We, the family and friends of innocent police officers and civilians who have been maliciously prosecuted and imprisioned by Jeanine Pirro, believe it is our moral obligation and responsibility to keep her from doing to the justice system and the Courts of New York State what she has done in Westchester County, New York. WE ARE DETERMINED TO STOPIRRO!!!!!!!

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

We, the family and friends of innocent police officers and civilians who have been maliciously prosecuted and imprisioned by former District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, believe it is our moral obligation and responsibility to keep her from doing to the Justice System and the Courts of New York State what she has done in Westchester County, NY


Anonymous Anonymous said...

To all the families that have been re-victimized, thoughts and prayers are always with you!!
You have many friends and supporters!!!

2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mrs Pirro has no business marketing
her self serving back stabbing ways
onto all of New York,The streets of
westchester are littered quite enough with the carnage of her victims.
The fabric of our society is coming
undone ,and it is Mrs Pirro who
is the role model of greed,glamour
and materlistic gluttony ,she has
victimized defenseless individuals
and their families, to serve and protect herself and her family.

4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The web site for Jeanine Pirro’s bid for Senate ( shows an IP Address of The web site for Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney ( shows an IP Address of

In other words, both web sites are from servers 'owned' by the District Attorney's Office and Ms. Pirro is obviously using county funds, given to the DA's office, for her _personal_ bid for Senate.

7:17 PM  
Anonymous Jessica Hutchison said...

I do apologize for the length of this submission. Believe it or not, it is hugely, hugely abbreviated.

It was some years ago when I first discovered that Jeanine Pirro’s dedication to victimized women (if in fact it exists at all) is at best selective. Until 1996, when my daughter was 13 and her husband and I had been in Court concerning the support of our child for over a year, I had thought her husband was alone at the helm of my undoing. Believe it or not, at the time, I was one of her admirers. Ludicrous as it must sound, I told myself that she, also, had been duped by her husband and in that sense alone, felt a sort of perverse kinship.

In January, 1996, I discovered how incredibly wrong I had been. In 1992, I asked her husband for help for a medical procedure for our daughter. It was the first time I had asked for anything. Days later, my then husband announced that private investigators had been around his workplace and co-workers asking lots of questions about me. I did not yet grasp the whole picture; but an attorney I had tried to hire gave me the name of the Pirros’ local counsel who had been on retainer since I moved to Indiana in 1987.

Not long after the call I placed to this attorney, I was arrested on a warrant which had been dismissed by a Florida Court in 1987. A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was granted, an Order issued and a hearing was set; but when extradition officers arrived to remove me to Florida prior to the hearing, it was a Saturday (when the Clerk’s office could not be contacted) and my ‘jail file’ had not only been emptied, but also had been marked ‘escape risk’. Certified documents are available in support. All documents in support of these statements (and more) were provided to the FBI in 1999. I will offer here and now to post any documents for public view; and answer any question.

In 1996, following many more similar events designed to keep me from interfering, I phoned Jeanine Pirro’s office. My call was returned by Dennis Glaser (as I understand it, married to Janet DiFiore). I pleaded with Mr. Glaser who told me that there might be a ‘settlement’ arrangement and that the situation was not "healthy" for anyone. I told him that I would sign anything they wished for me to sign. I wanted only for the criminal record they created to be removed and to be returned to my children. I cared about nothing else. Awhile later, Mr. Glaser contacted me again saying only that once these things get started, they take on a life of their own. In other words, no.

Jeanine Pirro’s representative said that.

There’s so much more.

From that moment forward, it has been my burden to share this story with everyone with whom I come into contact; or risk the surprise discovery by others of the information and uncomfortable questions. My children, both of them, have suffered immeasurably.

I never asked Al Pirro to do anything but support his child lawfully.

At the same time Al was indicted, I was diagnosed with cancer. I underwent nine months of extensive, debilitating chemotherapy. I attended every hearing concerning the support of my child.

There is a difference between being a ‘victim’ and being ‘victimized’. I stopped being a victim when I started to fight back and have been fighting in one forum or another ever since.

Something is wrong with our world. When people who perceive themselves as powerful misbehave, we have a duty to stand up and hold them accountable. Otherwise, shut up, sit down, and don’t complain because you’ve given your voice, your freedom and your vote away. It isn’t easy by a long shot, and I most certainly would not have picked it. But until New York voters (and others) begin to give a damn that the ‘spin’ of the week doesn’t even remotely resemble the reality, it doesn’t change.

Women’s advocate? Standing up as a comrade for women who have been abused? If she's the best New York has got, women are in trouble.

Like charity, honesty begins at home.

9:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ms. Hutchison,
Are you saying that when you were being victimized by Jeanine and Al Piro that Dennis Glaser, husband of the current canidate for District Attorney, was working in concert with Jeanine and Al Piro against you?

12:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone ever read the Jeanine Machine? It's a great book, give one to every person you meet. This will without a doubt help with you cause!!

1:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

she is malicous and will do anything to get a conviction. She has "stooges" everywhere to help do her dirty work. She doesn't care how many families she destroys. When looking for dishonest people she better start in her own househould. She is a phony from the getgo.

2:37 PM  
Anonymous Jessica Hutchison said...

