Disgraced TV writer Ambrose caught fabricating service record.
NOTE: This piece first appeared on FrankReport.com.
By Frank Parlato
Christopher Ambrose, a Connecticut man once of Hollywood, used to write TV scripts about people ruining each other’s lives.
He says I defamed him, but he became infamous in 2018 for plagiarizing a Bones script for the CBS show Instinct.
When he was caught, Ambrose said he thought the Bones script was his own work, that it had never aired, and that he used it by mistake. He left out that he wasn’t credited, that the episode had already aired, and that Instinct was supposed to be new, not recycled.
He meant it to pass. Ambrose was fired from Instinct, dropped by his agents, and blacklisted. Hollywood hates plagiarists. He blamed the showrunner.
A NYU-trained lawyer, he could have returned to law, but New York suspended his license in 2006.
His first defamation suit against me, filed in 2022, was dismissed when he failed to prosecute it. Ambrose had filed his latest complaint with the court in July 2025. The case was assigned to Judge Sarala V. Nagala.
The Service Game
On September 2, Ambrose emailed me: I could accept service by email. If I agreed, I’d have sixty days to respond. If I declined, he’d send someone to my door; then I’d have twenty-one.
I told him I’d consider it if he sent the proper Rule 4(d) packet. He wrote back, saying he’d sent me the packet thirty days before.
I emailed him back: if he had sent it thirty days ago, he must have a receipt or a tracking number. Please send it.
He did not reply. I told him that if he’d simply made a mistake, he could send the packet correctly.
Before replying, Ambrose sent a Florida deputy to my house on September 12. I was away, and a visitor told the deputy I’d be gone for weeks. He neither left the papers nor took her name.
On September 18, I emailed Ambrose. He could serve me when I got home in a month or two, or I could sign the waiver under 4(d) with sixty days to respond.
He emailed the complaint and waiver. I accepted the service and sent it back to him. He filed it with the court. The agreed deadline to respond was Nov. 17.
The Lie
Three weeks later, Ambrose accused me of deception. He filed a Request for Clarification. He told the judge a Monroe County deputy had served me on Sept. 12 and that I’d concealed it to gain the extra sixty days., telling the judge that a Monroe County Deputy Sheriff had served me on Sept. 12 and that I had concealed it from him to gain the extra 60 days.
It was a strange lie. Ambrose had hired the deputy and received the return. The papers never came to me; they went to him. If the deputy had served me, Ambrose would have known first. Still, he told the judge I had. He meant it to work, but it was safe if it didn’t. If caught, he could call it a mistake.
He asked the judge to reset my deadline to September 26 and to make me reimburse his $40 sheriff’s fee. His claim rested on the idea that the deputy had served me in person, through a resident, and that I lied about it.
I was out of town on Sept. 12. No dispute there. But Ambrose told the judge the deputy had “left the papers with an adult resident.”
The Ruling
The law calls it substituted service. In Florida, the process server must leave papers with someone who actually lives at the home and is at least fifteen years old –not with a visitor or guest.
If service is made to someone who does not live at the home, the court may set it aside.
To prove his point, he sent the “Return of Service/Deputy Worksheet” filled out by Deputy Ramsey.
At the bottom, Deputy Ramsey wrote that he spoke with a ‘female on property’ who said I’d be out of town for three weeks—he neither named her nor stated he left the papers.
It took the judge one day. On Oct. 8, Judge Nagala denied Ambrose’s motion.
She wrote:
“ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s motion for clarification… which requests that the Court: (i) reset Defendant’s answer deadline because personal service was effectuated on September 12, 2025, rendering inapplicable the waiver … and the current answer deadline based on the date of the waiver; and (ii) issue an order directing Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff for costs associated with personal service. Based on the Court’s review of documents annexed to Plaintiff’s filing, however, it appears that Defendant was not personally served, see ECF No. 22 at 7 (noting that a woman at Defendant’s address told the process server that Defendant was away for three weeks). Thus, Defendant’s answer deadline of November 17, 2025 remains in effect, and Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of service fees is DENIED.”
