Saturday, September 10, 2011

Contempt trial violates 3 1A clauses

Yesterday I was found in contempt of court. I don't know why I ever expected a fair hearing from this kangaroo court.

My ex-wife argued that this blog is embarrassing to her because I "use it to tell his story". She said that I use it to tell untruths, distortions, and misleading statements.

I asked her for her best example of an untruth, and she cites these two sentences from my complaint to the state psychology board:
Perlmutter was paid $27,900 for his evaluation, report, and testimony. He only made a temporary recommendation for the next 6-9 months, and suggested going back to him for an update to get instructions on what to do after that.
(Here are followups to that complaint.) She said that this made him look greedy, that his recommendation was not just for 6-9 months, and that an update with him was not required. She spent a lot of time attacking me for submitting this complaint, saying that it was harmful to the psychologist, embarrassing to her, and damaging to the system.

Here is the relevant paragraph from the May 2010 order that Ken Perlmutter wrote:
11. In the event father selects Plan 2 or 3 after the Plan has been in effect for at least nine months father may request that the Court expand his visitation appropriately. This expansion may include: unsupervised visits, longer visits, overnight visits. It will be up to the Court to make that determination. The Court may also determine that the parents shall have an updated child custody evaluation in order to receive input from an update to the current child custody evaluation with specific recommendations to address the parents' then current custodial requests.
Am I wrong here? You decide. It seems to me that my description was accurate, and that the judge could readily verify that it was accurate. I certainly could not have been misleading the state board because I also sent the order along with my complaint.

My ex-wife complained about many things from my blog, but said that she was only asking the court to order me to remove exact quotes because I use quotes to add credibility to what I say.

The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I pointed out that my ex-wife was asking to violate three clauses of this at once. She was acting against free speech, free press (of this blog), and my right to petition the Government (by complaining to a state agency about a licensed psychologist).

Update: A reader argues that Perlmutter might not have literally suggested an update, because he merely wrote a order that the court may decide to have an update done. I disagree.

The Webster's dictionary definition of suggest is:
sug·gest, transitive verb
1a: (obsolete)
b: to call forth : evoke
c: to mention or imply as a possibility
d: to propose as desirable or fitting
e: to offer for consideration or as a hypothesis
Maybe Perlmutter did not "call forth" an update, but he certainly mentioned and implied it as a possibility, he certainly proposed it as desirable and fitting, and he certainly offered it for consideration and as a hypothesis. He wrote it into a court order as the only specific thing to do after his 6-9 month recommendation expires. As I read this, he quite literally suggested an update, and I do not see any other way to read it.


Anonymous said...

what is it you're in contempt of court about, this blog or ??

Can you give us more info on what happened yesterday?

What's next?

Seems to me your interpretation of the brain quack's recommendation is correct.

Anonymous said...


So what is the punishment for your outrageous "contempt"? Lashings?

Anonymous said...

Is posting a quote from Perlmutter's report inviting another contempt charge ? Isn't the report considered confidential by the court ?

George said...

I am only quoting from the part that the court put on the public record as an order in the case.

WinterHawk said...

Maybe this farce of a court can get you for copyright violation too lol

Anonymous said...


There's actually only one debatable isssue your ex. could raise about your blog and 1st amend. rights, I figurre. Being in a smallish town with many knowing you and your kids identities, probably, is it in the best interest of the kids to have you publicizing the family's dirty laundry ? For the kids's sake....,

At's debatable, whichever side of it you might be on.

But your ex. is throwing the most ridiculous b.s. reasons possible out there instead, for some reason, right ? To get you to rant as much as possible ? Write about how they're all idiots and you're the victim, here ? Give you a big platform to easily show how smart you are and how stupid they are ? Maybe ?

See you haven't done anything wrong as a father, but there's been some clues as how they are framing, or portraying you. " Unempathetc".. rigid about brocolli, hairbrushing, alarm clock setting, etc.."pushing math conesst on them "

Well, if they want to depict you as an elitist intelluctual, narcissist, responding to this whacky contempt b.s. practically forces you to come accross as if is what you, in fact are..

Isn't this set up so that you rant about what an idiot Perlmutter is, although a ph.d ? the judge being an idiot ? your ex being an idiot ? and you're the victim ?

Get you going off about first amendment rights and making it appear that you are more interested in showing these people up and being right vs. talking about your kids ?

They know your buttons.. Setting you up with the "gay shrink" then bringing up corporal punishmnet right away at simply your best ? etc..

I'm not saying I'm right, here.. Anybody else think along these lines at all?

Anonymous said...

so basically then you're shut down from further reporting on your case until you get an appeal court to rule in your favor? That could take some time...... I'm really sorry, this country really is going the way of China and Russia. The system is truly broken.

Anonymous said...

Perlmutter cleverly implies that he is suggesting an updated eval. but, doesn't actually suggest it.

He says that "the court may also determine", etc.. Well, of course the court may also determine a lot of things, so in essence, he is suggesting it, or why specifically, point this out to the judge ?

Techinically, your ex. has a point.
Ethically, and morally, you're absolutely, right.

The Court may also determine that the parents shall have an updated child custody evaluation in order to receive input from an update to the current child custody evaluation with specific recommendations to address the parents' then current custodial requests.

George said...

I disagree. Perlmutter did not just imply that he was suggesting an update. He literally suggested an update. I am adding the dictionary definition to my post to make this clear.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, you're right. I didn't know that that implying was included in the definition...He certainly implied it, so he did suggest it.

What's strange to me is that your ex. cited how the blog might affect her, the system, and Perlmutter, and failed to mention how it might not be in the best interest of the children, instead or also.

Given the history of court rulings on first amendment issues and divorce and custody blogging, you'd think she'd have brought this up.