In January 1996, Mr. Glazer (sorry to have spelled it incorrectly earlier) responded to a call placed to Mrs. Pirro at her office. Only a few days before my daughter’s birthday (which I would miss), I pleaded with him to make her stop it all; and offered to sign anything they wished. At the time, I was in a halfway house, so to think that I would have said anything which was in any way threatening or otherwise illegal is absurd.

During that conversation, Mr. Glazer asked me to “give [him] a number” that he could “take back to them” as a settlement offer. I would not do it; and told him that I feared being accused of extortion. He assured me that I would not ever be accused of such a thing as a result of his conversations with me. I would not mention a figure to him, but I did say I wanted the criminal record that they created to go away; and to be returned to my children.

When he phoned me back, he said, “once these things get started, they take on a life of their own”. I told Mr. Glazer that I was taping the conversations for my own protection.

Our Court action had been ongoing for a year; and the matter had already been in the newspapers. I didn’t expect to surprise her. I wanted her to be who she professed to be - a women’s advocate, concerned and dedicated to children who have been abused. The ‘affair’ had been over for thirteen years; and we asked nothing of this man other than lawful support. Mr. Glazer said he believed there was nothing I could tell Jeanine Pirro that she didn’t already know.

Now, that I can believe!

As part of the FBI investigation before and after Al’s indictment, I turned over certified copies of everything I had to agents and other authorities; including evidence of the above phone calls.

During his trial, Judge Barrington Parker called a sidebar asking counsel to explain the numerous private investigators appearing as witnesses. Al Pirro’s counsel told the Court that there had been ‘extortion attempts’ and that the investigators had been hired as protection from any further attempts. His counsel stated (and it was reported) that a lawyer (not named) from the same firm where Mr. Glazer works was going to be called as a defense witness who would provide substantiating testimony. I do regret that it did not actually happen that way.

2:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On Wednesday August 17, JFP said: "She [Clinton] should tell New Yorkers the truth about her plans: is she committed to New York or is she running for president?"

Do the people not get the same from Jeanine? How much 'commitment' has she got to her own department right now? (Or is it like her household, she doesn't know what goes on there either?) Do we really have a full-time DA?

3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen the picture of Jeanine Pirro and her buddy Al Sharpton on the internet? How much influence did he have on the Campbell case?

12:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Dennis Glazer (Janet Difiore's husband) work for the international firm of Davis Polk & Wardell, on Lexington Ave. in New York?

1:19 AM  
Anonymous jing kelly said...

Update on Jing Kelly’s Battle to Regain Custody of Her Son, Tristram
By: Committee For Justice For Jing & Tristram Kelly

Nearly thirty-three (33) months ago, on Friday, January 3, 2003, Jing Kelly, last glimpsed her son, Tristram, then two years old, at Vancouver Airport in Canada. Tristram was happy, playing with the luggage cart, steering it for his mom. Tristram had no idea that this was a turning point in his life and that he would never see his mother again. The police approached and separated them on the pretense that they wanted to ask Jing some questions.

They had no arrest warrant at the time. But Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney of Westchester County, had personally requested that they delay the mother at the airport until such time as a warrant could be obtained from a Canadian Judge to hold Jing for extradition to her county for criminal prosecution for the crime of custodial interference.

The Canadian Judge was given false information about Jing’s situation. Papers were faxed to the Canadian Court claiming that Jing Kelly had been found to be an “unfit” mother by the New York County Family Court and that her parental rights had been “terminated” and that the paternal aunt, Gail K. Hiler, Esq., a lawyer living in Larchmont, Westchester County, New York, was made Tristram’s legal guardian. Based on this false information, the Canadian Judge issued the arrest warrant and Jing was imprisoned.

Jing was assigned a lawyer by the court and was told that she would be arraigned in the Canadian Court the following Monday and that her son would be reunited with her at that time. Jing was told that if she were ordered to be held for extradition that both she and her son would be kept together in a special facility used for this purpose and that both would be transported to New York at the same time.

While Jing was waiting for her court appearance, however, the paternal aunt, Gail Hiler, flew to Canada, that Saturday, the very next day following her arrest, and at the request of the Westchester County District Attorney, Tristram was turned over to Ms. Hiler’s care and brought back to Larchmont to her home. No court order had been issued by any court, neither in Canada nor in New York State, to authorize this transfer. By jumping the gun and getting Tristram back her immediately, however, Ms. Hiler and Ms. Pirro succeeded in by-passing and thwarting the role of the Canadian Judge whom they implored issue the warrant to hold Jing and who was scheduled to hear the matter that following Monday.

Why did Ms. Pirro do this? That is a very good question along with many other questions arising from her misconduct and malfeasance during the overly zealous prosecution of this mother in Westchester County for her alleged violation of a family court order entered in another county, to wit, New York County, where both parents of Tristram then resided and where their divorce litigation was pending. Westchester County had no nexus with this family situation whatsoever. Jeanine Pirro should have left the New York County District Attorney decide whether any criminal prosecution of this mother should ever occur.