It wasn’t a mistake. As a former lawyer, Ambrose knew service could be made to a ‘resident,’ not just anyone present.
Dear Mr. Luthmann,
As a Columbia University grad and a man with street smarts, you appear to be failing homework. The use of the shared parenting community and Alienation industry to go after your friend and Colleague. The giant mess they have made in the legal industry. Wake up and do some research. The truth can be found in the industry you seem to want to protect more than your journalistic colleagues, who pissed off an industry using society problems for profitability.
Parental Alienation Study Group, ” PASG” is an international organization that promotes three interlocking goals: research, into the causes, education and counteracting widespread misinformation regarding parental alienation.” William Barnet, MD PASG founder. Mental health professionals, alienated families, grandparents, alienated children are welcome to join PASG if they have an interest in these goals and align with our mission. What is the mission? Appearing to blame women, take their children away and label them crazy. It’s been going on for years now.
PASI Parental Alienation support and intervention, since 1995 JoanT. Koth -Zanard recognized that trauma that parents and children were experiencing due to high conflict divorce. (how profitable the industry is) In 2011 PASI was established as a 501c3 non- profit with 50 chapters. We provide 24 hr crisis management. 501c3 just like the Family court fraud warrior project protecting men and collecting women.
In September of 2016 Joan Kloth- Zanard ruling suit against the state of Connecticut for being placed on denied her educational rights under the welfare reform act, domestic violence laws, failing to accommodate alleged disabilities in 2012. Where DSS placed a lien on her property and placed her on the child abuse and neglect registry.
In 1995 it appears that Joan Kloth Zanard landed on the doorstep of the state of Connecticut to finish the last 18 months of a physical therapy degree. Court paperwork states she was A HOMELESS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM. Leaving many to question who the plaintiff actually is. Homeless for 9 months then landing in court with property to lien upon. Court filing of similar address in 2007 divorce hearing. Which have disappeared from the internet.
MD HB 1036: child custody child abuse or Domestic violence – training for Judges and children’s counsel. ” In my 35 years and thousands of cases I have delt with domestic violence and Parental Alienation, 99 % of all my cases contain false allegations. ”
35 years. The interview with The Family law center 35 years ago I was a victim of Domestic violence, 10 years later I dated my husband. The second wife was alienating. * Tammy Sullivan/ equal and shared parenting* it’s mother and stepmother’s doing it. “I know Dr. Gardener, he was my therapist.” It was a group of women who Dr. Gardenor had testified against ” ” twisted to make him look like a pedophile.” ” Dr. Gardener convinced me to get peer reviews” Domestic violence by proxy. Promotion of reports of abuse are psychological abuse. Creation of referral services, consulting for as cheap as $50 an hour. Up to $240 an hour for phone call with Amy Baker. Part of international shared parenting.
In 2012 the University of Michigan department of social work received federal funding for family court evaluations and reported the dangers including Parental alienation in the family court system. The results were never published 2007-WG-BX-0013 award number.
Daniel G. Sounders Ph.D., Kathleen C. Faller Ph.D. and Richard M. Tolman Ph.D. (fatherhood practice and research work) .
A letter of rebuttal from Richard A. Gardner M.D. to Kathleen Faller Ph.D.
” In most cases these behaviors include an allegation of sexual abuse ”
RG: ” I have never said that, nor do I believe that. I have never in any of my writings provide a percentage, that especially a percentage that suggest that most of the PAS cases “include allegations of sexual abuse”. My own experience has been possibly 10 to 15 % of PAS cases in which I have been involved in, does a sexual abuse accusation emerge”
RG: “Another way of brainwashing is to exaggerate a parent’s minor psychological problems. The parent who may have drunk a little extra alcohol on occasion gradually become spoken of as an alcoholic. And a parent that who may have experimented occasionally with drugs comes to be viewed as ‘a drug addict’. Even though the other parent may have joined their former spouse in such experimentation with drugs, they vilified parent is given the epithet”
December 2023 Connecticut inside investigator Supreme Court considers parental visitation rights.
