H* Fraud and Manipulation - Social Aggression Scenarios

It is my informed opinion that many family practice attorneys facilitate socially aggressive spouses such as H*. They throw fuel on the fire while directing the client in how to do the things listed in this secton, or do them better. Such attorneys do this for personal gain (at the expense of the children) and get quite good at it after handling dozens of cases typically over a period of years. It is my opinion that H*'s attorneys Margo Fox and Sara Brandon are such attorneys. See the preface to "ITIO a Child" for an explanation. Read the book for documentation of many examples of how D* was screwed out of his childhood for their profit.

There is an old saying "It Takes Two to Tango". This is a very unfortunate attitude, as it allows socially aggressive people like H* to draw a stalemate at any time simple by creating a conflict. Meanwhile the well being of D* is forgotten. See also Piled High and Deep .

Money is almost always at the heart of extended legal conflicts, as otherwise the attorneys wouldn't stick around (the child is forgotten). Specifically in our case, early in the marriage a large sum of money was moved from Korea to an account owned by H* - during the divorce attorney Ted Terry's investigator produced a suggestive letter stating H*'s parents were wanted for fraud in Korea.

H* told me shortly after our marriage about wanting to marry someone else who was not a citizen, but not being allowed to by her father. Indications now are that these words were not designed solely to hurt, but rather are indicative that our marriage was part of the fraud.

The repercussions to Ted Terry's investigation for H*'s family is unknown as Korea has strict privacy laws. If her family was negatively impacted this would go a long way in explaining why H* has put so much energy into this; though it is not clear that such a reason is needed.

Even in the most recent case where H* said the reason D* wanted his dad was due to brainwashing, she took a chance and asked for money. .

Virtually every legal proceeding where I have asked for more time with D*, H* has countered requesting the court award her a lot of money, and despite legal precedent in Texas against it, they always do. This has attracted unscrupulous professionals who care more about the money than the well being of D*, and has encouraged H*. Based on the discussion forum with comments from H*'s boyfriend, it appears they are now pushing awards of excess of $100,000. We divorced 8 years ago and I received nothing of the estate. This is not child support.

Note H* tells me to set up a fund while D* was being held in the psychiatric ward , it is under point 5. Note on that same page that H* says she knows D* loves his father for real, though she is having him held for treatment for brainwashing by dad as the reason he wants to live with his dad. I.e. the hospitalization is another fraud scheme that uses D* to make money.

In 2002 H* went into Dad's office and took all of his busines files and gave them to her attorney Sara Brandon. Ms. Brandon then called clients of the likes of AMD and reported finding stuff stolen from AMD in the files. Though nothing stolen was found, Dad never had a contract with AMD afterward. Other clients were irrate to find that their IP secrecy agreements were broken and files were in the hands of Ms. Brandon. See see here (pdf file may take a while to load).

While Mr. Lynch worked at Intrinsity a fax arrived on the company fax machine saying the divorce was over. It was not. Mr. Lynch got in a great deal of trouble when taking time off during the day for a divorce related meeting.

The university where Mr. Lynch was to be employed received notice of something that caused them to drop his appointment while saying they did not want to be embarrassed.

Allegations made by H* against Dad have been sufficient to scare off recruiters and employers.

There are other indicative cases. One thing is for sure, when dad was out of work, H* requested that his child support be raised.

• H*'s boyfriend has been saying that dad took D* to "Amsterdam" in an apparent attempt to make dad sound suspicious and imply there was a danger that D* would be sold into the sex trade. At one point he claimed to have evidence in the form of a passport stamp. This probably had a big effect in Round Rock Texas where he lives. However, Dad never took D* to Amsterdam. This and all such insinuations are baseless. Dad is in fact a first rate father. It is only fair at this point to note that the boyfriend who has been living in the same house with D* for years appears as one of the "longest time posters" on the website for the transvestite movie Rocky Horror Picture Show, at http://www.rhps.org/newsgroup/longest_posters.html . He seems to know a thing or two about Amsterdam.

• Dad 'internationally abducted' D*. No, D* refused to return after Christmas vacation last year. It is not the first time, and H* has leveraged this to a maximum. H* forcefully took D* back, claimed he was brainwashed, and has not allowed him to answer or make any calls with his father nor has she sent him for visits for a period of a year now - all based on this allegation. This has to be excuse number 10 for blocking D*'s access to his father.

• Recently there is a 'rumor' going around that Mr. Lynch was so controlling that he did not allow Mrs. Lynch pain medicine while giving birth. This is false. D* was born in a hospital with staff, and H* did her own co-ordination with the doctor. She did initially say she wanted to have the baby naturally but then changed her mind and in fact had an epidural.