Perhaps Ms. Pirro was influenced by the fact that Jing’s parents had filed a law suit against the Town of Mamaraneck Police who came to their residence in Manhattan and without bothering to obtain a search warrant, broke into their Manhattan home, and ransacked it. They did this after Jing left for China with her son on June 20, 2001. They were, no doubt, searching for Jing at the time. But still, Jing’s parents, who had no knowledge that she was leaving, were entitled to full protection of our laws. They had every right to sue over the violation of their constitutional rights. This suit is still pending.

It was wrong for the Westchester County District Attorney to retaliate against this mother because her parents exercised their right to sue a police department in her jurisdiction. But retaliate Ms. Pirro certainly did. Jing was indicted in Westchester County for the crime of Custodial Interference in the First Degree, a felony carrying a possible four year sentence to imprisonment upon conviction. One of the elements of this crime was that the accused had to be proved to have the intent of never returning to the jurisdiction but of permanently relocating elsewhere in violation of an existing court order.

Jing Kelly clearly did not intend to stay away from New York forever. She was apprehended while returning home to New York after learning that her husband, Craig F. Kelly, had died of stomach cancer on October 25, 2001 and was no longer a danger.

Jeanine Pirro opposed the granting of bail to Jing Kelly when she was finally transported to Westchester County and arraigned in Westchester County Criminal Court on March 7, 2003. As a result, this mother was incarcerated in Westchester County for a period of thirteen months while awaiting the completion of her criminal trial. During this period of incarceration, Jing was not allowed any visitation with her son even though she was jailed at Valhalla, New York, in Westchester County, a mere stone throw from the Larchmont home of the paternal aunt, Gail Hiler, in whose home Tristram was then residing.

Axe murderers are allowed visits from family members at local jails. Why wasn’t Jing allowed this? Jing was presumed innocent, as a matter of law, of any criminal charges then pending against her. The reality is that the Westchester County District Attorney took this harsh stance against this mother so as to bolster the chances of the nonparent resident of that county, Gail K. Hiler, a lawyer and whose husband is a lawyer as were both of her parents, and as was her brother, Craig F. Kelly, to keep Tristram in her care.

Gail K. Hiler lives in the Larchmont residence previously owned by her own parents. It is the home she and her brother, Craig Kelly, grew up in. Craig Kelly was a former prosecutor (assistant district attorney) in New York County for twelve years and he had interviewed for job positions at the Westchester District Attorney’s Office and had friends there. Craig had lost his job in New York County, however, due to excessive drinking.

Jing Kelly freely acknowledges that she took her then one year old son, Tristram, with her to China on June 20, 2001. She left because she was afraid for her own safety and concerned about the well being of her son. Her story is compelling because she was the victim of brutal assaults perpetrated by her lawyer husband and she is the one who went to family court for help to get an order of protection.

Jing Kelly took her son to China on June 20, 2001, as she was afraid for her safety and that of her son. Jing’s then husband, Craig F. Kelly, an attorney and former prosecutor in New York County, had brutally assaulter her in their home when the baby was an infant. After this assault, Jing went to family court to obtain an order of protection and she commenced a divorce action. Next, her husband began threatening to kill her if she was awarded custody in their divorce litigation. Jing knew he would do it.

Jing met Craig in April of 1999 and they became engaged in July. He was in his late forties and had never been married. He seemed nice and was well educated. He had been an actor before working as a paralegal in the district attorney office and then as a lawyer there after graduating from law school. Craig told Jing that he had not been loved as a child and that he was painfully ignored by his own mother and constantly abused by his older brother, Robert Kelly. Craig told Jing that he wanted children and that he would love her and the children forever and have a wonderful family life at last. Jing was very much in love with Craig and, perhaps, a bit blind to his deficiencies.

Jing and Craig got married on December 13, 1999 in the chambers of a judge in New York County whom Craig knew from his prior work as a prosecutor there. Craig was living in Albany at the time as he had lost his job at the New York County District Attorney’s office the very month that he got engaged. Jing moved into Craig’s apartment on the upper west side after the marriage but joined her husband in Albany as her pregnancy neared term. This is why Tristram was born near Schenectady and not in this City.

Jing already had concerns over Craig as she had discovered in February of 2000, just two months in the marriage, that he was continuing to see prostitutes and escort service girls. Indeed, one night during that month he had paid $800 from ATM withdrawals for a particular girl whose name had been entered into his address book in her own writing, in red ink. This infidelity greatly distressed Jing and she was fearful her husband might transmit a sexual disease to her and to the baby in her womb. Yet, Craig refused to stop seeing prostitutes. He told Jing he did this six times per year, that is, every two months, and he intended to go on doing it and that it was “none of her business”.

Jing also became concerned over Craig’s heavy drinking. He would “binge drink” on weekends and pass out on the floor. He would go out late at night to get drinks at bars. At one point, in Albany, in early April of 2000, he called the local police there as Jing would not let him leave their home to go out drinking and be with a prostitute. The police came and told Jing they could not make her husband stay home and Craig left with them. Jing, eight months pregnant with Craig’s child, followed him into the street in her night gown, begging him to stay home– that she was afraid to be in her condition and alone. Her husband did not return that night.

Jing was also concerned because Craig constantly smoked cigarettes– more than two packs per day. Jing begged and pleaded with her husband not to smoke inside the apartment as she feared the secondary smoke would be harmful to the baby in her womb. Craig did not care. He told Jing that he will “always do what he damn well pleases.” Jing knew that this was a mistake, a bad marriage, and that Craig was incapable of giving love and being dependable, but what could she do– she was about to have his baby.