Joan” I am an expert and consultant with over 35 years’ experience in this area.”
“So, let’s start by saying that according to the ADA alcoholism is a debilitating illness caused by an allergic reaction to a substance. If a person is truly an alcoholic. So long as the person stays sober, it’s discrimination against the disabled to block their ability to co parent and have equal access to her children”.
June 2024 American Addiction Centers: The effects of growing up with an alcoholic parent :
Low grade point average
Grade level repeat/ fail
poor performance in math, reading and spelling
unexcused absences
impaired learning
poor speech development up to 3
Anxiety
depression
social phobias
obsessive compulsive issues
lower rates of social competence
Delinquent and anti-social behavior
Aggressive towards others
Suicidal thoughts and behaviors
emotional isolation
eating disorders
behavior disorder
PTSD
All symptoms weaponized by the alienation industry as alienation
The anti-alienation project that has joined the “alienation study group” sights some of these symptoms as her own due to alienation.
Madison was the first to present the lawsuits for Chris Ambrose. Linda Gottlieb is promoting and soliciting for Chris Ambroses lawsuit.
Joan Kloth Zanard can also be seen on the internet encouraging civil litigations. Last November Joan Kloth Zanard hosted a Parental alienation conference with Dr. Barnet. Several law groups and Shared parenting pushing organizations were present. Joan kloth Zanard as well as family court reform/equal and shared parenting have spoken about this case. All of the articles were removed from the Frank Report. Frank began his Journey into Connecticut Family court infested by the alienation industry. Connecticut is home to some of the wealthiest men in the country. We have yet to see any low-income child forced into the camps they so desperately feel is the only remedy to cure. When the industry trying to force families to live under poor conditions can take accountability for their part, perhaps we can improve family court.
Hugs and kisses, as Ryan would say,
Have the day you deserve as Tammy would say.
Sincerely,
Glinda and The New England Broomstick Brigade seeking the truth. Cause we all know that innocent mothers are not going to get their children back with 50/50.
P. s. Will you have the nerve to publish this? Will you have the nerve to look deeper into the real reason the suits were filed? Case we all know that the troops were not really rallied for Chris, but the for the industry itself.
Let me make this perfectly clear: I don’t support or oppose Parental Alienation. I see it for what it is—a construct, an industry, and a weaponized narrative. If Pfizer or Eli Lilly could synthesize a pill to “cure” parental alienation, it would be canonized in the DSM-V tomorrow morning, complete with an AMA code, a billing cycle, and a TV ad campaign between Zoloft and Ozempic.
Unlike the commenter, I don’t hijack “parental alienation,” “coercive control,” or “domestic violence” to fit a personal or legal agenda. I don’t cherry-pick trauma to market ideology. These terms have become political props and professional goldmines—shiny words for courtroom profit and advocacy power.
Parental alienation, coercive control, and domestic violence are real—but only in the minds and experiences of those who believe they’ve lived them. They are emotional realities, not always legal ones, and certainly not scientific ones. Each has been stretched, rebranded, and rewritten by lobbying dollars until it’s more slogan than psychology.
So I’ll throw the question back to my critics: define them. Legally. Psychologically. Medically. Or even colloquially. Define parental alienation, coercive control, or domestic violence without parroting a script written by the same special interests who profit from their ambiguity.
You can’t. Because those definitions don’t exist outside the echo chambers that built them.
What I do is journalism—uncomfortable, unflinching, unaligned. I expose manipulation whether it’s cloaked in feminism, father’s rights, or family therapy. I don’t “protect” the industry. I expose the industries—plural—that milk public pain for power and cash.
