Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Not quizzing the opposing lawyer

My ex-wife's appeal brief argues that James M. Ritchey's opinion should be given some extra weight because I did not ask him any questions in court:
Appellant argues that the Counsel appointed by the trial court did not adequately represent the minors because Appellant claims that the minors' Counsel's involvement in the case was minimal. Respondent respectfully asserts that the minors' Counsel had more than enough contact with the minors and both the Appellant and Respondent. Additionally, Appellant argues that minors' Counsel was not present at any evidentiary hearings and that minors' Counsel did not sign his report to the trial court under oath. Respondent respectfully notes that minors' Counsel was at that January 9,2008 hearing and that Appellant was given an opportunity to ask him questions.
MINOR'S COUNSEL: [Minors' Counsel] for the minors, your Honor. I didn't know what input you wanted from me, but I was here last.
THE COURT: Right. It would seem first off that [Minors' Counsel] did not have to stay around. The Court has received his report. And to the extent that either of the parents has any questions of [Minors' Counsel], I'll now give you an opportunity to ask those questions of him. And then I think I can excuse [Minors' Counsel]. I don't see any reason for him to be around for the balance of the hearing. So I does Father or Mother have any questions? First, have both of you had an opportunity to review [Minors' Counsel] report?
THE COURT: And does Father have any questions about the report or any desire to ask [Minors' Counsel] any questions at all?
THE RESPONDENT: No, I don't have any questions.
(Reporter's Transcript on Appeal, January 9, 2008, page 1756, line 9 through page 1757, line 5.) Appellant was given an opportunity to ask questions of minors' Counsel.
Here, James Ritchey is the Minors' Counsel, Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph is the Court, my ex-wife is the Petitioner, and I am the Respondent.

I had good reasons for not asking Mr. Ritchey any questions. He is a dishonest and corrupt slimeball lawyer. He knows very little about the case. He told me that he was opposed to doing any fact-finding, and that his role in the case was to help Comm. Joseph punish me as much as possible. He took his family to Lake Tahoe instead of attending the trial in which the CPS social worker testified.

I thought that in the above transcript, Comm. Joseph was dismissing Mr. Ritchey for incompetence. Comm. Joseph was worried that Mr. Ritchey would say something idiotic that might interfere with Comm. Joseph's scheme to fix the trial.

Mr. Ritchey did submit a report to the court, but it was unsworn. He refused to say anything under penalties of perjury. I had a chance to ask him some questions, but his answers would not be under oath.

Comm. Joseph was essentially saying this:
Mr. Ritchey, thanks for the report that slams the Angry Dad, as I requested. Since you do not know what is going on, and might be an embarrassment to our plan, you had better leave now. I will give the Angry Dad a chance to ask you some questions, just so I can use your report as evidence against him. But don't worry, I will not let him ask you any questions under oath, so feel free to continue to tell lies against him.
No, I was not going to ask Jim Ritchey any questions unless he is under oath. I have gotten tired of him being able to tell lies because he is not under oath.

No comments: