Psychologists vote on aiding torture

Apparently some psychologists in the American Psychological Association have some ethical limits on what they will do. They will soon have a vote:

Last summer an attempt by APA dissidents at a Moratorium on psychologist participation in interrogations at US Detention facilities was defeated at the Convention through a combination of parliamentary maneuvering and Council vote. Proponents of change have since regrouped and adopted a variety of new tactics. One was to utilize a never-before-used provision in the APA rules allowing for a referendum to be adopted by vote of the membership.

A referendum to remove psychologists from sites in violation of international law was proposed and was signed by the requisite 1one percent of the membership.

The resolution says:

Be it resolved that psychologists may not work in settings where persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights.

I am wondering whether the psychologists are ever going to repudiate their participation in taking away the constitutional rights of parents. Child custody evaluators do that all the time, and they are doing it to innocent American citizens.

Court reporter refuses to produce transcript

The appeals court docket now reports:

Telephone conversation with: Karen at Superior Court, indicated that court reporter said that there is nothing more to report for the day requested, will get an affidavit.

The court reporter, Carol J. Jordan, will be committing perjury if she signs that affidavit. Here is twhat the minute order said for that date:

REVIEW OF SUPPORT & RECEIPT OF REPORT
11/16/2004 - 8:30 AM DEPT. 6

HONORABLE WILLIAM M. KELSAY, PRESIDING
CLERK: JANET GARLAND
REPORTER: CAROL JORDAN
BAILIFF: MIKE RAINS

APPEARANCES:
[AngryMom] PRESENT WITH COUNSEL JENNIFER GRAY, ESQ..
[George AngryDad] PRESENT IN PROPRIA PERSONA

COUNSEL/PARTIES ADDRESS(ES) THE ISSUES NOW BEFORE THE COURT.

THE COURT ADVISES IT IS IN RECEIPT OF DR. BRET JOHNSONS REPORT/RECOMMENDATIONS.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
PENDING THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, THE COURT TEMPORARILY ADOPTS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF DR. BRET JOHNSON RE TIMESHARE AND ITEMS 12 THROUGH 22 OF SAID RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL ALSO BE IMPLEMENTED, EFFECTIVE 11/17/04.

SUPPORT:
THE CURRENT ORDER FOR SUPPORT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT PENDING FURTHER HEARING AND JURISDICTION IS RESERVED TO RETROACTIVELY MODIFY SUPPORT.

NEXT COURT DATE:
THIS MATTER IS SET FOR EVIDENTIARY HRG RE REPORT/RECOMMENDATIONS ON 01/21/05 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT 6.

RESPONDENT TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO PAY DR. JOHNSONS WITNESS FEES.
HEARING COMPLETED

Ms. Jordan turned in a transcript that started with this:

1 SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA; NOVEMBER 16, 2004
2 --- 0---
3 THE COURT: Going back to [AngryDad], [Case number], do we
4 have a date?
5 DR. BERENGE: Yes, we do, your Honor. It's
6 January 21st. Bret will be available. Dr. Johnson will be
7 available. Is that going to be at nine a.m?
8 [Proceedings unrelated to this matter are not
9 reported.]
10 THE COURT: Sorry, what?
11 THE CLERK: It's January what?
12 DR. BERENGE: 21st.

Normally, a court transcript starts with the introduction and identification of the parties, and a statement of the issues to be heard. Obviously, the above transcript is from a continuation of an earlier proceeding that morning. Ms. Jordan is refusing to provide the transcript of the earlier proceeding.

The transcript did include an explanation of why I had to pay Bret Johnson's bill:

THE COURT: I can't deal with the issue of whether or not she's capable of earning money today. Don't normally the parties share in this expense?

[Discussion between Court and Clerk held off the record.]

THE COURT: The one that asked for them to testify. Why would that be the case? Maybe the doctor is wrong. Just throwing something out logically to the staff.

THE CLERK: I'm just telling you what he normally does. You do what you want to do.

THE COURT: So it's customary that the person that requests the party

MS. GRAY: That is true.

THE COURT: Well, I'm going to follow local legal custom since I'm not here to make waives. Not big waives, Ms. Parry.

All right. So I gather, sir, you're stuck with the bill of the doctor to testify since that's the practice of this court.

THE RESPONDENT: I'm to pay because I'm the one who objected to his report?

THE COURT: You know what, Dad? Don't debate it with me.

THE RESPONDENT: No. I'm just asking for the rationale. That's all I'm asking.

THE COURT: That's evidently the rationale that I've heard, yes; and that's what is the practice of this court; and I'm just visiting, okay.

DR. BERENGE: It's not because dad objected to the report that he's paying; it's because father's requesting him to be present at the hearing.

THE COURT: Well, sure. You know, Dr. Berenge, you're not going to get any better position with me; and I just think you're just wonderful. I just want you to understand that. Of course, he wants the doctor here because he objects to the content of his report; and how can he challenge it with him absent? Really, think about it. Let's end this.

