Docket Nos. KNL-CV-08-5008286S
ANDERSON, ANNETTE vs. DICKSON,KATHLEEN
CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT
70 Huntington Street
New London, CT
KNL-CV-08-5008286S
and
KNL-CV09-6001587S
NOVEMBER, 17, 2011
MOTION BY AN INTERESTED NON PARTY TO
BECOME APARTY.
The Movants PHILIP INKEL, et aL,
respectfully move the court for an order
to allow the NON PARTY MOVANTS NAMED
HEREIN to be made parties in the above
captioned matter as Plaintiffs pursuant
to C. G. S. 52-102 and 52-101. Movants
have interest intimately related to the
nature of this case.
The facts described herein are relied
upon by Movants to join this Action.
1) ANNETTE ANDERSON through her
ATTORNEY KENNETH LEARY have brought
about this action in the CONNECTICUT
Superior Court against KATHLEEN DICKSON,
suing for defamation of character,
accusing KATHLEEN DICKSON of falsely and
publically stating to the world via the
internet and other communication devices
that ANNETTE ANDERSON working on behalf
of a corrupt and unlawful administration
of Connecticut State government engaged
in dishonesty, perjury, and multiple
acts of child abuse, child battery, and
sexual offenses to children.
In addition, Kathleen Dixon publically
states ANNETTE ANDERSON is accused of
conspiring with said corrupt
administration and ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL WILLIAM WHOLEAN, ATTORNEY
VALERIE ALEXANDER, ATTORNEY KENNETH
LEARY, and JUDGE STUART DAVID BEAR,
JUDGE CARL TAYLOR the defraud the
Connecticut Superior Court and the
U.S.Court, District of Connecticut, in
various cases regarding the MOVANTS in
those courts in order to obstruct
justice and to protect a racketeering
enterprise.
Specifically, said perpetrators
participated in a scheme to obstruct
justice in this matter to cover up said
abuses and other crimes and unlawful
conduct engaged in by the said
perpetrators and other persons working
on behalf of said governing authority by
engaging in practices of administrating
dishonesty in governmental and judicial
services. Said individuals have all
collectively and individually prepared
false governmental and judicial
documentation and have applied them to
the public record and governmental work
products as they relateto this case.
Said individuals have further conspired
to obstruct state and federal justice
and to violate the STATE OF
CONNECTICUT’S mandatory reporting of
suspected child abuse laws.
2) ANNETTE ANDERSON seeks an
order silencing KATHLEEN DICKSON from
further disseminating said speech to any
other personsand entities and to take
from her compensation for unspecified
claimed damages.
2) PHILIP INKEL and MEREDITH INKEL are
the parents of minor children ALEXANDER,
ANDREW, and ANASTASIA INKEL.
3) Specifically, REGARDING CHILD ABUSE,
ANNETTE ANDERSON claims that KATHLEEN
DICKSON did falsely broadcast to the
world population that, inter alia,
ANNETTE ANDERSON with the knowledge and
consent of the aforementioned persons
and entities did cruelly,
physically,emotionally, sexually and
violently did abuse, batter and torture
repetitively from Nov 3, 2003 to early
August, 2004 ANASTASIA INKEL. And then,
from on or about October 6th, 2004
continuing to approximately June, 2005
Annette Anderson did the same abuse
again to ALEXANDER, ANDREW, and
ANASTASIA INKEL.
4) KATHLEEN DICKSON further reports and
disseminates to the federal and
CONNECTICUT governments as well as the
world population that individuals
employed in CONNECTICUT and UNITED
STATES Government have conspired to
obstruct justice by concealing with
ANNETTE ANDERSON the, inter alia, said
crimes against the STATE, ALEXANDER,
ANDREW, and ANASTASIA INKEL.
Specifically she reports that
Connecticut and Federal administrators
have failed to investigate, document,
stop and prosecute such offenses despite
the facts of overwhelming evidence of
said crimes and continue to ignore and
cover it up till time of this writing.
5) MEREDITH INKEL, PHILLIP INKEL,
ALEXANDER INKEL, ANDREW INKEL, ANASTASIA
INKEL have an interest adverse to
ANNETTE ANDERSON in the above matter in
that ANNETTE ANDERSON DID ENGAGE IN THE
AFOREMENTIONED ACTS AND CONSPIRACIES and
that she continues to conspire with
CONNECTICUT State employees to conceal
said crimes.
6) MEREDITH and PHILIP INKEL also
reasonably believe DR. DENNIS LONG
conspired with said party to conceal
medical evidence of and the existence of
injuries and abuse of a serious nature
to ALEXANDER, ANDREW and ANASTASIA
INKEL. ANASTASIA INKEL does not have
Neurofibromatosis or “café au lait”
spots as claimed by DENNIS LONG.
