A guardian ad litem is “appointed by the court to act as an investigator on behalf of a child, to look out for their best interests.”
But not always: take the case of Guardian ad litem Lawyer Tom Frenn. “All divorces are the same; the problem is you can’t know whose telling the truth. Both parties can accuse the other of child abuse. It’s a nightmare.”
The way to find the truth, in fact, would be to investigate an accusation of child abuse. Sometimes abuse is actually happening. You would need to ask questions, to leave your office, to care about the wellbeing of the child whose life you have been charged to safeguard.
But who wants to go to all of that trouble?
A quote from Tom Frenn, star pop psychology student: “Your concern about your child’s abuse looms large only in your mind”
If a parent would stop worrying so much, Frenn suggested, the abuse of the child wouldn’t exist! Relax; it will all go away with time. Except, of course, for the child who is having his head forced under water, is tied up in garbage bags, intentionally sleep deprived to enforce compliance, and whose mother shops around for needless surgeries for the child (Lawyer Margolis suggested this was a case of Munchausen by proxy illness, but that opinion, about the mother having psychological problems, was kept under wraps.)
But wait one minute. Frenn did in fact guard someone, only he got mixed up and chose the wrong party. He protected Judge David Hansher and Hansher’s sidekick, Lawyer Martin Kohler. The two attempted to coerce a guilty plea to avoid a scandal and the disclosure of child abuse in open court. When the coercion failed, they rigged the trial.
How did Frenn help?
Frenn was well aware that the father had expressed deep and constant concern for the welfare of his child. Frenn had complained about the constant phone calls from the father. Frenn was personally involved with and attended court hearings with the father, specifically addressing concerns of child abuse put forth by the father. For one, Frenn was informed by a doctor that the mother attempted to have needless surgery performed on the child surreptitiously.
In fact, the issue of the child’s abuse had already loomed large in a number of minds.
In court, the lawyer (Kohler) deliberately concealed the above evidence and more, and the prosecutor (Matestic) lied to the jury by telling them there had been NO previous references to abuse by the father and thus they were being fabricated: “Where is any evidence of complaints of child abuse?” Matestic had challenged.
Frenn, by design, remained silent and absent. He knew Matestic and Kohler had both lied to the jury, misleading them by intent.
Frenn guarded a Judge, David Hansher, and his feckless associate, lawyer Martin Kohler. The welfare of the child was ignored.
Vacuous, vapid yet adept at being venal, lawyer Tom Frenn should come nowhere near a child needing protection. In fact, he should not be permitted near the legal system, as he has not mastered what it’s about: justice and truth. But such concepts are for inexperienced amateurs who are not familiar with the practical Milwaukee legal system. In the system in which Frenn preferred to work, protecting fellow lawyers and judges from criticism influences a law career. What Fenn had learned and practiced about the local legal system is that members of the lawyer tribe take precedence over children needing protection. Children have no power to influence a law career and their little minds will get over any abuse anyway. What Frenn was looking for was future work from people who would owe him a favour. By protecting Hansher and Kohler instead of the child, well… they would owe him, wouldn’t they?
What could and should lawyer Frenn have done? He could have testified on the legitimate, official and legally-verified concerns of many people for the child’s welfare. He could have complained that both Kohler and Matestic blatantly lied/concealed evidence from the jury and impeded defence witnesses at a trial.
Frenn knew that the trial smeared the father, but the rigged trial protected the negligent handling of the case in the past. Though it’s asking too much. Men like Frenn do not have the constitution to stand against prominent characters who have influence over their careers.
What should concern the citizens of Milwaukee, the media, and the local lawyers is the in-your-face blatancy with which Frenn, Hansher, Kohler and Matestic carried out their concealment of evidence and the return of a child to his abuser. Months of official complaints and court records remained hidden during the trial, and through an appeal. This can happen only as a result of supreme confidence that lawyers will not dare expose fellow local lawyers. The lawyer tribe has replaced ethics, morality and the law with fear and fealty to itself, much of it enforced through Kompromat.
How many other cases passed by these men for their private mistreatment? How many other cases have landed an innocent person in prison to spare embarrassment for Milwaukee lawyers? Maybe Tom Frenn will enlighten us. I have space on my blog for his comment. I have space for all of the corrupt lawyers in this case to comment: Glynn, Kohler, Matestic … . If I were in Milwaukee they could have their friends quash this story. Not as easy to do with me residing in Switzerland.
These men, Hansher, Kohler, Matestic, Frenn, Glynn, Elliott … were circularly involved in the concealment of child abuse. How does that happen? No one wants to point the finger, so they lie and cover for each other, by career necessity. Their names should be remembered and none should be allowed to practice law.
Mark Inglin
Zermatt, Switzerland