I've made the order. But there's good reason why maybe both parties should pay. See, it didn't get any better. That's all.

In other words, the custom of the local family court is to force fathers to pay for expert witnesses to testify against him. Judge Kelsay did not agree with that custom, but he ordered me to pay anyway.

California county hides reports

I just learned that San Mateo County California (a suburb of San Jose and Silicon Valley) has a family court that requires psychologists to submit their reports directly to the court without the parents even seeing them!

That ought to be unconstitutional.

No response from lawyers

I have not received any response from the three lawyers complaining about my web site. I can only assume that they have dropped their legal objections, and conceded that it is legal to post the CPS testimony.

It is strange that James M. Ritchey refused to answer me. What kind of crooked lawyer refuses to tell a father whether or not he is representing his kids? I would not necessarily believe the liar, but he should at least tell me whether or not he is claiming to represent my kids.

The Santa Cruz County Counsel has not answered me either. I did not expect Shannon M. Sullivan and her office to cave in so easily. I guess I persuaded her that her arguments had no merit.

The lawyers are bluffing

I got three letters from lawyers demanding that I take CPS allegations off my web site. I responded to all three, but I have not heard any more yet.

A reader argues that the lawyers are bluffing. The reason is that they ended with "Cc: Santa Cruz County Superior Court". It is improper and silly to just send a complaint letter to the court. Courts act on lawsuits and motions, but not just random letters that do not even ask the court to do anything.

If they really had a cause of action, they would say so. By just threatening to send a meaningless letter to a court office that cannot legally do anything with the letter, they are essentially admitting that they will do anything substantial. They are just hoping that a non-lawyer like myself will be intimidated by a letter on legal stationary with a bunch of phony legal arguments.

If the Santa Cruz court clerks were doing their jobs properly, they would not even accept such letters. I am told that other courts reject such letters.

It will be interesting to see whether the three lawyers even bother to answer my responses. If they don't, then I will know for sure that they were making empty threats, and I can leave the CPS allegations on the web site.

County hires same bad lawyers for kids

The San Jose Mercury News reports:

Despite documented problems in the handling of dependency court cases, state and local court officials have chosen the current lawyers to receive a new two-year contract to continue representing impoverished Santa Clara County parents and some children in foster care. ...

One critical problem has been the poor quality of lawyering for parents. Juvenile Defenders, like similar firms around the state, has often failed to prepare cases properly, has not hired investigators, experts, or social workers. Critics also say the firm has continually failed to protect the parents' right to appeal adverse rulings.

Last month, Michael Kresser, the director of a state agency that coordinates the appeals for indigent clients, wrote to court officials, urging them to reject the current lawyers, contending there was "little chance of improved representation if the same management team was left in place." The poor representation, he said, causes children to be "needlessly removed" from their homes.

The newspaper has run a series of stories exposing lousy lawyering and unfair court procedures in the local courts seizing kids. I had hoped that maybe some useful reforms would come from the exposure. Instead, they are just paying more money to the same lawyers.

Santa Cruz meeting

Tomorrow I will a meeting of the local folks who are frustrated with the Santa Cruz family court. It is Saturday, at 10:00 am at the Coffee Cat in Scotts Valley California. They meet about once a month. Maybe they'll have a web site by next month.

Response to county counsel

I looked into the laws that Santa Cruz County Counsel Shannon M. Sullivan cited, and it appears that she is just blowing smoke. None of them seem to actually prohibit me from posting the CPS testimony. Furthermore, they have no penalties, so she cannot do anything to me anyway.

I sent her a letter including this:

It may interest you to know that the Sixth Appellate District is currently considering the issue you raised. The lower court has no jurisdiction over it. You are not a party to the case, but I will post the result on my blog, Angry-Dad.com. You are welcome to read about it there.

I also asked her about her representation of Sally Mitchell, the CPS social worker who gave the false testimony in court. Ms. Sullivan could lose her law license if it turns out that she encouraged perjury.

My guess is that Ms. Sullivan will back off when she realizes that litigating this issue will only expose it for what it is -- an attempt by corrupt govt officials to cover up illegal behavior.

Ms. Sullivan's letter has three pages of legal huffing and puffing, but she only cites one actual case, In re Elijah S. (2005)125 Cal.App.4th 1532 (login reqd). Perhaps she thought that I would be too lazy or stupid to lookup the case. Here is what it actually decided:

In sum, we hold that under section 827, subdivision (a)(2), the juvenile court has jurisdiction and exclusive authority to order the disclosure of juvenile records pertaining to a deceased child who came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as set out in Section 300, regardless of whether or not a juvenile dependency petition pursuant to section 332 had been filed prior to or concurrently with the filing of the request for disclosure under section 827. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in granting the requests for disclosure made in this case, subject to its review of the relevant records in camera and their redaction of any information that might affect the rights and interests of third parties mentioned in the documents.

In order words, the parents have the right to the records held by govt agencies, and the court will order it if necessary.