Tristram was born on May 29, 2000. He was a beautiful baby. The pregnancy was painful and Jing spent many hours in labor. She was exhausted. Jing was discharged from the hospital one day following delivery. Her husband, Craig, demanded sex that very night. She could not do this so he settled for oral sex. The very next night, however, Craig insisted on full sexual relations and as a result Jing suffered a severe urinary tract infection that required treatment for several weeks. Craig did not care. He said the pregnancy was over and she should give him what he needs.

On June 10, 2000, twelve days after Tristram was born, Craig Kelly told Jing that he did not love her and that he was going to divorce. He said that the only reason he married her was so that he could ensure that she would keep the baby and not have an abortion. He said that he was a lawyer and his parents had been lawyers and his sister was a lawyer and that Jing, who came here from another country and was not familiar with our legal system– would not stand a chance. Craig told Jing he wanted sole custody of their son that very day. Jing was stunned and devastated by this and begged Craig to be reasonable and suggested they share custody equally.

Craig would have none of this. He grew angry and punched Jing with closed fist into her face. She fell to the floor and blacked out for several seconds. When she came to her senses she noticed that her nose was bleeding badly. She staggered to her feet and her husband pulled his arm back to punch her again. She was frightened and grabbed a glass vase and waived it at him, telling him to stay away, to not hit her anymore. He lunged for the glass vase and struggled to remove it from her. As he did this, he banged his head and got a small cut on his scalp.

Jing picked up the telephone to call for help. Craig took the telephone from her and screamed that his wife hit him and he was bleeding. Jing tried to say that it was her husband that hit her and she was the one bleeding but Craig kept the telephone from her. Both the police and Emergency Services (EMS) responded to this call. The police arrested both parents for fighting with each other and the police notified Administration For Children’s Services (ACS) that there was no one left to care for the baby. Tristram was placed in foster care.

When Jing was brought down to 100 Centre Street (“The Tombs”) for arraignment, she was in great pain as the police had not allowed her to take along the medication for her urinary tract infection. She was rushed to Beekman Downtown Hospital and the prescription was administered there. It was Jing’s first taste of jail, a very unpleasant experience. Little did she know then that this would not be the last time she would sitting behind bars because of things her husband would do to her.
Both parents were released at arraignment and allowed to go home. They resumed living together but without their son being present there was a great emptiness. Administration For Children’s Services (ACS) filed a neglect petition against both parents alleging that Tristram was neglected merely because he was present in the household at the time the above fighting occurred. ACS conceded that neither parent had ever harmed the child and that neither would deliberately do this. Their argument was that whenever any fighting occurs in a family home, any child present therein might be in danger of accidentally being injured.

The law of neglect, however, does not permit an adjudication to be made merely because domestic violence occurs in the home. It must first be shown that actual harm occurred to the child, either physically or psychologically, and that this occurred due to a failure of one parent or other to act prudently in response to the situation. A recent ruling of our highest state court, The Court of Appeals in Albany, has clarified the law in this regard. See, Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.2d 357 (2004).

Jing and Craig appeared in New York County Family Court on June 13, 2000, and were served with the neglect petition. Tristram was paroled to Jing’s mother, Ling Mei Xing, who resides in lower Manhattan. Eventually, on August 9, 2000, the neglect proceeding was Adjourned In Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD’d) and Tristram was returned home to live with his parents in their upper west side apartment.

The terms of the ACD required that both parents attend individual therapy and joint marriage counseling, complete parental skills and domestic violence programs, and refrain from any further fighting. The criminal charges were also dismissed as to both parents. In the meanwhile, Craig lost his job in Albany when his employer learned of that arrest. He resumed living in the upper west side apartment with Jing.

But Craig Kelly would not rest until he had what he wanted– full custody of the baby. He pressured Jing by moving out of their home and taking up residence with his sister, Gail Hiler, in Larchmont. He told Jing he was going to start the divorce litigation in Westchester County where he was sure to win. He came back late in August to attempt to persuade Jing to let him have Tristram up in Larchmont for the weekend. Jing did not trust him and refused so he stayed in the Manhattan apartment to visit his son and also attempt to convince Jing to give in to his demands.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2001, Jing consulted a lawyer who suggested she discuss with Craig the concept of legal separation (rather than divorce) and joint custody. When Jing told Craig she had consulted with a lawyer, however– he flew into a rage. Rather than get into an argument, Jing went to the bedroom and lied down. Craig went into a closet and retrieved a hand gun. He walked over to the bed and held the gun to her head, saying, “ Jing, do you want to die.” Jing was frightened. The gun looked real and Craig was staring straight through her with his eyes.

Eventually, Craig put the gun down on the night stand next to the bed. He then undid his pants and told Jing “to suck it”. She did so but not for long. He became furious and forcibly pinned her arms and legs against the bed and held her while he had sexual intercourse. Jing resisted but to no avail. She sustained multiple bruises on her arms, legs and torso during this brutal assault. Afterwards, Craig told Jing the gun was not real. It was a pellet gun designed to look like a military pistol. But, Craig added: “Next time, the gun will be real.”

