Saturday, May 09, 2009

New attempt to censor this blog

My ex-wife just filed a motion to order confidentiality of some reports. She argues:
Petitioner is respectfully requesting the Court to order the confidentiality of the report associated with the court ordered child custody evaluation performed in November of 2004. ... It is assumed by Petitioner that the 2004 court appointed child custody evaluator had filed a written confidential report of his evaluation in November of 2004. This assumption is based on a study of the general practices of the Court with regards to receiving court ordered written child custody evaluation reports and the fact that the 2004 child custody evaluation report was not made available to the public by the Court concurrent and subsequent to its filing.
She is referring to a report by a gay shrink who said that I was "unorthodox". I thought that it was old history, but Cmr. Irwin Joseph quoted him twice saying that I was unorthodox when he took my kids away last year. I still don't know what was so unorthodox, as Cmr. Joseph said that setting the alarm clock for 7:00 am was representative of the charges against me. I am sure that the gay shrink is a whole lot more unorthodox than that.

She goes on:
It is assumed by Petitioner that the report associated with the 2008 report from the court appointed counsel for the minor children was submitted to the court, in confidentiality. This assumption is based on a study of the general practices of the Court with regards to receiving reports from court appointed counsel for minor children ...
The court-appointed lawyer was a local crook named James M. Ritchey. I tried to find out whether he was dismissed for incompetence, but he refuses to tell me whether he is even representing my kids. It appears that my ex-wife is assuming that Mr. Ritchey intended his report to be confidential, but that he was too stupid to figure out how to file it under seal.

My ex-wife is a lawyer, so she should also know what she is doing. My motion does not cite any facts or laws or evidence in her favor at all. She is essentially saying this:
George's blog is embarrassing to me and this court because it shows that the Commissioner had no basis for that it did. I am assuming that the court will do me another favor and cover up its misdeeds by ordering his blog to be censored. I have noticed that it is the regular practice of this court to do that.
It sounds crazy, but she did previously get Cmr. Joseph to order me to remove from this blog some CPS testimony that said that I never committed any single act of abuse. I think that he just issued the order to cover up his own bad rulings in the case, and so my ex-wife can tell people that I am a child abuser.

No comments: