in their under oath testimony in Chancery Court to defend Mr. Alissandratos in the Court of Judiciary, but since these two people are admitting they perjured themselves in their under oath testimony in the Chancery Court, they should have no credibility in the Court of Judiciary either.

After getting Kim Mullins and Parrish=s modified version of the story, Mr. Alissandratos, in his belated formal response to the court of judiciary, claimed he made the decision to issue the No Contact order during the conference call upon Kim Mullins= recommendation.

The close proximity between Ms. Mullins and Mr. Parrish=s attempt to modify their under oath testimonies and Alissandratos= filing a response to the Court of Judiciary using these modified testimony indicates that there is a strong correlation between these two sets of events.

If we believed Ms. Mullins, Mr. Parrish and Mr. Alissandratos= newest theory, we would have a totally irreconcilable situation:

a) According to the phone notes, Kim Mullins requested the order, but she testified under oath that she knew nothing about the No Contact order.

b) Mr. Alissandratos claimed that Kim Mullins recommended the No Contact order. Mr. Alissandratos hand wrote Aincluding the recommendations of GAL@ on the 2002/02/08 order, but those words were in the context of the guardianship order, not for the No Contact order.

c) Sossaman knew nothing about the No Contact order on February 7, 2002.

d) Mr. Alissandratos claimed he did not remember the reason for No Contact order on March 7, 2002 (Transcript of March 7, 2002 hearing, page 4, L19), but now his memory comes back, and he claims that he issued the order because he considered the Hes a flight risk.

e) The passport excuse cannot explain the content of the No Contact order. The order banned not only direct contact, but also indirect contact. Even if Mr. Alissandratos assumed that the Hes were a flight risk, since Anna Mae was only 3 years old and did not have the ability to see the Hes by herself, indirect contact between the Hes and Anna Mae, such as a message delivered by the guardian ad litem, could not possibly result in any risk.

Parrish and Mullins could have gotten away with clean hands by sticking to their original testimony. Parrish knows a good rule of life, as he often says, when you are in a hole, stopping digging. But Parrish is violating his own Golden rule here. Apparently, Mr. Alissandratos was not happy with their under oath testimonies, and now we have Mr. Alissandratos, Parrish and Mullins working together very hard to create a new version that could make Mr. Alissandratos and themselves feel more comfortable. The missing link is Dennis Sossaman. The only possible explanation to this coordinated effort to whitewash Mr. Alissandratos's role in the ex parte No Contact order is that Mr. Alissandratos has exerted influence both Parrish and Mullins, so they latter two had to cover Mr. Alissandratos, even risking being charged for perjury. The risk for Parrish and Mullins not to cover Mr. Alissandratos must be greater than their risk of being charged as perjurers. These three people have bonded together, as they know if Mr. Alissandratos is brought to justice, none of the will be able to escape unscathed.

As we will show again and again, this case is full of conspiracies. This pattern of colluding testimony will manifest itself again when we press other charges.

Indeed, Mr. Alissandratos is a very powerful judge. As we will show later, he can also get Linda Homles to lie to cover his misconduct.

To help understand better this ex parte No Contact Order and the efforts by Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish to fix the story about it, we list the time line below:

February 7^th, 2002, 10 to 11 am: There was a hearing regarding the motion to require the Hes to post deposit. Mr. Alissandratos ordered Hes to pay $15000 in a week. Kim Mullins brought up the issue with Anna Mae's passport with no written record filed, Mr. Alissandratos quickly ordered the Hes to turn in the passport by 4::00 p.m the same day. The Hes were in the Court but were not given a chance to say a word. This was the first time they met Mr. Alissandratos. The orders came from this hearing was signed on February 12, 2002.

February 8^th, 2002, morning: Parrish went to see Mr. Alissandratos alone regarding the Guardianship and No Contact order. Both made handwritten changes to it. The order was signed by Mr. Alissandratos and Mr. Parrish only and copies were sent to others.

February 14, 2002: The Hes went to the court for the show cause order. Mr. Alissandratos held them in contempt of the court. No mentioning of Guardianship and No Contact order.