Jing was afraid to leave the home and could not call the police with Craig there. She decided to wait until her doctor’s appointment on Friday morning (the following day) as her husband would not be suspicious of her going out then. That morning, September 1, 2000, Jing Kelly came to New York County Family Court and filed a Family Offense Petition against her husband and was awarded a Temporary Order of Protection excluding him from their home. The TOP was served by the police that very afternoon and they took Craig’s keys from him and gave them over to Jing, as he was leaving.

Jing had brought the gun with her to court. The court officers would not allow her to bring it upstairs to show to the judge. Jing was told that while it was not a real gun (shooting bullets)– it was still illegal to possess it in the City without a proper permit. The gun was turned over to the office of the District Attorney of New York County which office then began investigating whether a rape charge should be filed against one of its former employees.

Jing, however, did not want her husband criminally prosecuted. She did not want him to go to jail. He was the father of her child and she loved him. What Jing wanted was for Craig to get help and treatment for his problems. She hoped their marriage could be saved if only he would be willing to get help. That is why Jing went to family court instead of the police.

While Jing was in family court that day, she inquired several times of the presiding judge, the Hon. Sara P. Schechter, as to whether Tristram would be taken from her care by ACS (as happened the prior time). Judge Schechter promised Jing several times that this would not be done and that the Court would tell ACS not to remove the baby from her home.

But ACS did not heed the judge’s instruction. Two ACS caseworkers went out to the marital home that afternoon and, upon arriving, they observed the police escorting Craig Kelly out the home under the TOP that Jing had obtained. They ignored Craig Kelly entirely and instead of interviewing the perpetrator of the assault, walked into the mother’s home, and took her child away from her. They did this because Jing told them she could not discuss the situation with them without her attorney being present.

Later on, in federal court litigation, an injunction was issued against ACS to prohibit this child protective agency from unlawfully removing children from their mother’s care solely because the mother is the victim of domestic violence in the family home. The federal court ruled that this policy punishes the victim twice and makes no sense whatsoever. [cite federal cases].

Unfortunately, for Jing Kelly and her son, Tristram, this ruling had not yet been issued at the time her case was being heard in family court. On the return date of the family offense petition that Jing Kelly filed against her husband, that is, September 6, 2000– Craig Kelly was nowhere to be found. He did not appear in family court. His lawyer said he was over in criminal court trying to surrender voluntarily on the rape charge rather than be arrested and held for arraignment. This was a lie, however. Craig Kelly was hiding in the Larchmont home of his sister, Gail Hiler, at the time. His lawyer told the family court judge that he was not seeking the release of Tristram to his care but merely opposed the child going to his wife.

Despite that it was only Jing who had filed a family offense petition and violation of ACD petition against her husband, Craig– and no one, not Craig, nor ACS, had filed any such petition against her– the family court held a hearing to determine whether Tristram should be returned to his mother. The family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hold any such hearing as to this mother– but this did not stop Judge Schechter from proceeding and ruling that Tristram should stay in foster care.

This is the first inkling that the family court judge would prove unwilling to follow the law and would instead make arbitrary kangaroo court rulings against Jing at every turn. The family court judge never heard or determined the family offense petition Jing had filed against her husband and which was the basis for the issuance of the initial order of protection. Instead, the family court judge, and not ACS, announced at the end of the trial that although no violation of ACD petition had ever been filed by anyone against Jing– the court itself was now going pretend (amend the pleadings) that this had been done.

The family court judge then entered a finding of neglect against both parents instead of just Craig alone. The family court judge also modified the TOP so as to simply prohibit the parents from fighting with each other but not precluding the husband from returning to and living at the marital home. This ruling put Jing at grave danger of further assault by a man who had already assaulted her twice, with impunity.

The ACS caseworkers who removed Tristram from Jing’s care the very day she came to family court and obtained an order of protection– testified that they both observed the bruises on her arms and legs that she received from her husband’s assault. Also, the office of the New York County District Attorney took photographs of Jing’s bruises on September 6, 2000 and again on September 11, 2000. The myriad bruises were starkly visible in both sets of photographs. These photographs were introduced in evidence at the family court hearing and the gun was identified by both Jing and Craig. Jing’s story of this assault was fully corroborated in every way possible and should have been totally believed by this family court judge.

Craig Kelly, as usual, lied and claimed that it was Jing who assaulted him. Yet, he had no bruises. He did not seek medical treatment. He did not call the police. He did not go to court. His story was unbelievable in every aspect. The reason this family court judge credited his ridiculous testimony was simple– Judge Schechter wanted to give custody of Tristram to his paternal aunt so that he would be raised in a nice suburban home by Caucasian Americans and not by his Chinese mother. This racism and class-ism has no place in the family court.

Judge Schechter could have allowed Tristram to reside with Jing’s parents in lower Manhattan, as had been done on the initial neglect petition prior to entry of the ACD, but this would mean Jing would probably retain care of the child eventually. But Tristram would have been safe there. He was not safe in the home of Gail Hiler.

First to be noted is that both Gail Hiler and Craig Kelly lied in their sworn testimony before the family court as to where Craig was then living. He was actually living full time in the Larchmont residence of his sister and spending day and night, unsupervised by anyone, with the baby– contrary to the family court temporary parole order. Both Gail and Craig claimed that he was living in Brooklyn at the time at the home of Ms. Hiler’s father-in-law.