If that makes me unpopular in both camps, so be it. Truth doesn’t take sides. It just offends everyone equally.
Parental alienation is a legal concept used at the family court house. It’s used to place a blanket over cases and switch the focus on the person accused of it. It’s an adjativtive to describe a person’s fealings. It’s legally used to describe a condition of a relationship between a parent and child. Has been coached to create senerios by the industry and equal and shared parenting groups. Coursive control is legally defined by Jennifer law and interpreted by family court judges. Alligations of abuse and false claims are rarely explored by the actual judge. Subject to the therapist and GaL to present to the court their interpretation. Weather they have done so with eithics and standards. DV can be defined by Jennifer law. Physical, emotional and financial. What is being ignored in Connecticut in the prosecutor office and public defenders can probably be found throughout the United States. Most of the family issues are defined as public health issues. Addiction, mental health diagnostic, financial resources. The Alienation industry invites children who perceived they were aliented and denying children we perceive they were abused. It’s would appear they want everyone including the Ambrose children to perceive they were abused. Two schools of thought. # 1 get it in the DSM and the other to force inpatient services ie camps. These are legal stadigy and there is absolutely no precaution for false claims or contraindications like substance abuse. Manipulation behavior found may be harmful but not illegal. The equal and shared parenting community point to domestic violence funding despite claims of sexual abuse and violence are down over 60 %. Children deaths have increased. Equal and shared custody and even lesser parenting time is abused in some cases. Women have and continue to be the target of the equal and shared parenting community. Where the Alienation industry pond is fished from. Creating large funding streams. Have you met a wealthy domestic violence advocate? In the state of Connecticut? The majority are poor. Some are weathier where the spouse use parental alienation, take money and the children away. Just for spite at times. Is parental alienation legally defined or subject to the so called ” expert” hired for the case? Do the coaching services attempt to make senerios to bring to court? The more money a parent has the more exclusive the service to coach cases at the family court. . While Karen is perceived as a ” privilege white women” running around the hospitals even the poor woman in the state understand what is happening. Including the psychiatric department at Yale New Haven hospital. Who received a hand full of children with suicidal thoughts after custody flips. Linda Gotlibe blame it on Alienation. Just like the symptoms of living with an alcoholic parent . Equal and shared parenting groups like to blame women for all the problems in family court and society. Those of us who know better and equal and shared parenting groups know better. These are complex social issues turned into a family court funding stream deyond child support.
Connecticut could repeal the statutory definition of “coercive control” tomorrow. The General Assembly created it, and it can take it away. “Coercive control” exists only within Connecticut law and a smattering of other deep blue jurisdictions. It is not a nationally recognized legal term. It’s a legislative experiment, not a universal truth.
By contrast, “parental alienation” could be enacted as a legal term just as easily. Legislatures define what is actionable — not therapists, not advocates, and not bloggers repeating buzzwords. There are legal, psychological, scientific, and colloquial definitions of most terms. Conflating them is the mark of indoctrination, not intelligence.
“Parental alienation” is not an “adjective to describe feelings.” It is a fact pattern where one parent manipulates a child to unjustly reject the other. Whether labeled as alienation, psychological abuse, or interference with custody, the conduct is real and measurable.
“Coercive control,” is also a fact pattern, hijacked by a political movement to expand domestic violence definitions without empirical grounding. It criminalizes words and emotions, not conduct. Outside Connecticut (and a handful of neo-Marxist statutes), it has no legal standing whatsoever.
If Connecticut can define “coercive control,” it can redefine “parental alienation.” That’s how law works. Statutes change when lawmakers stop parroting activists and start listening to evidence.
Until then, those who can’t distinguish between statutory law and social media slogans will keep confusing rhetoric for reason.