March 7, 2002: There was a court hearing regarding David Siegel's motion for immediate visitation. Mr. Alissandratos said he did not remember why he issued the No Contact order. Parrish said that Kim Mullins asked Mr. Alissandratos to do it and the Hes were there and did not object.

January 2004: The Court of judiciary asked Parrish to recall what precipitated the Guardianship and No Contact order.

March 1, 2004: Kim Mullins testified during cross-examination by David Siegel that she knew nothing about how and why the Guardianship and No Contact order came to be. In subsequent cross-examination by Larry Parrish, Kim Mullins recalled in great detail about the conference call with Sossaman, Parrish and Alissandratos regarding the passport on Feb 7, 2002, but Mullins denied any knowledge of the No Contact Order prior to it had become a record.

March 2, 2004, Parrish testified that the Guardianship and No Contact Order was issued by Mr. Alissandratos right after the hearing, in a private meeting between the two of them, he was only taking instructions from Mr. Alissandratos. Mr. Alissandratos asked him not to get other attorneys signatures.

Charge No. 12, Mr. Alissandratos conspired with Parrish in issuing the 2002/02/08 Guardianship and No Contact order

According to Parrish=s testimony, Mr. Alissandratos invited him to draft the Guardianship and No Contact order after the hearing was concluded on Feb 7, 2002. What is suspicious is why Parrish was staying behind alone, when others, including his clients, Bakers, had left or were leaving.

During the Feb 7, 2002 hearing, based on his distortions of Mr. He=s deposition, Mr. Alissandratos repeatedly stated that the Hes had sufficient assets to borrow 1 million dollars and were not entitled to pro bono representation by Dennis Sossaman. In his Feb 12, 2002 order, Mr. Alissandratos instructed Mr. Sossaman to review with the Juvenile Court about Hes= qualification for court appointed counsel. Knowing the fact that the Hes had only about $2700 in checking and savings bank account all together and no other cash equivalents and investments (Deposition of Jack He, pages 99, 102), by getting rid of Mr. Sossaman, Mr. Parrish and Mr. Alissandratos could be sure that the He family had no means to find a lawyer. This explains why Mr. Alissandratos did not bother to get Sossaman=s signature on the 2002/02/08 Guardianship and No Contact order. Mr. Alissandratos was fully expecting the Hes to be without representation. In Parrish's testimony on the No Contact order, he said Mr. Alissandratos told him not to bother to take the time to get the other attorney=s signature because there wasn=t another attorney.

At the Feb 14, 2002 show cause hearing, when Jack He said he contacted David Siegel, and Mr. Siegel had not decided to represent him, Mr. Alissandratos was very pleased.

(Transcript for 2002/03/07 hearing, pages 4, 5)

Based on the information we now have, especially information out of Parrish=s under oath lips, assuming Mr. Alissandratos does not have mental disability that results in short term memory loss, it can be concluded that both Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish were both lying in the 2002/03/07 hearing to hide the illegal nature of the ex parte No Contact order from David Siegel.

The No Contact order was never discussed before the Hes. Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish discussed the order privately after the February 7, 2002 hearing, they met the next morning to review it word by word and made handwritten corrections and additions on it, and it was a No Contact order of grave consequences. A mere one month later, Mr. Alissandratos pretended that he did not remember any of it, giving Parrish a chance to provide a story, which Mr. Alissandratos himself could then stick to coherently. The words Aincluding the recommendation of GAL@ on the 2002/02/08 order was added by Mr. Alissandratos himself, Mr. Parrish testified that he had no idea on when and how she recommended it. The order stated the basis of the order was Afrom the record in the instant case@. But Mr. Alissandratos claimed he could not remember what record it was, he asked about it and Parrish quickly covered it. At the time, David Siegel just appeared as attorney for the Hes, he did not know the case details well, he did not have copies of the hearing transcripts. Mr. Parrish and Mr. Alissandratos took full advantage of that and tried to deceive Mr. Siegel. Mr. Alissandratos basically implied the No Contact order was discussed in previous hearings, he said: ABuy a transcript and take a look@, AI don=t remember the case at this point. That is why you need the transcript. I don=t remember@. (Transcript 2002/03/07, pages 10, 11)

Obviously what happened was the guardian ad litem made a recommendation the other side remained silent on and didn=t offer proof, and I went on ahead, and I went on, said my job is to be decisive, not just ride the fence being indecisive. So I made a decision, one side said, I would like for you to decide this way, which to deny visitation, and the other side was heard for whatever short time it was or long time it was or whatever, then I made a decision.

