..... Theodora


Barbara Kozol's Perjury

    In the Matter of Marriage of






    | No. 94-3846-D-3(2)

    1. I, PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS, being first duly sworn, depose and state:

    2. I have been trying, for almost a year now, to obtain complete records of my daughter from Barbara Kozol, director of the Child Development Center.

    3. After my last communication with her, Ms. Kozol sent me a fax, where she noted that she had sent me everything in Teddy's "chart" and that she had a tape, in which I made fun of her "genitalia" and that the tape "could not be of any use" to me in litigation.

    4. After receiving that fax, I called Mr. Purdy's office, legal counsel to Asante, RVMC parent company, and complained and also sent him, subsequently, several written requests for the records, as well as a copy of Ms. Kozol's fax.

    5. I then called by telephone to complain about his not following up and about the lack of appropriate response to my request for the records.

    6. Mr. Purdy called me today and following is the conversation that ensued.

    7. Mr. Purdy: Photius?

    8. Mr. Coutsoukis: Yes, Sir.

    9. Mr. Purdy: I am gona put you on the speaker phone. Can you hear me?

    10. Mr. Coutsoukis: I can hear you.

    11. Mr. Purdy: OK. Ah.

    12: Mr. Coutsoukis: Can you hear me?

    13: Mr. Purdy: Yeap

    14: Mr. Coutsoukis: OK

    15: Mr. Purdy: Ah. Ms Kozol came over and I reviewed your request and her response and let me tell you what I understand the situation is. We made two copies of you, for you, of Teddy's chart, and when we say Teddy's chart we mean every document that we have in our possession that pertains to her.

    16: Mr. Coutsoukis: That is not true, and I can give you an example...

    17: Mr. Purdy: Well, listen. Don't tell me it is not true or I am going to hang up on ya. I want you to listen to me and shut up. We provided them twice. There are no log books that we have in our possession. There are no audio tapes that we have in our possession. There was one tape made and it was given to your ex wife's attorney and if she still has it she still has it. We don't have it. We don't have a copy.

    18: Mr. Coutsoukis: Well, can I tell you something now? May I speak?

    19: Mr. Purdy: You may tell me something now.

    20: Mr. Coutsoukis: Ms. Kozol testified under oath that a tape which she supplied to Christina Sanz, Susan's attorney, and I have a copy of that tape. She tells me that she has another tape with some comments of mine, which she characterizes on a fax that she sent to me, which I also sent to you which is a different tape and which I have not received, wich has not been supplied to me.

    21. Mr. Purdy: She says she has only one tape and it was the one that was sent to the attorney.

    22. Mr. Coutsoukis: Well, apparently what she tells the Court and what she tells me in a fax is not the same as what she told you.

    23. Mr. Purdy: Well, I mean, I don't know. I haven't seen a copy of the transcript.

    24. Mr. Coutsoukis: I'll be happy to fax it to you.

    25. Mr. Purdy: Well,...

    26. Mr. Coutsoukis: I'll be happy to fax to you what she said that the tape contains, which is not what I have because I have my tape and I listened to it and there is nothing of the sort. OK?

    27. Mr. Purdy: OK

    28. Mr. Coutsoukis: Number two, I have sent correspondence to Ms. Kozol and her staff over the years about my daughter. A portion of that, a tiny portion of that was cited in her sworn deposition. OK? I have not received any of those documents, which do pertain about my daughter, which are in her possession and, although she did not choose to put them in my daughter's record, her "chart", are records which pertain to my daughter and they must be produced. What I would like Ms. Kozol to understand is the definition of what constitutes a record and what the legal requirements are which apparently has not been explained to her.

    29. Mr. Purdy: Let me interrupt a minute. I understand that some of the earlier correspondence you sent she did not keep and did not make part of the record. She then discussed it with the people that we contract for and they said that she should include all your correspondence and all of your daughter's records and since she understood that and learned that she has done that and she kept a copy of all your correspondence and make them a part of your daughter's records.

    30. Mr. Coutsoukis: On the basis of what, Ms. Kozol, said under oath, she did know about this correspondence, she did have the correspondence and if she destroyed the correspondence subsequent to her testimony, then obviously she is destroying records that she should not have destroyed. Ms. Kozol cannot claim ignorance of the law or ignorance of what constitutes a record, to belatedly deny me access to my daughter's records, and that includes the tape that as recently as two or three weeks ago she claimed she had, which is different from the tape that I have, and she sent it to me in writing.

    31. Mr. Purdy: Well, just wait a minute. Ah, what, the only tape I have is one of...

    32. Ms. Kozol: Yeah.

    33. Mr. Purdy: Do you have that?

    34. Ms. Kozol: Ah, that's the one that Christina Sanz has. I don't have in my possession. That's the only tape, the only one ...

    35. Mr. Purdy: She says it is only one tape.

    36. Mr. Coutsoukis: Well, Ms. Kozol mentioned two tapes in her deposition, Ms. Kozol sent a tape to Christina Sanz, of which I obtained a copy. On that tape, it is a phone message in which I say that there will not be physical therapy behind my back and she should not be making appointments over my head, with Susan, at a time that she knows is impossible for me to attend, so that she can do physical therapy without me observing. That is tape number one. Tape number two: She claims, in a fax that she very recently faxed to me, that she has a tape where I allegedly make fun of her genitalia. I do not have such a tape and neither does Ms. Sanz. Now, if Ms. Kozol claims in writing that she has such a tape and she tells me that she doesn't want to produce it, because "it would be of no use" to me in litigation, it is not the same thing as saying that she doesn't have it, unless she destroyed it since.

    37. Ms. Kozol: It IS the same tape. I actually never listened to it. If you really wanted to do it legally, the gall that taped, Rhonda Hokins was the PT who taped it when you called her and you were insulting me and she turned the tape on and taped it. She told me that was part of the conversation. She did not get the line about the genitalia on the tape, but that is the only tape that we are talking about.

    38. Mr. Coutsoukis: Ms. Kozol, you cannot be accusing me of doing things in a recording and then tell me that you never heard it. And you cannot send me a fax telling me that the only thing on that tape is such and that I said, and then you tell me that there is such a thing on the tape because you never listened to it. You cannot be making accusations on the basis of a recording in your possession, in writing, and then say that, well, maybe it's not on the tape.

    39. Mr. Purdy: Well, she has told you what her position is and you say she can't be doing it. If she did she did and I mean if what she said was incorrect and there was no tape there nobody's been hurt, it has not been published with anybody, if you are upset with it you're upset with it....


    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me _______, 1997

    NOTARY PUBLIC FOR NEW YORK My commission expires:

NOT whole truth . . NOT so

Thank you for making this an award winning site

Please put this page in your BOOKMARKS - - - - -

Enter your e-mail address to receive e-mail when this page is updated.
Your Internet e-mail address:

ITA Home Page
The IMMIGRATION Superhighway Feedback

Flags of all Countries
Yahoo search

Revised 1-September-1998