Thursday, February 16, 2006

Shut out in court

The judge just ruled against me in court today.

I had filed a motion to reconsider some of Commissioner Irwin Joseph's earlier rulings, because they seem directly contrary to law and precedent. He had invited me to file a motion to reconsider if I thought that he was wrong, and that is what I did.

I asked for a statement of the decision so that I could appeal to a higher court.

One of my complaints was that he deviated from support guidelines under some theory that had no justification in the law. Today, he denied it. He said that he cited In re Marriage of Cheriton (Sept 2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269, 111 CalRptr2d 755, to justify imputing income from investments.

This is partially true. At the last hearing, I challenged Judge Joseph to give some justification for what he was doing. He mumbled something about he thought that there was a case with a name something like "Sheraton". I couldn't find the case, and he didn't put it in written decision. Maybe it is my fault for looking under "S" instead of "C". I did find some other cases, but they didn't support Judge Joseph's decision.

Now that I have found "Marriage of Cheriton", I can see that it doesn't say what Judge Joseph implied at all.

We still have to go back to court next Wednesday so my ex-wife can report on her new job. She also asked for a court date so she can ask for more attorney fees for her ex-attorney, Jennifer Gray. Miss Gray was there in the courtroom, but not representing my ex-wife.

After Judge Joseph summarily rejected my motion, I asked if I could speak. I wanted to point out a couple of factual errors that he made. He said that unless I was going to thank him for reading the papers and giving a decision, he didn't want to hear it!

No, I didn't thank him for that, because I am not sure he read my papers. He didn't address any of my arguments, except to give the reference to the Cheriton case. It is not even clear when he expects me to pay the extra money, and how much.


Anonymous said...

Good grief. Maybe I should move to New Zealand. I don't think the judiciary could get any worse!

One thing for sure. I'm never getting married again.

Hang in there. What a world!

Masculiste said...

This is a common ruse AD. This jag-off judge figures he'll just force your hand and cause you undue hardship at an appeal, or wear you down at the prospect of an appeal. Don't give in.

If you bring a case, or a cause of action, or make a case in lower court, based on a specific statutory law, then the lower court is required to refute that specific statute. Not ignore it and rule based on some vague legal notion that isn't made completely clear in the event of an appeal.

There are 3 types of law. Administrative, statutory, and judicial. Ask your lawyer to define these three types.

If you bring a statute as that to which you rely on to make your case, within that statute (if you read it completely) are judicial rulings listed that support the statute.

Appeal this decision on the basis that you attempted to cite to the judge. Factual error, or an error in law. Remember, an appeal isn't a place where you can retry the case. It's purpose is to review mistakes that you believe the judge made in his hearing of the case.

And should rely on the same statutes in appeals court, that you relied on at trial. Be sure to point out how the judge refused to acknowledge, much less consider, those statutes.

One more thing...if this was a hearing between you and the ex(who is an atty) you can also appeal on the basis of judicial bias and abuse of descretion.

If the judge deviates from law or lawful guidelines(applies his decretion), he is compelled by law to give specific reasons for why he did so. As you have stated, for the specific purposes of appeal.

Next, a court MUST REMAIN NUETRAL. A judge cannot make an argument for one side or the other whenever he feels like it. You might not have known this at the time, but that was worth an 'objection' with an 'exception' right there in the courtroom.

If one side or the other fails to make a case, a judge simply cannot step in and make a case for them, or grant a party that to which the party doesn't specifically make a case for. The court cannot act as an agent for one partyu or the other. It places the other party at a severe legal disadvantage.

Of course we know that in the real world, this kind of shit happens all-too-often. But these are some important things to know when we go into court.

AD...make a list of the points I've made here, go to a law library and ask for assistance in locating the specific statutes tha support these points. Copy them, and include them in your appeal.

And for the record, that is precisely what your shit-4-brains judge is counting on you not to have the acumen to accomplish.

Stay up player!