(Transcript for 2002/03/07 hearing, pages 4, 5)

In his response to the original complaints filed by the Hes, Mr. Alissandratos kept attacking the Hes using the events happened many years before, such as getting I-20 when he was not yet married, married de facto without a license, however, whatever mistake Mr. He had in the past, he admitted it. Mr. He=s past mistakes do not change the fact he was the legal father of Anna Mae and are no excuses for Mr. Alissandratos=s misconduct.

On February 7, 2002, at 12:14AM, Jack He and Casey Luo faxed a two page letter to Mr. Alissandratos, pleading for a fair judgment. In the letter, they wrote:

AFrom February 1999 to January 2002, we visited her (Anna Mae, their daughter) weekly in the Baker=s home, taking her food and gifts, while we worked, day and night, to save enough money to make a suitable home for herY In January 2002, when we went to visit Anna Mae to celebrate her second birthday, they called the police to remove us from their propertyYSince then, we have been deprived our weekly visitation rights, we now we've not seen our daughter in over a year... We are prepared to answer any questions and to offer any proof Your Honor requires of in order to have our daughter back with us, her birth parents. I hope we=ve kept to the facts in this letter, it=s very, very hard not to be emotional when we=ve been fighting so hard and so long to be a family again.@

Charge No. 18, Mr. Alissandratos engaged Ex parte communications with Linda Holmes and Kim Mullins on Sept 26, 2003, resulted in the ex parte decision to indefinitely delay the trial

On September 26, 2003, three days before the scheduled trial on September 29, 2003, Mr. Alissandratos engaged ex parte communication with Linda Homles and Kim Mullins via telephone, and decided to postpone the trial for two and half to three months without consulting the other side. Mrs. Homles then notified Richard Gordon and David Siegel of Mr. Alissandratos=s decision to postpone the trial.

On Sept 29, 2003, David Siegel filed a motion titled ARespondents= Combined Notice of Objection to Postponement of Trial and Emergency Motion for Immediate Visitation With Minor Child and for Further Relief@. In his motion, Mr. Siegel clearly made it a record that when Mrs. Homles contacted him, he was told that the decision to postpone the trial had already been made by Mr. Alissandratos. Mr. Siegel argued that the petitioners cannot meet their burden of proof, and since witnesses for the respondents were standing by, re-scheduling would be onerous and costly for the respondents.

In the September 29, 2003 court hearing, Mr. Alissandratos tried to put up a show to pretend that he had not heard Linda Homles= request for postponement of the trial yet and engaged in a lengthy debate with Siegel. Later, in their answers to the Disciplinary Counsel, Mr. Alissandratos and Linda Homles denied that they made any decision on September 26, 2003, they claimed that they asked for a conference call, but David Siegel refused, so the matter was deferred to September 29, 2003.

However, the truth can be uncovered by reading carefully the Sept 29, 2003 hearing transcript. On page 29 of that transcript, lines 9 to 12,

Mrs. Homles: Your Honor, if I may, Mr. Siegel and I did discuss the fact on Friday that in light of Your Honor=s granting a continuance he would be asking for a visitation this morningY

