A reader asks why I call the judges "evil". She suggests that I call them biased or unfair.
The people in our society who have the greatest authority are also the ones with the greatest responsibility. And they deserve the greatest blame for wrongdoing.
I don't blame the cops who seized my kids. They were just following orders. I blame the ones who gave the orders. The judges.
In my case, Nathan D. Mihara, Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian, and Wendy Clark Duffy did not just rule against me. They were dishonest, they did not follow the law, and they acted deliberately to inflict cruelty to my kids.
Let me give a couple of examples. In my appeal, I argued that Cmr. Irwin H. Joseph took my kids away on the grounds of abuse, but that no actual abuse had even been alleged. The appeal court disagreed, and said that there was evidence of abuse on the record. But it was unable to find a single example!
Think about that. If you were writing a 22-page opinion justifying an abuse decision, and you really believed that there was abuse, don't you think that you would mention just what the abuse is? The appeal court did not, and could not, name any example of abuse. There was no abuse, and the court was being dishonest.
For another example of dishonesty, Judge Mihara said that the applicable legal standard was that my ex-wife must have proved some change of circumstances between the 2005 and 2008 trials. I argued that no such change was proved or even alleged. If I were wrong, then it would be real easy to show that I was wrong. It would just take a sentence to say just what the circumstance was, and how it differed in 2008 from 2005. But Mihara could find no such circumstance that had changed. He just baldly stated that there was a change of circumstances and that the legal requirements were satisfied.
For yet another example, Cmr. Joseph gave his decision in oral form on Jan. 11, 2008. He gave a little speech summarizing his fact-finding. 36% of his speech was devoted to citing a 2004 report from a shrink named Bret Johnson.
Citing the 2004 report was improper for a number of reasons. The report had not been introduced into evidence. Johnson did not testify at the 2008 trial. Cmr. Joseph had excluded more recent evidence because he said that it was not timely enough. And worst of all, the 2004 report had already been litigated in the 2005 trial.
So what did Judge Mihara say? He said that Cmr. Joseph was not relying on the 2004 report. I had misinterpreted Cmr. Joseph's remarks and had taken them out of context. Judge Mihara said that Cmr. Joseph was merely noting that allegations against me had been longstanding in the case.
Yes, of course my ex-wife had some longstanding complaints. She had already been making them for a year when we had a trial in 2005. At the trial, it was proved that her complaints had no merit and the court ordered a 50-50 final custody determination.
So now Judge Mihara says that there has been a change of circumstances because Cmr. Joseph noted that the allegations were similar to some that were made in 2004 and disproved in 2005. It doesn't make any sense.
It seems obvious to me that Judge Mihara and his colleagues wanted to uphold Cmr. Joseph's decision even tho they could not find any facts or law to support him. By doing so, they are forcing two wonderful kids to grow up without a father who has been extremely good to them. I regard that as evil.