Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Motion to withhold evidence

My ex-wife has just given me notice that she will be going into court with an emergency ex-parte request to the family court on Thursday. She is asking Judge Salazar to let her bring a motion before Commissioner Joseph on the 30th.

Here is the issue. Cmr. Joseph issued an order for a child custody evaluation a year and a half ago, and my ex-wife has been stalling. I have been evaluated eight times previously for the court. My ex-wife apparently intends to ask Cmr. Joseph to modify his order so that the evaluator will be forbidden to look at the four reports that were the most favorable to me. Usually the evaluator looks at all of the previous reports.

My ex-wife particularly wants Cmr. Joseph to hear her motion, because the regular family court judge, Judge Salazar, will never understand her efforts to bury the evidence.

As biased as Cmr. Joseph is, I do not think that he will issue such as obviously biased order for an evaluation. What is he going to say, "The psychologist shall only consider evidence against George, and not any evidence that he might actually be a good father"?

I have no confidence in Cmr. Joseph making a reasonable decision, but I doubt that he even knows what the psychologist even does with an order to do an evaluation. The court just issues boilerplate orders. Cmr. Joseph just checks some checkboxes. When I've asked for a clarification in the past, all he could say was that he checked some checkboxes and he doesn't need to do any more than that. There is no checkbox for "Only consider evidence against the father". So I am not sure that he would even know how to issue such an order.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

given JJJ's illiteracy (he's famous among the court clerks for not reading what he's given) and biases, odds are he will listen to your ex if she crafts an argument saying those particular evaluations were too biased and the ones she selects are the more unbiased ones, ergo more reflective of "reality". She's a lawyer and will talk the talk they like and that's what sells. Logic and reason do not enter into the picture in that courtroom. Lawyers do not deal in logic, which is looking at the facts and making reasonable conclusions based on them. They deal in argument, which is taking the facts and twist and spin them to your desired result. Unfortunately it would appear she has already biased him again you, based on my read of things.