• H* has made the case to her boyfriend that Mr. Lynch is evil. Completely false. Mr. Lynch is a gentle person with a successful career and is a first rate father.

• Apparently she has said that Mr. Lynch does not want D* to go to school or even that he wants D* to stay at home alone. Hardly, Mr. Lynch wants his son to have a first rate education and of course to have many friends and to play with other children. Mr. Lynch himself has many good friends and healthy relationships with others. He has not advocated home schooling for his son, though he sees no reason to criticize others who do use it. In fact, Mr. Lynch placed D* in a highly rated private school - H* took him out so that he could have a Round Rock Texas public education - because the school was near the house.

• It appears H* told a nurse at the pediatricians office that Mr. Lynch was saying D* had diarrhea solely to make the argument that she was a bad mother at an upcoming custody modification hearing. Apparently she claimed to be a victim of Mr. Lynch's attacks and needed their assistance. Consequently Dr. Mirrop left D*'s diary intolerance undiagnosed and did not come to testify in court. However, the Mayo Clinic diagnosed D* using an instrument rather than observation after which Dr. Mirrop dropped D* as a patient.

• H* has said that D* was dropped as a patient because Mr. Lynch did not behave well. This is a lie, Dr. Mirrop dropped D* as a patient after Mayo Clinic contradicted his non diagnosis of diary intolerance. See the prior point.

• H* told a mother of another child who called her house over a seating issue that Mr. Lynch was a violent person. That mother became very upset and wanted something done about it. This came out in court testimony when the father of the other child testified about the phone call.

• Of all people Mr. Lynch's cousin recently said that Mr. Lynch was a trouble maker at the YMCA after school program. My how the gossip travels. This cousin lives in another state some 800 miles from Austin. Again, this is hardly the case. H* would not let Mr. Lynch see his son instead opting to put little D* in day care, even while they had a joint conservator ship. For a number of years Mr. Lynch simply went to the after school care and visited his son there. He taught his son and some other children sight reading, how to play chess, and how to play soccer. He was given an award by the school for his volunteer work, and the principal of the school was among the supporting witnesses at the most recent custody hearing. There was a time when H* found out about Mr. Lynch seeing D* a the school, she filled out a new entry form for the YMCA while leaving dad off the form and moved D* to a different school for the program. When dad visited as an unknown stranger, as one might imagine, there was a commotion. Later The YMCA apologized for this. H* has never apologized for it.

H*'s boyfriend has the impression that H* believes I am evil. Now ask yourself what would a boyfriend do to protect a girlfriend from an evil person? There is a pattern to what H* has done.

1. H* selected individuals she believed would listen. As examples, the boyfriend, a nurse at the pediatrician's, a divorced school teacher, a neighbor. Some of these people set themselves up to be duped due to their emotional baggage or an exaggerated desire to help others.

2. She told them a big but horrible lie. H* tailored her description of the ex to be a very bad person in the eyes of the selected person.

3. Those who were trusting or anxious did not even think to verify. Some of these people did not have an opportunity to verify as they do not know me or my friends, others were simply too afraid given what they learned.

4. H* then requested favors and support from the selected people in order to protect her child from the evil/crazy/immoral/indigent/violent/criminal ex husband.

5. Now she can stand behind her saviors, her sychophants, the boyfriend, and seem completely innocent. As examples, rumors trace back to the boyfriend, the posts on the discussion are by the boyfriend, even legal fees are paid by the boyfriend. Yet, D* goes for a year without contact with his father - contact that could easily be facilitated by no person other than H*. Are we to suppose she is not competent to make her own decisions? (If you are an H* selected person, make H* responsible for what she says, go directly to her to confirm what you hear, also take the time to get the truth, write me ITIOaChild@gmail.com)

This method of lying about a person, or telling vicious gossip that comes around, and then asking for help to hurt the other person is related to 'piled high and deep', see below. It is also a fundamental technique in social aggression.

If you are an H* selected person, please note there is a lot of material on this website which you may use to see the truth. I would suggest reading D* and Dad and "In the Words of Others" At times H* has has gone to great lengths to protect from discovery what she told people. Please don't let this stuff fester as underground rumors. Please keep sending the examples. There is a contact link on the navigation panel.

• 1. H* tells a newspaper that D* is brainwashed, convinces authorities to go along with this and D* is held in a psychiatric ward, isolated, drugged, and conditioned.
  2. While he is in the ward, H* tells me that she knows that D* loves his father for real, so I know for sure the truth of what is going on, but the authorities do not even care to talk to me. (You can hear H* explaining nobody is buying what I say in the recording in on point 5 of D* held in psych ward May 2009)
  3. Coup de Gras: D* stays in the psych ward and D* and dad suffer.
  
