Thursday, February 23, 2006

Amended minute order

I just got this in the mail:

HONORABLE Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph, presiding CLERK: Janet Garland ...

Counsel/parties address(es) the issues now before the Court. The matter is submitted.

FINDINGS AND ORDERS: The Court states its findings which include, but are not limited to, the following:

The motion on calendar is not really a motion for reconsideration.

The motion fails to comply with CCP 1008 requirements as there is no evidence of changed or new circumstance or fact or law.

Respondent is incorrect re statement that citiations were not given by the Court as Respondent was told to see In re Sheriton; the Court now includes Dacumos, Disteen and DeGeigne; the dividends argument is fallacious; the co-habitation issue is incorrectly stated as the dissomaster does allow input of funds received from the new spouse/significant other; a Writ is the appropriate instrument to be filed re Judge Kelsay's rulings and the same for Commissioner Joseph's rulings; all the rulings of the court have been based on the best interest of the minors; and the issue of attorney fees is improperly brought and the prior order for payment in the amount of $6,500 remains.

Respondent's motion is denied.

Either party is directed to prepare the order pursuant to Rule 391.
This doesn't make much sense to me. The clerk apparently amended the minute order, but I was never sent the original minute order so I don't know what the change is. It might have made sense for the clerk to include the proper case citations, but "Sheriton" is still mispelled. It refers to Judge Kelsay's rulings, but his rulings were not involved at all.

The statement is a little different from what Commissioner Joseph said in court, so perhaps he is trying to improve his rulings after the fact so that they will look better on appeal.

The statement is still extremely lame. The order should be giving justifications based on the law, not on "dissomaster does allow input". The dissomaster is a silly computer program that the judges are dependent on.

The minute order also claims that "all the rulings of the court have been based on the best interest of the minors". That is certainly false. Commissioner Joseph has been the acting family court judge for about 8 months now, and I have yet to see him base a ruling on the best interest of children.

Update: Just to clarify, this was a rejection of my motion for reconsideration. The Comm. Joseph had issued some non-guideline support orders in December. Under California law, he has to give a justification for deviating from guideline, but he said that I'd have to make a motion for reconsideration in order to get one. So this is his explanation.

My ex-wife's remaining monetary complaints will be heard at the trial on April 17.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I still haven't gotten past the judge not seeing his address on the filing papers and all other legal papers, which there have been several.