Friday, August 26, 2005

Why I post here

When my ex-wife hired Jennifer J. Gray as her lawyer, Miss Gray told me that if I agree to their demands then she will agree to a stipulated request to seal the court records. Otherwise she would do everything she can to publicly humiliate me.

She also made it clear that her demand was for "sole legal custody" of the kids, and that she would not settle for anything less.

So I really had no choice but to publicly defend myself.

My main purpose here is to protest what the government is doing to me and my kids, and to document it so that others can learn from my experience. I believe that government processes should always be subject to public scrutiny. I never would have believed how bad the family court system is, had I not seen it for myself.

This a real case, and everything here is real except for a few pseudonyms.

5 comments:

seƱor x said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Masculiste said...

I find it interesting that her lawyer was cocky enough to come right out and tell you this. Now the cat is TOTALLY out of the bag. And if I were you, I would use that in court.
If it comes to a trial, and for whatever reason you lose, you can use that in the appeal process.

Your approach would be that the trial court failed to take this into consideration upon reporting and thereby abused their discretion by way of complicity to open and admitted slander and defamation.

Once a court of appeals (which is a superior court) hears this bullshit, however THEY rule, the ruling is documented in the California reporters.

A reporter is a legal publication that documents actual trials that have gone to appeal. This is an invaluable asset to a seasoned attorney because it's used to locate cases that support existing statutes.

In litigation, reporters are considered primary authority and in some cases, blackletter law.

The distinction here is that whatever reasoning an appeals court board of judges has in rendering a particular verdict, they have to document that reasoning.

So imagine what Jennifer Gray's position would be if what she told you becomes documented for all the legal and public world to see...

I would not sit on that if I were you. I'd use it and go for the juggular with it. Get it on the record. Get every rotten thing your ex is trying to pull ON THE COURT RECORD!

If you have any questions about specifically how this works, you can contact me at: michaelcapanzzi@comcast.net

George said...

The court does care about out-of-court negotiations. It barely cares about what is in court. While I was waiting for my case to come up on Wednesday, another dad told the judge that he had proof that the opposing had submitted nearly identical affidavits for 2 different clients in 2 different cases. The implication was that the lawyer had a boilerplate set of lies. The judge was not interested, and just told him to go tell some lawyer about it.

Masculiste said...

The point is...if you get it on transcript in a trial setting, you can use the judge's dissinterest in an appeal.

Lower court judges get away with this kind of behavior all the time because a typical victim in a case like ours just wants to get this over with as soon as possible. Typically lawyers and courts try to make the appeal process seem more intimidating than it actually is.

One counter to a judge's complicity to this kind of thing is that the rules of evidence and procedure (the LAW) says that any evidence that impeaches a witness is ALWAYS admissable. Without exception. If a judge rules that a piece of impeachment evidence on your behalf is inadmissable, that's clearly abuse of discretion. If he ignores it altogether (that is...without ruling it admissable or inadmissable) he could be impeached himself as acting complicately to fraud-on-the-court.

What they're trying to do is tie you up in court and wear you down.

George said...

Yes, they are trying to tie me up and wear me down.

The lawyer would just say that she was vigorously advancing her client's interests. It gets me nowhere.