  
• 1. H* does not answer her phone when D* refused to return after Christmas.
  2. D* and dad know they called and she didn't answer.
  3. She tells the authorities that D* and dad are gone without contact.
  4. Coup de Gras: The authorities are on alert looking for D* and dad. (see point 1 of In the psych ward .. )
  
  
• 1. H* points out to dad a dangerous situation with the rusted through power conduit next to a water faucet.
  2. H* is caught letting D* play in a puddle under the running faucet, she tells CPS that she didn't know it was dangerous.
  3. She accuses dad of domestic violence. The authorities believe her but not dad.
  4. Coup de Gras: CPS apologizes to her that she has to face a true accusation; Dad has to pay to to defend against a false allegation. (Note H* has a PhD in electrical engineering.) (see 2000 07 27 item in list mistreatment of D* )
  
  
• 1. Dad explains to the pediatrician that D* has diarrhea and appears to have a food allergy.
  2. H* confides to a sympathetic nurse in the office that dad is just out to make her look like a bad mother and D* has no such problem.
  3. Coup de Gras: D* suffers as the doctor ignores dad and the nurse derides him.
  4. next: dad takes D* to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester where an analytical test is used to diagnose him as very dairy intolerant.
  5. Coup do Gras Encore: she sends him to school without diary enzymes anyway saying that her own pediatrician has verified there is no problem. D* and dad suffer. (see 2003 08 item in list mistreatment of D* )

While Dad recovers emotionally to the attacks, answers to all the false allegations, counters all the rumors, goes out of his way to explain to all of the recruits how they have been used - the little children's problems are completely forgotten.

One may notice that H* responds to allegations of child abuse by attacking dad. Of course even if someone else had done her wrong it has no relevance to the question of parenting. Decisions are to be made ITIO a Child (in the interest of a child) not in the interest of H*. Despite this, H*'s accusations against dad have been effective at moving the focus away from what is best for D* to what is best for H*.

Some examples include, when D* wrote an essay at school that his mother kicked his dog and the vet confirmed the dog had torn ligaments in the leg, H* accused dad of stealing the dog and purposely cutting the ligaments. Here is a transcript of the conversation. There was even a report at the police station on dog abduction. The police were concerned, not about D*, but about whether H* got to keep the dog. As another example, when the Mayo Clinic biopsied and discovered tissue damage in D*'s gut (not due to diary intolerance) H* accused dad of poising D*. The strange part is that she never expressed a concern for D* health. When Dr. Mirrop dropped D* as a patient after the Mayo Clinic diagnosed him as diary intolerant she accused dad of being rude to doctors and cited D* being dropped as a patient as evidence of it. She never once apologized for denying him enzymes.

Piled high and deep is an effective way to drive away good people who have normal lives. Normal people simply can't prioritize the time or energy to dig to the bottom of the pile and figure out what is really going on. However, people with an ax to grind, those who otherwise have something to gain flock to such a situation. Of course there are a few good people who care enough about a child such as D* who will take the time. If you are one of these normal good people, I would suggest that you could get to the bottom of the pile very quickly by skipping right to the monetary fraud . Also, look at the right column in abuse items . These speak directly in the interest of this child.

On occasion H* worked with others who also were also socially intelligent and aggressive. Some of these people were socially aggressive for a profession. Her first attorney Sara Brandon was an example of this. Flocking is related to 'using people' but not identical to it. Used people would probably not act if they had good information. Birds of a feather join in whether they have good information or not.

Others examples include emergency service just before holidays, accusations of abduction during holidays, and harassing Dad's clients to ruin his practice, among yet others. Just as Rachel Simmons described in her book "Odd Girl Out" that the most socially aggressive girls were often considered the most well liked, so too H* is considered charming. Our sweet little girl would never do such things.

When I won a sole custody of D* on the initial order in 2001, H* swore that she would have her revenge, that I would never have a penny in my life and that I would never see my son. South Korean culture, where H* is from, supports such a revenge ethic. She has finally achieved her goal. At the time of the sole custody arrangement it was suggested that D* would probably not be able to live with his mother if he chose to until he was 16. In May H* told me that she is not going to let me even see or talk to D* until he is 16.

See also the legal exploitation of D* and the psychological exploitation of D*

According to the boyfriends posts on the bog H* has most recently claimed in court about $150,000 owed to her to by dad for fees for services she ordered. The attorneys must be laughing. These are only the recent fees, and only her side of it. The sum total over the years for both sides must be approaching 7 figures. It in fact represents the total of the Lynch family's income and credit. The Texas attorneys must be laughing, but there is a little boy who is crying.