Thursday, April 02, 2009

Why I call the judges evil

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.


mow said...

When judges choose not to follow law or facts the result is the equivalent of vigilante justice. They may as well say "its legal for mom to take a gun and threaten you to keep the kids from you". We are in a nouveau version of the wild wild west.

The more of these cases I see at appellate court the more I believe that there is some serious problem in the legal training process.

BoB said...

Let me quote from the actual court ruling to shed some lights many of your complaints. Names redacted as well.

Removing the kids on the grounds of abuse. Court cites that:

"xxxx conceded that the children were very upset when he performed a science experiment to demonstrate that a frog would remain in a pot of slowly heated and then boiling water until it died.

He acknowledged that the children must work in their math workbooks if they wake him up on a Saturday or Sunday. He does not regard this as punishment, and explained that if they “wake [him] up early on a Saturday or Sunday, it must be because [they] want to do some math workbooks.”

xxxx believed that he was “extremely open with” the children, and that the “biggest problem with them in openness” occurs because they are “under orders from [ex-wife] to keep secrets from [him], which frequently happens.”

The court considered the above to be example of abuse. it's listed on the first page of ruling under "statement of fact". Those are also the change in circumstance between 2005-2008 that satisfies the legal standard you ex-wife must prove.

I can go on and on. The opinion is a long one. There are many legal procedure that you simply missed or did not grasp.

I really don't understand why you did not get an attorney for this appeal. This is about your kids, if your ex-wife is an attorney, why place yourself at a disadvantage and not arm yourself with an attorney?

there is also a 6th district appellate program.

They can represent indigent clients for appeal. They are extremely qualified and they can also do oral argument on your behalf.

My final advice to you is to call up a good attorney, talk to the Santa clara county bar association if you don't trust the 6th district appellate program.

Ask them to suggest an excellent family attorney to go over your kids.

Best of luck to you sir.

George said...

The appeal opinion does not actually cite any example of abuse. Yes, it describes some background facts (and misstates those facts) but does not say that they were abusive. It only claims that statements from the children gave evidence of abuse, but does not say what those statements were. There were no statements by the children on the record. The court also failed to say any circumstance that had actually changed.

BoB said...

I am not sure what you consider abuse is. I think that having you kids watching boiling a live frog and upsetting them is not in their best interest and can be considered emotional abuse.

We can argue legal jargons all day and whatnot but bottom line is you do not have custody of your kids right now and you want it back.

Take my advice and go talk to the Santa Clara bar association and ask for a good family attorney. Listen to what she/he has to say and do whatever it takes to get your kids back.

George said...

Neither CPS nor the trial court said that there was anything wrong with boiling the frog. No one said that the kids were upset. The appeal court did mention the frog, but did not say that it was abuse. It only said that some childrens' statements showed abuse, but the children did not say anything about the frog and the court did not identify any statements.

How I might define abuse is irrelevent. Abuse is defined in the Welfare Code, the Penal Code, and the Family Code. The court did not follow any of those definitions.