It is shocking that Craig Kelly, a lawyer, and his sister, Gail Hiler, also a lawyer, and who is married to a lawyer, and whose parents were both lawyers, would perjure themselves in family court litigation involving the welfare of an infant child. One would think that Ms. Pirro would have shown a greater interest in prosecuting the two lawyers who testified falsely in New York County Family Court more so than a mother, who knowing they were lying and that they would stop at nothing to gain custody of her child, fled from them to protect herself and her child.

Craig was drinking still and Jing believed the baby was in grave danger. During visitation periods she noticed that Tristram was improperly dressed for the weather and was constantly coughing, sniffling, sneezing, and had a runny nose. She noticed numerous scratch marks and bite marks on his legs and arms. She complained to ACS about this but was told they could do nothing as Ms. Hiler lived outside New York City and Westchester County DSS refused to supervise her home or help out in any way.

Jing then asked the family court judge to revoke the temporary parole to Gail Hiler. ACS also made this request as did the child’s lawyer– the Legal Aid Society Law Guardian. Judge Schechter refused all these requests and ignored the fact that Ms. Hiler and the child’s father, Craig Kelly, were lying about where he was then living.

Also, Ms. Hiler refused to bring Tristram into New York City for visits with Jing there. This is a requirement that all foster parents are made to keep. Ms. Hiler should have been no exception to this norm but again the family court judge turned a deaf ear. Jing asked for use of the family rental car, which Craig took to Westchester, on her visitation days but this request was likewise refused. As a result, Jing had to take a train to Larchmont and visit with her son in the train station or at a nearby restaurant. This was in contrast to the quality time the father was spending (in violation of the parole order) as a result of living full time in Ms. Hiler’s home.

Forensics (psychiatric evaluation and psychological testing of the parents) were ordered in the pending divorce action and the family court was stayed from proceeding to hear and determine the nonparent custody petition previously filed by Ms. Hiler [who said, in essence, well if my brother is found unfit to care for Tristram let me have him instead of his mother].

When the family court judge was informed of this stay order, however, Judge Schechter erupted with fury and said Her Honor would not follow nor obey that higher court order. This is astonishing as the family court always defers to the rulings of the Supreme Court when a divorce is pending. It is the law. Rather than continue with the neglect dispositional hearing, as directed by the Supreme Court, Judge Schechter adjourned the matter for three months to await the outcome of the forensics. This meant that Tristram would continue living in the Hiler home during this period and that his father would be their full time as before. This meant that Tristram would suffer further maltreatment in that home over that entire period.

In early June of 2001, at a conference in the divorce action, Craig Kelly confronted Jing in a hallway and told her that if she persisted in seeking custody and won this from the Supreme Court “she would not be around very long to enjoy it”. Jing knew from past experience that brutal assaults usually followed soon after Craig made threats such as this. She made preparations to be able to flee on a moment’s notice if needs be.

On June 20, 2001, during a visit with her son in Larchmont, Jing noticed fork marks on Tristram’s arm. She knew that Gail Hiler’s son was very rough with children and she had asked Gail to watch this carefully. But the fork wounds were the last straw. Jing immediately hailed a taxi and went to the airport and left with her son in tow. She went back to China.

Westchester County had no nexus to this case other than that is where Gail Hiler, a temporary caretaker of a child under a court order issued in an adjacent county resided. Because of Gail Hiler’s refusal to cooperate with New York City ACS or Westchester County DSS, her home was unsupervised, and she was able to get away with refusing to bring Tristram into New York City for visits with his mother. Thus, the visits occurred in Larchmont but so what– Jing did not violate any court order until she actually boarded a plane at JFK International Airport in Queens. The court order she violated was issued in New York County not Westchester County.

Interestingly, Jeanine Pirro refused to lower the charges against Jing Kelly from custodial interference in the first degree (a felony count) to custodial interference in the second degree (a misdemeanor account and the usual charge brought in these kind of situations). The applicable penal law statute provides that the defendant when accused of custodial interference in the first degree can assert an affirmative defense against that count. Jing asserted this affirmative defense and proved that her departure with her son was not a deliberate and wanton violation of the family court order but was necessary to protect her life and that of her son and was warranted by other mitigating circumstances.

In furtherance of Jing’s affirmative defense, she was evaluated by Dr. Mary Hughes, a forensic psychologist, who testified as to her expert opinion that Jing was a battered spouse and suffering from the classic battered spouse syndrome. Dr. Hughes testified that Craig brutalized Jing both sexually, physically and psychologically and that her emotional well being was damaged in addition to her suffering physical injury.

After the above testimony was introduced in evidence at the criminal trial, Jeanine Pirro for the first time asked that the jury be allowed to consider the lesser included offense of custodial interference in the second degree– the misdemeanor count. The presiding judge at the criminal trial then instructed the jury that they could consider Jing’s affirmative defense on the felony count (as permitted by statute) but not on the misdemeanor count. The jurors inquired several times as to why this was so– as to why they could not consider the potent affirmative defense and mitigating circumstances on the lesser account as well as on the top count. But the judge said the law is the law and that is it.