In the September 29, 2003 hearing, the respondents= side came fully prepared with witnesses standing by. David Siegel brought boxes of his files, Mr. He and Mrs. He and their witnesses, including expert witnesses were all in the court. Although Mr. Siegel was notified of Mr. Alissandratos=s decision on September 26, 2003 to postpone the trial, he filed a motion to object the postponement, so there was still a chance that the motion be granted and the trial would start that day. Even if his objection to postponement would be overruled, he had another motion asking for immediate visitation. So the Hes side was fully prepared for the trial going forward. However, the petitioners and Linda Homles were not even prepared for the trial. The Bakers did not even come to the court. Larry Parrish came unprepared, Linda Homles and Kim Mullins did not bring their files, and Linda Homles asked witnesses on both sides not to come to the hearing. It is obvious that Mrs. Homles, Ms. Mullins and Parrish knew for sure that there would not be a trial on that day, they were 100% sure Mr. Alissandratos had made the decision and would commit to the decision to continue the case before they came to the court on September 29, 2003, regardless of any objections by Mr. Siegel.

Mr. Siegel spent a heroic effort to argue the law in the court, but he was doomed to failure by Mr. Alissandratos and Homles ex parte agreement. Mr. Alissandratos was simply repeating what he discussed with Homles on the phone, Siegel never he had a chance.

In defense of Mr. Alissandratos, Linda Homles also filed the AAffidavit of Linda L. Homles Regarding Bias@ dated February 13, 2004. She wroe:

AA prejudiced person Mr. Alissandratos is not. He has not demonstrated any bias toward anyone either in this case nor any other case I have had assigned to this Court room in my opinion.@

So Mrs. Homles graded Mr. Alissandratos almost a perfect score in terms of impartiality.

But according to the AJudicial Evaluation Survey B Final Report@, a survey conducted among attorneys practicing in Shelby County, Tennessee, commissioned by the Memphis Bar Association, 294 participating attorneys gave Mr. Alissandratos the following mean scores:

_ Remains fair and impartial throughout the proceedings: 5.7 (out of 10)

_ Affords both sides a reasonable opportunity to be heard: 6.1 (out of 10)

_ Is courteous and respectful to all: 6.1 (out of 10)

_ Maintains proper judicial demeanor: 6.3 (out of 10)

Also, according to this survey, 59 Caucasian female attorneys gave Mr. Alissandratos a mean score of mere 6.49 in overall performance. Cross the board, Mr. Alissandratos=s ratings fall in the lowest 5% among all judges surveyed.

So, we have Mrs. Homles testifying that Mr. Alissandratos never showed bias, but the survey of 294 attorneys showed that Mr. Alissandratos has the lowest scores in impartiality and other evaluations.

_ The issue of I-20. In Mr. Alissandratos's response, he accused that the Hes lied to INS for the I-20. Jack He verbally told the International Student Office of University of Memphis that Casey Luo was his wife. He did not lie to an INS official. Under oath, in his deposition, he told the whole truth, admitting that he and Casey Luo weren=t married at the time of requesting I-20. Jack He admitted that he verbally lied to the International Student Office. But Casey Luo never lied to the INS or the International Student Office.

_ The issue of filing tax returns. The Hes came to US legally, Jack He came as a graduate student, Mrs. He came as his spouse, they filed tax returns when their VISAs were current. Now, their VISAs expired. Their only purpose of remaining in US is to fight to get their daughter back. They reported their situation to the INS, and they went to immigration court several times. Despite Parrish's repeated attempts to ask the INS to deport them, out of humanitarian considerations, the INS and Immigration Court granted the Hes the permission to stay so they can get their daughter back. Parrish also tried very hard to make sure Hes won't get work, so he can starve the Hes and permanently separate their daughter from them, but he failed. Parrish has already talked to IRS and INS. And the INS Court asked Parrish not to bring tricks to his Court, and IRS won't even bother to hear Parrish's devious complaints. But now, Parrish and Mr. Alissandratos are again complaining this to the Court of Judiciary and use it as excuses for their misconduct.

_ The issue of car purchase. When Jack He went to purchase a car, the salesperson suggested him to fill in fictitious names for the relatives in US on the purchase application form, because Jack He does not have relatives in US. It's should be emphasized that that was a purchase application form, there was no under penalty of perjury clauses. So Jack He put some fake names there, as he was asked to do so by the car dealer.

