On April 21 2011 and May 12, 2011, Respondent (hereinafter, "George") filed briefs in support of his OSC for custody and visitation, to be heard on May 23,2011. Petitioner (hereinafter, referred to in the first person) herein responds to George's 2nd brief. George has submitted at least nine sections of misleading remarks in his "brief' and supporting "declaration". Below, at the cost of a work day, I drafted the following response to address the misleading content in George's 2nd brief and declaration.She then goes thru a list of 9 alleged "misleading statements" from my brief. The first is:
Every court brief and declaration that George has filed from 2004 through the present has been filled with misleading content, causing me to spend an average of at least one to two months a year of work time addressing George's intentionally misleading legal meanderings. A licensed attorney would not get away with this unethical behavior - why should George, who chooses to act as his own attorney?
The Court has accepted the May 2010 Ken Perlmutter recommendations for the ensuing 6-9 months. After that period expired, the Court notified him that it was necessary 'for an Updated Child Custody Evaluation to be completed by Dr. Perlmutter', and that there could be no further action 'until the update has been completed'.She then explains that "What Really Happened" was that the court ordered:
When George has completed one of the three treatment plans, he may ask for an Updated Child Custody Evaluation to be completed by Dr. Perlmutter ... The case should not be calendared for Motion 2 to Modify Custody or Visitation until the update has been completed.So what did I get wrong? It appears that she does not like my use of the word "expired". But Perlmutter was adamant that his recommendations were only temporary for 6-9 months, and that we would have to go back to him for an update after that.
Her second complaint is that I said this about Ken Perlmutter:
He has written a letter (attached) to the court saying that he "would not do an Update", and refusing to do any more work on the case. Moreover, he says that his neutrality and objectivity were compromised in June 2010. The California Board of Psychology is currently investigating his unethical behavior in this case.She then argues that "What Really Happened" was:
Dr. Perlmutter wrote a letter to the Court stating that it would not be appropriate for him to serve in any capacity for our family, since he cannot guarantee his objectivity and neutrality, after having read George's posts on Yelp and his web sites, subsequent to his (Dr. Perlmutter's) deposition in June 2010. Significantly, George's Yelp Internet posting was in June of 2010. Dr. Perlmutter does not state that his objectivity and neutrality were "compromised" in June of 2010.Again, I don't really get her point. She admits that Perlmutter lost his objectivity and neutrality, after having read my June 2010 web postings. So what is she trying to say -- that he did not lose his objectivity and neutrality until July 2010? I guess it is possible that he read my postings in June, but did not understand them until July. But either way, I think that it is fair to say that his objectivity and neutrality were compromised in June 2010.
I doubt that the judge is going to read this stuff, and if she does, then I doubt that she will be able to make any sense out of it.