Third Party Reviewer

First Draft, Second Revision

  What is a third party reviewer? I call them a TPR. So, what is a TPR? Let's see if an explanation can be presented.

  First, some background. A women relocated to Bucks County to facilitate a private adoption. Children & Youth were notified, and were assisting as silent partners, helping a fellow county agency, Libertae, Inc., located in Bensalem, Pa, to complete the task. Only thing to do is get the father out of the way and cash in on the profit. Then, on 02-23-2000, said agency, no longer able to stay on the sidelines, took action and seized a child: determined to deliver said child to its designated placement for private adoption in another county.

  Things didn't go as planned. (A lot of "Click Here" links will be added.)

  This is how it works. With any on-going matter, a file is generated; usually documents are placed in chronological order. Sometimes cross-referenced with an attached index. Then, at a later time, someone has to review the file and make a given decision at that moment based on available information. (Additional "fluff" is added as meetings are held, with their own reports and placed in the file as an appendix. Compare a file to a evergreen tree, with so much tinsel and various ornaments, soon the tree can no longer be seen.) This "someone" usually has no first-hand knowledge of events: only relying on the two-dimensional portrait of the file. So, the TPR has to fill in the color, the third dimension, with their own bias, stereotyping and prejudices: like adding to the tinsel that is already there. How things are seasoned, the TPR is "guided" by a another someone who "has" or positioned as having, contact subject input (which I call a CSI.)

  So, the goal of the CSI, like a puppeteer, is to sway the TPR into making the desired decision and to build a bridge that leads to the pre-determined conclusion.

  Many times, what "happened" and what is reported to have "happened" are miles in the opposite direction. The following three documents were generated by Karen Murray.

  Document One: (Coming Soon.) My daughter was seized on 02-23-2000 and was injured. (1) Major liability had to be concealed so the record needed to be sanitized. Feeling comfortable that this could be pulled off before I found out, certain documents had to be generated and placed in the file to make it look like a valid "need" was at hand and to make it appear that I had no concern for my daughter. It takes two days for mail to complete its course from the Doylestown area to my address. If things went as planned, a temporary placement hearing would of been executed without my knowledge. But that would violate due process. Document One was dated 02-24-2000, notifying me of a hearing scheduled for the next day, at 02-25-2000, at 9:00 AM and a copy went into the file. (I received the letter on 02-26-2000, a day after the hearing.) So, later on the CSI, the one who wrote the letter, in this case would bring the file to the TPR for review which would of been on 02-25-2000. While doing so, usually the TPR relies on a quick verbal explanation of events. The CSI would then summarize how the father was served notice of the hearing (showing the copy of the letter in the file) but did not attend. This would prejudice the TPR into thinking that the father was not concerned about his child. (The TPR would not know that it takes two days for mail to arrived and that I live 85 miles away.) So, with things appearing to be in order, the TPR grants the request of the CSI.

  Only problem, I was tipped off the same day Karen Murray sent the letter and was present at the hearing held on 02-25-2000. But, at that time, she wasn't too concerned. The letter I received, is outside the loop of those who make decisions, as if a rouge document that laid dormant and wandered onto a web site.



  The next is Document Two. It is a form letter saved as a file in the computer. Once loaded, fill in the appropriate fields, the "blanks", print it out and ready for the mail. This is the second part that was anticipating having a hearing without me. (Only trouble I was there.) This letter arrived on 02-28-2000. As for the file, it is called "weaving". What does that mean? A certain image has to be created, maintained and enlarged, if need be, over time, to portray the father in a negative light. Again, at some date afterwards, the same TPR, or the various TPRs that are allowed access to the file, would see two documents weaved together. In essence, the CSI would say to the TPR, "Mr. Stanziola has no concern for his daughter. I sent him notice of the hearing with a follow up letter informing him what happened". (By the way, they were quick to seize the child, and as you can see in the second paragraph, wasting no time to make plans to seize the money.

  Up to this point, the record would appear that CSI followed all the regulations and ethics but the record would manifest itself to appear that I had no concern for my daughter. (By the way, the record also contained a document that the CSI attempted to place the child with a direct family member.)


  Here comes Document Three. Up to this point, Karen Murray was generating documents for the file, for the TPR, that would make it seem that "Hey, Mr. Stanziola, I sent you notification of the hearing and you didn't attend. I then notified you again what took place at the hearing out of professional courtesy and following our internal regulations. I also had to give notice that you are responsible to support your child. I am sending a third letter, because we are overflowing with humanitarian ideals, that it is important that you see your child as soon as possible".


  While the record was being portrayed that everything was above board, with the plans to forge DNA testing hitting a brick wall, now with a child that was injured, it was imperative to get the father out of the way so plans were made to have me arrested on some sort of terroristic threat charges at the very same time the third letter was being drafted. Then, if that worked, keep me away from the child for at least six months then have reason to terminate my "rights" since I would of had no contact.(2) (This all might of worked but, by that time, I had three separate people warn me of pending intrigue. Tipster #1: Female government employee who told me were Donna Marie Swire was located. Tipster #2: Man who called from the Dublin Village Plaza. Tipster #3: Female telling me of plans to forge DNA testing. Tipster #4: Female who warned me of plans to have me arrested.

  As I mentioned above, the "Click Here" links will be added including further information. Stay tuned.

 (1) Additional Liability: In October, 1999, not counting all the warnings made previously, I filed a PFA action against Donna Swire on behalf of my daughter. (The court denied the petition ex parte, meaning without a hearing.) A few weeks later, in December, 1999, Donna called me late at night, from Ms. Karasow's office phone (via Caller ID) and told me that Karen Murray went to Libertae and "investigated" my allegation. She wrote Donna a "nice" letter stating that my allegations were groundless. A few weeks later, in early February, 2000, I faxed Murray with a second warning/notification that Donna was back into her addiction and that it would only be a matter of time before she would either be arrested on new charges and/or parole violation. (Both came to pass a few months later.) The picture below was taken on 01-15-2000, a month before my daughter was seized by Children & Youth. The enlarged section is Donna's knuckle. Shooting dope for over 15 years, her "regular" veins in her arms were collapsed. Karen Murray, for the record, ignoring my written warnings, claimed the mother posed no threat to the child. Her ass was in big trouble a couple times over.


  (2) If that would of happened, chances are I would of lost my job. No more money to finance parental goals and secondary means to have me arrested again for not paying support.

Site Index




Area Location


Updated: 02-16-2002