Briefly, she lied to Ken Perlmutter, and he lied to the court. He wrote the order that took away my joint legal custody, and I thought that it was necessary to quote him in order to tell the story accurately.
The California statute has actually been changed since I quoted it above. It now has this clause added:
(f) For purposes of this section, a disclosure is unwarranted if it is done either recklessly or maliciously, and is not in the best interests of the child.So I guess that her argument must be that I was reckless or malicious to tell the story, and not acting in the best interests of the child.
All I am doing here is to quote a govt agent who was lying in order to take rights away from me and my kids. The First Amendment protects my free speech, free press, and right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
My ex-wife's motion serves no purpose except to cover up her own lying, and the corruption of court officials. No confidential info was disclosed. Nothing was reckless or malicious. I just told the story of what the court openly did.
B.I.O.T.C. doesn't stand for best interest of the child. It stands for best interest of the court.
If you were to plug in "best interest of the court" everywhere in your blog where it says best interest of the child instead, your entire story would then, make complete sense. Don't you think ?
God bless you and your kids.
So, I'm curious... what happened?
Post a Comment