I object to the appointment of James Ritchey to represent the kids. I met with him on Friday, Nov. 30, and he explained to me that he wants to be on this case long term, and that his interests are aligned with keeping me on supervised visitation. He told me that he was against making any factual determination of the accuracy of the allegations against me, and that he did not care what I think. He said that Judge Joseph would not want to reverse the temporary orders against me, regardless of the facts, and that it was foolish to ask. He explained to me that his role is to make recommendations to the court that eliminate my parental rights, and that avoid embarrassing the judge by litigating actual issues. He does not even have the most superficial knowledge of this case, and he is not representing the genuine interests of the kids, either individually or collectively.I also dropped off a copy at his office.
I welcome the opportunity to analyze your response and to meet with you again after I have received your response. We should meet prior to the hearing of December 6, 2007.I guess I may have to meet with him again. I emailed this response:
The Brief in Support of Returning to Joint Custody which you delivered to my office on December 3, 2007, is not helpful in analyzing your response to the current proceeding.
JAMES M. RITCHEY
cc: Commissioner Irwin Joseph
Jim:Update: As of Tuesday evening, I have no reply from him. Weird. I guess that he doesn't want to meet me after all. He is just confirming that he doesn't want to hear my side of the story.
Your letter says that Thursday's hearing is at 8:30. In fact, it is scheduled for 10:00 am.
You told me rather emphatically that you are not interested in what I have to say as long as I am rebutting the accusations against me. I do intend to rebut the accusations. Therefore, I am not sure what we would have to discuss.
But if you think that a meeting would be helpful, then I'd be happy to meet you again at your office. Pick a time, and I will be there.