Therefore the darkened tissue on
ANASTASIA’S leg was probably a bruise
–consistent with the other bruises the
children clearly acquired in the
“care”of ANNETTE ANDERSON. DENNIS LONG,
MD., did not report to “authorities” of
any kind to our knowledge, that the
INKEL CHILDREN sustained genital
injuries on 10/16/04 (ANASTASIA, who had
been in ANDERSON’S care for 10 or 11
days prior to this visit, having been
removed or kidnapped from the INKELS
from the grounds of WATERFORD, CT court
house on or about 10/05/04).
7) In Evidence in this
case[KNL-08-500868S], a photograph of
ANDREW INKEL’S black eye, obtained in
ANNETTE ANDERSON’S “care”:
http://www.actionlyme.org/INKEL_MOTION_APPEARANCE_files/image008.jpg
8) For all relevant times andinstances,
MERIDITH INKEL and PHILIP INKEL rely
upon medical reports of ALEXANDER,
ANDREW and ANASTASIA INKEL, each, of
having facts that suggest sexual and
physical abuse occurred, and of
ALEXANDER and ANDREW INKEL reporting
verbally to their parents on or about
june 2004, that ANNETTE ANDERSON
“bit”and “pinched” their “peepees.” The
following link is to the video of the
children giving this unsolicited
testimony:
http://www.actionlyme.org/INKEL_ABUSE_FILE_RENDERED_31_JULY_06_2.wmv
9) ANNETTE ANDERSON and NANCY INKEL
testified that ANASTASIA INKEL had a
severe diaper rash and both persons
described it to be an untreated “open
and raw” wound from her vagina to her
anus. All stated that ANASTASIA INKEL
was in a lot of pain as a result of the
wound. The wound as described was so
severe and medically neglected that
criminal charges are and were required.
DCF, said court officers and ANNETTE
ANDERSON conspired to attribute this
“diaper rash” to MEREDITH INKEL,however,
ANASTASIA INKEL had been in the “care”
of ANNETTE ANDERSON for 10 or11 days
prior to the office visit for treatment
of this genital wound as appears in the
following link on DEFENDANT DICKSON’S
website:
http://www.actionlyme.org/INKEL_MOTION_APPEARANCE_files/image004.jpg
ANNETTE ANDERSON conspired with
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM
WHOLEAN,NANCY INKEL, and DCF employee
JO-EL SUROVIAK to defraud the court
regarding this “diaper rash” incident.
10) MISTAKEN IDENTITY RUSE, #1:
Independently of all of this, ANNETTE
ANDERSON brought another infant to DR.
DENNIS LONG on 8/30/04 who she claimed
to be ANASTASIA INKEL and who was not
ANASTASIA INKEL, because ANASTASIA had
been returned to her biological parents,
PHILIP and MEREDITH INKEL, before that
date (but removed again on or about
10/5/04), and unsurprisingly, this
unknown child,too, had genital
injury/infection.
The doctor’s (DENNIS LONG) notesread:
http://www.actionlyme.org/INKEL_MOTION_APPEARANCE_files/image010.jpg
“Removed 8/18(2004) returned to parents.
Court has removed K ?????
[stricken though, looks like it starts
with the letter “K”]
has begin [sic] back to Mrs. Anderson.”
“PHYSICALEXAMINATION:
”URE
”BONE (or “Bows”)
”M…(unreadable) Vulvitis”
The medical evidence demonstrates that
yet another child in the “care” of
ANNETTE ANDERSON has genital
inflammation/injury problems.
That’s four different children with 4
different genital injuries needing
medical care, in the “care” of ANNETTE
ANDERSON. The fifth child
injured/frightened by ANNETTE ANDERSON’S
physical violence is KIMBERLY GOSSELIN,
as reported previously, and as in
Evidence in this case.
11) MEREDITH INKEL further relies upon,
among other things, that both GROTON,
CT-based ATTORNEY VALERIE ALEXANDER and
DEPARTMENT of CHILDREN and FAMILIES’
(DCF’s) employee, JO-EL SUROVIAK refused
to interview the children regarding said
statements of deliberate physical,
sexual, and emotional injury even though
these persons were in the presence of
the children, when the children made
these statements about PLAINTIFF
ANDERSON’S abuses to them. This is
stated as fact by MEREDITH INKEL in the
online video interview of the INKEL
FAMILY made June18, 2006, Father’s Day
(video file including this testimony
autoplays from KATHLEEN DICKSON’S
website, Action Lyme.org, and is already
in Evidence in this case, on disk):
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRIMES_OF_CORRUPTICUT.htm and
is downloadable as:
http://www.actionlyme.org/INKEL_ABUSE_FILE_RENDERED_31_JULY_06_2.wmv
12) DCF employee LUCAS DANIELS, MEREDITH
INKEL, and PHILIP INKEL observed ANDREW
INKEL as having a severe injury to his
penis, untreated and causing ANDREW pain
and illness (fever). The penis injury
caused ANDREW pain and difficulty when
urinating.