The jury convicted Jing of the second count, the misdemeanor. Eight out of the twelve said they would have acquitted her entirely had the judge allowed them to consider the affirmative defense on the lesser count too. Jing is appealing her conviction. It makes no sense that the reasons she fled with her son, the mitigating factors, not be heard on all charges made against her. That appeal is pending in the Appellate Division Second Department.

Because Jing had already been incarcerated for thirteen months by the time her trial was completed– she had served more than the maximum permissible on a misdemeanor conviction, which is twelve months. Moreover, Jing would have been entitled to reduction of that maximum sentence, were she to receive it, of one-third for good behavior. Thus, the maximum time Jing could have served on this conviction was eight months.

Jing served five months more than the maximum allowed because Jeanine Pirro overcharged this case as a felony and opposed bail. Shame on Jeanine Pirro. If Jing were released on bail pending her trial the criminal court judge would never have sentenced her to the maximum period of one year on her first conviction, a misdemeanor, in any event. The prolonged, protracted and unnecessary incarceration of this mother is the fault of one person and one person only– Jeanine Pirro.

Jeanine Pirro should be held accountable. She has a lot to answer for here. She mis-allocated a million dollars in resources of Westchester County to unnecessarily incarcerate a mother there who was alleged to have violated a temporary parole order issued in another county. This mother never resided in Westchester County and there was no litigation pending in Westchester except, as mentioned earlier, the law suit brought by Jing’s parents against the Town of Mamaroneck Police Department for their unlawful break-in of their Manhattan home.

This case shows the true heart of Jeanine Pirro. Cold, vicious, retaliatory. It also shows her willingness to subvert normal judicial process and fairness to meet her own needs. It shows racism and class-ism and it shows poor judgment and insight. More importantly, however, it shows a profound lack of understanding of domestic violence– despite the fact that Ms. Pirro likes to run around tooting her own horn on this subject.

No one who reads or hears the story of Jing Kelly and her son, Tristram, can understand why this mother spent thirteen months in a Westchester County jail, totally deprived of contact with her son. It is equally hard to believe that this mother’s son was initially taken away from her solely because she went to family court for help and the ACS caseworkers were upset she would not thereafter discuss the case with them without her lawyer being present. The removal of this child was unlawful. The neglect finding against her is unlawful. The criminal prosecution was unlawful. But it gets worse.

While Jing was jailed in Valhalla Women’s Unit of the Westchester County Department of Corrections, her family court case was heard in New York County. Jeanine Pirro was willing to spend over a million dollars to prosecute and jail this mother but she was unwilling to spend one hundred dollars to have this mother transported to New York County Family Court (which issued the temporary parole order that Jing allegedly violated) so that Jing could be present and participate and be heard at the conclusion of the dispositional hearing on the neglect case pending there.

No, DA Pirro did not produce this mother before the very court whose order she was supposedly protecting and enforcing by this misguided criminal prosecution. As a result, in Jing’s absence, full custody of her son was erroneously awarded by Judge Schechter in New York County Family Court to the nonparent paternal aunt, Gail K. Hiler, the Westchester resident.

How does Jeanine Pirro explain this? How does Judge Schechter explain this? How does Gail Hiler explain this? What is the congruence of injustice here that has resulted in this mother being deprived of all contact with her son for the past thirty-three months. Tristram is not living with Gail Hiler but with her relatives in another state. Jing does not know where her son is living, where he is attending school. Jing has not heard her son’s voice, seen his picture, been able to hug him in her arms all this time. This is cruel and harsh. It is a disservice both to mother and son.

If Jeanine Pirro has any honor, any sense of human decency, she will immediately acknowledge the error of her involvement of her office in this miscreant prosecution of this loving mother in Westchester County and strongly support the goal of reuniting this mother and son as quickly as possible.

Jing has appealed from the family court order adjudicating her as being a neglectful mother by reason of her then husband’s brutal assaults upon in their home in his misguided zeal to coerce her to give him full custody of Tristram. The basis for the neglect adjudication is lacking because now that Craig Kelly is dead– there can be no further fighting between the two parents anyway (no matter who was at fault at one point or another).

Jing has appealed from the family court order awarding custody of her son, Tristram, to a nonparent, the paternal aunt, Gail Hiler, at a hearing during which Jing Kelly was never produced and had no opportunity to be heard or participate. Moreover, the paternal aunt, as a nonparent, by law does not have equal footing with Jing, the sole surviving parent, and cannot proceed to seek custody of Jing’s son, as a matter of law, without first showing that this mother was determined to be “unfit” or to have “persistently neglected” her son or to have “abandoned” her son or that there are other “extraordinary circumstances” present warranting a custody best interests determination. Ms. Hiler never alleged any of the above matters nor did the family court below make any threshold finding as to the existence of any of them. Contrary to the contention of the family court judge, a mere neglect finding standing alone, does not terminate any parent’s rights and certainly not in a weak case such as this.

The appeals are scheduled to be argued during the October 2005 Term of the Appellate Division-First Department, located at the corner of 25th Street and Madison Avenue in Manhattan. Jing is hopeful that the appellate court will reverse the unjust rulings of the family court judge.