_ The criminal case against Jack He. There was a sexual assault charge against Jack He. In that case, Jack He refuses all offers of bargains, and insisted a jury trial, twelve jurors heard both sides and decided Jack He is innocent. Parrish worked closely with the woman who accused Jack He, Parrish gave documents he obtained in the Anna Mae case to the accusers of the criminal case, but their collaboration failed, the jury acquitted Jack He. In his response, Parrish compared Jack He to O.J. Simpson, but Jack He had no money, no fame, no big lawyer team, and he could not and did not get a jury of his preference or color. Jack He had only truth. Twelve jurors cleared his name and restored his honor and dignity.

Based on the above, Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish are using personal attacks against the Hes They are evasive in their responses, yet loud in their character assassinations.

We request that the Court of Judiciary to formally charge Mr. Alissandratos for judicial misconduct and other violations according to the law

In the preceding section, we listed twenty eight charges, many of them are very serious ones, based on each of these charges, Mr. Alissandratos should be formally prosecuted for the alleged misconducts.

The misconducts of Mr. Alissandratos we have alleged are mostly supported by records of the Court and other official documents. For most part, we have used Mr. Alissandratos, Parrish and Homles' words against themselves. Most of the charges we listed are indisputable facts. But we are aware of the fact that Mr. Alissandratos is innocent until proven guilty. While Mr. Alissandratos denied justice to the Hes, we plead the Court of Judiciary give justice a chance by formally charging Mr. Alissandratos with judicial misconduct.

Although we have firmly established basis of our charges, there are still a couple of missing links. For example, we don't have complete knowledge about the February 7, 2002 ex parte communications, and we also don=t have direct evidence on who intimidated David Siegel. A formal charge can enable the Court of Judiciary to ascertain the truth, by checking phone records, phone notes, court notes, or by taking testimonies of various people involved.

If Mr. Alissandratos truly believes that he did everything properly, he should not be afraid of a formal charge, he himself is a judge with many years of experience, and he has got able counsel. Parrish, Homles and Mullins are also there defending him. Mr. Alissandratos can be sure that he will get a fair chance to defend himself.

Mr. Alissandratos and Parrish were both very late in filing their responses, such delays allowed them to collude in their testimonies, further delay in formally charging Mr. Alissandratos and conducting investigation may result in permanent loss of evidence in this matter. Therefore, we request the Court of Judiciary to formally charge Mr. Alissandratos as soon as possible.

The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government. The Court of Judiciary is the safeguard against corruption of the judicial system. Since the original complaint was filed in October 2003, we have presented more and more convincing evidence. We request the Court of Judiciary to act on the mountain of evidence and indict Mr. Alissandratos for judicial misconduct and other violations.

List of attached exhibits

Dennis Sossman=s letter to the Hes on Feb 7, 2002 regarding passport

Hes= fax to Dennis Sossaman on Feb 7, 2002

Parrish=s March 1, 2002 letter to David Siegel

2003 Shelby County Judicial Survey Report

References

Deposition of Jack He

Transcript of the Feb 7, 2002 hearing

The Feb 8, 2002 Guardianship and No Contact Order

The Feb 12, 2002 Order for the Feb 7, 2002 hearing

Transcript of the Feb 14, 2002 Show Cause hearing

Transcript of the March 7, 2002 hearing

Transcript of the Oct 9, 2002 hearing

Mr. Alissandratos=s January 2003 order requiring Bakers to post deposit

Transcript of the Sept 29, 2003 hearing

David Siegel=s September 29, 2003 emergency motion regarding postponement and visitation

Transcript of Kim Mullins= testimony on March 1, 2004

Transcript of Larry Parrish=s March 2, 2004 testimony

Alissandratos= March 25, 2004 response to the Court of Judiciary

Parrish=s response to the Court of Judiciary

^{^[1]}In Chinese custom, women do not change their last name after marriage.

^{^[3]} We must emphasize that the deposit required from the Hes was for future costs for both the Hes and Bakers, Chancellor Alissandratos made the point the Hes may be reimbursed in the future by the Bakers.

ZhenZhuBay.COM

ZhenZhuBay.COM

Hes' 28 Charges Against Judge Alissandratos