DCF employee LUCAS DANIELS and
____________ were aware of the serious
injuries to ANDREW INKEL’S penis at the
time that it happened, when the wound
was observable, and when ANDREW had a
fever from this infection.
13) MEREDITH and PHILIP INKEL had
observed puncture and scratch wounds
behind the ears made by fingernails to
ANDREW INKEL, while in the “care” of
ANNETTE ANDERSON.
14) MEREDITH and PHILIP INKEL observed a
long scab along the length of ANDREW
INKEL’S spine reported by ALEXANDER and
ANDREW INKEL to be caused by ANNETTE
ANDERSON dragging ANDREW INKEL down a
set of stairs leading to a basement or
downstairs or some other place of
punishment. See Item #15,next.
15) MISTAKEN IDENTITY RUSE #2:
Black and blue marks running down ANDREW
INKEL’S spine were observed by his
biological parents at a “HOME VISIT?
LIBRARY???, When the NEW LONDON
POLICE and DCF investigated, said
investigators and ANNETTE ANDERSON
`falsely observed and reported ALEXANDER
as ANDREW. ALEXANDER does have a
birthmark on his back. ANDREW does not.
ANNETTE ANDERSON reported that said
black and blue injuries were not, in
fact,observed, and that “ANDREW,”
instead, had “a birth mark,” when
ALEXANDER had the birthmark and the real
ANDREW had the bruises down his spine.
16) The INKEL CHILDREN also reported to
their parents (and KATHLEEN
DICKSON)other examples of emotional and
verbal abuse by ANNETTE ANDERSON to
ALEXANDER,ANDREW and ANASTASIA - harsh
and mean and cruel punishments, refusing
to provide a toilet, refusing to
properly nourish and bathe, etc.
Specifically, the CHILDREN reported to
their parents that ANNETTE ANDERSON told
the children that their “parents were
bad people,” that their “Mommy doesn’t
love you,” that MEREDITH INKEL was “not
your Mommy,” and that she, ANNETTE
ANDERSON, was their Mommy.
The INKEL BOYS, ALEXANDER and ANDREW
children reported being terrified of
ANNETTE ANDERSON – terrified of making
ANDERSON angry.
17) Yet a fifth child, named KIMBERLY
GOSSELIN reported to her “counselor,”
“AMY SIZER” (“CHILD and FAMILY AGENCY,”
NEW LONDON, CT) that ANNETTE ANDERSON
brutalized her in the summer of 2004.
The DCF record of the call reads:
“Caller met with Kimberly for an
individual therapy session this morning.
Kimberly said she urinated in her
pull-up this morning and the foster
mother yelled at her. Caller said
Kimberly has an ongoing issue with bed
wetting which is being addressed.
”Kimberly told caller [AMY SIZER] that
the foster mother [ANDERSON] has been
smacking her in the head with an open
hand. No marks or bruises. Kimberly
told caller that foster mother does
spank her on the behind. Kimberly said
she is afraid of the foster mother when
she gets angry. Kimberly had some fears
returning to her foster home.
”Kimberly told caller she had lobster
for dinner and threw it into the
garbage. The foster mother took the
lobster out of the garbage and made her
eat it. No other specifics of the
incident unknown [sic].
”Caller had her supervisor speak to
Kimberly. Kimberly could not recall the
last incident of foster mother hitting
her. The foster mother does not
threaten to harm Kimberly today.
Kimberly was sent home with the foster
mother. The foster mother is sometimes
moody but she did not appear angry with
Kimberly today….”
The information contained in the body of
this complaint demonstrates that that
the Movants named have interest deeply
rooted in the above captioned matter and
definitely adverse to the plaintiff.
Therefore pursuant to the aforementioned
statutes and the rule of law the Movants
respectfully motion the court for an
order making the Movants parties in this
matter and to allow them to serve upon
ANNETTE ANDERSON complaint and summons
consistent with the information
contained in this motion.
BY PHILLIP H INKEL ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF
AND ALL MOVANTS NAMED HEREIN BY RIGHT.
PHILLIP H INKEL
259 INJUN HOLLW ROAD
HADDAM NECK, CONNECTICUT
06424
860 301 4461
inkelfamily@gmail.com
WHEREFORE THE COURT HAVING HEARD THIS
MOTION HEREBY
DENIES
GRANTS
JUDGE
DATE
CERTIFICATION: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A
COPY OF THIS MOTION WAS
Faxed OR MAILED on NOVEMBER 17, 2011 TO
ALL PARTIES OF RECORD
Superior Court
70 Huntington Street,
New London, CT
Fax 860-442-7703
Kenneth A. Leary
165 State Street, Suite 405
New London, CT 06320
Fax 860-444-6879
Attorney for Plaintiff
Certified Mail
---------------------------------------------------PhilipInkel
259 INJUN HOLLOW ROAD
HADDAM NECK, CT, 06424
TELEPHONE 860 301 4461