Jing is thankful that City Councilman John C. Liu has submitted an Amicus Brief on her behalf arguing that no neglect finding is warranted under these facts and circumstances. Councilman Liu is concerned not only on Jing’s behalf but also on behalf of many mothers in this City who are victims of domestic violence but find their cases to be botched and mishandled by both ACS and the family court. It is important that our courts and city agencies help the victims of domestic violence and not further punish and victimize them.

Does Ms. Pirro agree with that premise– that it is important to help the victims of domestic violence and not punish them? That is a good question to ask of her, Ms. Kelly submits.

Please help Jing in her efforts to regain custody of her son, Tristram. Please visit her website at to read more about the history of this case and to learn how to make financial donations if you so desire. Please join Jing at the appellate courthouse when her appeal is argued (dated to be announced) and please write your representatives and urge them to review this case and examine how the law can be made better so as to ensure a tragedy like this, a miscarriage of justice like this, is never repeated. Please contact Jeanine Pirro and ask her to explain why she kept this mother in jail in her county [arguing ironically that one of the reasons to deny bail to Jing was she did not live in Westchester County] and declined to produce her in the New York County Family Court which is the county where the temporary parole order was issued that Jing supposedly violated.

Jing thanks the many lawyers who have assisted her, mostly pro bono, in her battle to regain custody of her son. She thanks Michael Dowd, Esq., Robert Shaw, Esq. and Rocco D’Agostino, Esq., for doing her criminal trial which lasted three weeks.
Jing thanks Robert F. Wayburn, Esq., for writing the Amicus Brief for Councilman John C. Liu as to the appeal from the neglect fact-finding. She thanks Jianming Shen, Esq., for writing the brief as to the appeal of the custody award. If there are attorneys, law firms, paralegals that can donate resources to this effort to obtain justice for Jing Kelly, please contact Robert F. Wayburn, Esq., at his e-mail address: or Jiangming Shen, Esq., at his e-mail address, Requests for copies of the briefs filed on the appeal can be made to either of them.

Where is Tristram? Why can’t Jing be told where he is, how he is doing, talk to him on the telephone, be provided with recent photographs, have contact in person even if supervised but contact certainly? Jing is not dead. She is living. She wants to be with her son and she should be.

If you have children, if you have a heart, if you have common sense (a virtue so lacking in our prosecutors, our judges, our agency bureaucrats), please support Jing in any way you can.

Jing’s parents have done nothing wrong here. They were never accused of doing anything wrong. Yet they too have been deprived of all contact with Tristram. Jeanine Pirro, Judge Schechter, and Gail Hiler have conjointly deprived Tristram of all contact with his Chinese lineage. They have secreted him and isolated him without cause and outside the true spirit of our laws. This must end. This must be explained and accounted for. Tristram’s father is dead. Jing is his sole surviving parents. Her parents are his sole surviving grandparents.

Dated: New York, New York Committee For Justice For Jing & Tristram Kelly
August 17, 2005

DISCLAIMER: All of the statements above are believed to be accurate and true based upon discussions with Jing Kelly, review of court records and transcripts, and discussions with lawyers handling her litigation both in the past and currently. The Committee is making what it considers to be “fair comment” on this situation. If any person believes any statement above is inaccurate, please contact Jing Kelly at and request correction or modification. She will forward the request to the Committee and it will be duly and fairly considered. You will receive a prompt response. A case such as this demands explanation from the public officials, judges, agency heads who were involved. How a nonparent resident of a county in which neither the parent nor child resided and in which no litigation involving the family ever was pending has been able to gain and assert total control of this child and the role of public officials and the courts in bringing this about are matters of deep concern and warrant inquiry.

8:32 AM  
Anonymous Jessica Hutchison said...

Yes, I believe Mr. Glazer is a partner at the firm of Davis Polk to answer someone's earlier question.

As for Jing Kelly, I can only wish her the strength to stay the distance. It's a life-altering road I know far too well. Of course, I am more than willing to participate in any way possible to help. I am a paralegal and would be happy to do so.

What happens next for her?

Also, I am reminded of a case that I have not actually read in some time. When I read this story, I thought of the headnote: (paraphrased) parent has fundamental right to his/her child. It's Stanley v. State of Illinois. I'll review it again and make further notes.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me there were some very serious jurisdictional issues here. In Westchester County, no less. Does it take more than twice to be called a pattern? :-)

Of course, in our situation, they acted in the opposite way. (It isn't over yet.) UIFSA, (uniform law defining the methodology for all aspects of child support cases when the parties live in different states)dictates that when 1)the only issues are financial; and 2) none of the parties continue to reside in the State where the original support order was issued, the moving party - requesting (as we were) a modification - MUST play an away game: go to the obligor's state.

Short form of that is we asked NY to modify support; none of the parties lived in the issuing State for several years...Westchester said no. They cannot, but they did. Modification was not obtained at that time. No other state could lawfully accept jurisdiction.

Al Pirro told the press then I was trying to humiliate him. I was simply following the law; he humiliated himself.

I don't know what it takes to make people see the difference that can be made with a voice and a little proactive compassion; and then ACT. It continues because too many people just let it.

These people must be accountable.

11:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jessica can you please expond on your dealings with Mr.Glazer...

1:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home