Evidence is an agreed upon common goal. That being said, evidence appears to be flying under the radar. Ignored, hidden for social projects. What happened to the evidence in the case where the GaL called the prosecutor office to have charges dropped ? Was her minimal education standards to represent children’s best interest superior to the police? Who is charge of the hotline plea bargaining and nullying cases. Who is prioritizing fatherhood over criminal matters? Written in the strategic planning of the fatherhood initiative and implimted by judges based on federally funded fudgery. Two parent households or involved in a child life their is no questions. Father’s are important and is why when they abuse that position it’s effects are a disaster. As well as a mother. There is no federally funded programs making excuses for mothers in the way the fatherhood initiative is. The conditions children live under are the most important in determining the outcome. It takes a village not reunification camps to address social problems. The pipeline of references to Alienation industry based court professionals has done little to nothing to improve the social conditions children live under. As a matter of fact it’s caused significant harm. The Ambrose children are in sufferage. Chris, Linda and Maddie are attempting to gain from it. Chris wants money, Linda wants silence and a pipline of children from wealthy homes enrolled in her unregulated, unsupervised and appearing to be void of eithical standards to be ordered. Maddie is creating content and following promising to deliver children to the promise land. With Christin nationalist ideology. Joan who has created her own cult following is attacking a advocy for basic human rights. Attempting to cut off support and knowledge for abused women and abused children. If parental alienation is real thank they should welcome a complete investigation into the funding into the nonprofit organizations. The business practices they are engaging in. The three strikes rule is a batters dream and an abused child nightmare. I lived the nightmare along with my child of the referral pipeline and the hidding of evidence in Connecticut family court. I lived the manipulation of the equal and shared parenting community while attending to work with them to improve family court. ” These are arguments not domestic violence. If you don’t agree to shared custody you are labeled an alienator. I’ve witnessed the” except ” in Connecticut do this. There is nothing you could say to me about the leaders of family court reform and shared parenting that is going to change the experience I have had with them. Joan klot Zanard herself attempting to stop women from publicly speaking out to the local media. The attempt of members of the group attempt to stop women from receiving coverage to out the ignoring and hidding of evidence in Connecticut family court. All roads lead back to the Alienation industry and equal and shared parenting. They claim that the court system is currupt when it’s convenient for them and no one else. Hidding gender biased funding in their favor. While attacking funding that helps survivors and their children. The mission appears to be one of coursive control in several eyes. The use of exclusive court professionals isolating children in their camps, cutting off financial resources from Vowa, and eliminate children support. Starving abused partner in to staying married, take control over the children by financial means. Using studies that people volunteer for rather than the population most troubled. The population most in need of intervention and protection in family court. My definition of coursive control is the exact behavior that the Alienation industry and equal and shared parenting is engaging in. It would appear they are using the Ambrose civil lawsuit to further engage in their Control of the family court system. This is not an attack on Mr. Luthmann but an eye opener for you. It what this entire lawsuit looks like to educated on street smarts of the actual circumstances prodomity women and children are living under in the toxic dynamics fighting to fix family court. Some of the women are absolutely part of the problem no one is denying it.
Leader of family court reform and shared parenting legislation. Appeliate court finding. Plaintiff wife the defenent husband. ” The defendant who was previously married to the plantiff.” marriage number one. ” The court found him in contempt on two separate occasions and sanctioned him for bad faith litigation”. Using overlapping interwined arguments . Around child support and arrarges. The leader of family court reform, equal and shared parenting and parental alienation activists is not a man of middle class means. Going after child support. The ” parental alienation expert” in Connecticut angry about her spouse child support.
Ambrose bought $$$ the discretion of Connecticut Family Court Judges: Adelman, Stewart, Moukawsher, Truglia, O’Neill, Rodriguez, Grossman, purchased discretion through dirty GAL Jocelyn Hurowitz, teamed with bar sister Nancy Aldrich in rabbinical union with Jessica Caverly of kosher psychosis. Ambrose did not purchase discretion in federal court. Judicial decisions can be purchased, just need a ‘right’ attorney to broker the sale. A $400/hr chosen GAL is required.