Ms. Sullivan tries to use this case to show that I cannot use the records of my kids. She has it exactly backwards. I have a right to access those records, and I have a right to do anything I want with them. Her silly letter only convinces me of the legal correctness of my position.

Another law Ms. Shannon cites is 42 USC 671(a)(8). It says that state agencies have to have some confidentiality safeguards if they are getting federal subsidies for foster care. It is not even remotely related to my case. My case did not involve foster care, federal money, or anything like that.

Newspaper criticizes court

The San Jose Mercury News newspaper continues to publish stories about problems with the courts taking kids away:

"There are still too many attorneys who are routinely appointed to represent children and parents who are 'potted plants,' " Sherwood wrote the commission. Many children's attorneys never meet with their clients to gain firsthand information about their needs, wishes and circumstances. And in the case of many parent lawyers, Sherwood said, "attorneys who have repeatedly been found to have rendered ineffective assistance in the past are still routinely appointed in dependency cases."

A reader thinks that I am too harsh on court-appointed lawyer Jim Ritchey. Maybe I should just call him a potted plant!

The newspaper has another article today:

Santa Clara County's two top juvenile court judges are calling for sweeping reforms of the dependency courts far beyond what a statewide commission is considering, contending the current child welfare system designed to protect children from abuse "often does more harm than good."

Judges Patrick Tondreau and Katherine Lucero wrote to a commission studying problems in the state's dependency courts to highlight their firsthand view that removing children from their homes following allegations of abuse and neglect "is not the silver bullet we may have led ourselves to believe." Tondreau is the county's presiding juvenile court judge; Lucero, the supervising dependency court judge. ...

The judges wrote that breaking up families too often results in children adrift in foster homes, separated from siblings and failing at basic literacy.

Wow. These are the judges who run the system, and they admit that they are busting up families and doing more harm than good.

County lawyer tries to intervene

I just got a threatening letter from Shannon M. Sullivan, Asst Santa Cruz County Counsel:

The office of the County Counsel represents the Human Services Department's Family & Children's Services Division, colloquially known as CPS. ...

In sum, you have violated your children's right to privacy; your posting of the testimony of an FCS Social Worker and a copy of her Investigative Narrative on your website, is in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code sections 827 and 10850; your publication of the Social Worker's testimony and HSD/FCS' Investigative Narrative contrary to direct orders of the trial court, of which you were apprised, could very well be considered by the court as contempt.

In the strongest manner possible, on behalf of HSD/FCS and indirectly, on behalf of your children, this office demands that you remove the Social Worker testimony and Investigative Narrative from your website. Consider this also a demand that you refrain from releasing any FCS related documents to anyone who does not have a statutory right to review the documents without a court order in the future.

Haven't these folks ever heard of free speech? She seems to be saying that I need some sort of court order before I can tell my story on a website.

I have a right to tell my story. I am trying to comply with the laws and regulations as best as I can, but there must be some way for me to tell my story.

Ex-wife argues for secrecy

My ex-wife just filed a reply brief in which she argues for sealing the CPS testimony:

Appellant points out that he discovered documents in the public file of the court house that should have been unavailable to the public. Perhaps Appellant should have pointed this out to the clerk so that this situation could be rectified, instead of taking this as a sign that Appellant could freely distribute the documents without consequence.

Is it my responsibility to check up on the court? I was not the one who argued for sealing the documents. The judge did not seal them. The court reporter, clerk, and appellate did not either. My ex-wife did not. The kids lawyer did not. CPS did not. It seemed to me that none of those folks really thought that the documents were confidential.

My ex-wife goes on:

Appellant argues that the privacy rights of the minors are inconsequential in relation to the contents of the documents. Respondent respectfully points out that in this day and age, material can be easily distributed via the internet and remain available throughout the minors' lives.

Maybe she should have thought of that before flooding the court record with silly and unfounded accusations. She has been doing that for four years. She is the one who broke our out-of-court agreement, and put all her gripes on the public record.

The immediate consequences of exposing the content of these documents to the public is to inhibit the minors from speaking freely and getting help. If the minors know that this information is going to be publicized so that everyone knows about their private lives, then they may be less willing to share what is going on in their private lives.

Unfortunately, my ex-wife is teaching my kids to lie about me. If they become more reluctant to lie about their father, so much the better.

I filed the appeal reply brief

I just filed my reply brief. The way it works is that since I am the one appealing a lower court brief, and I am the one who must show that the lower court did wrong, I file the opening brief. Then the other side, my ex-wife, files an opposition brief, and I get the last word with a reply brief. The appellate court now has all the briefs it needs.

I filed it with the appellate clerk in person, just to make sure the clerk accepts it. There is usually some problem. This time she complained that the info on the front cover was out of the usual order. She checked with her supervisor, and she said that was okay.

I gave the clerk five copies of the reply brief, as that is required, and then the clerk asked which was the original. She has to stamp one copy as "original" and the other four as "copy". The brief does not need to be signed, but the original must include a proof of service and the proof of service must be signed. So I signed one of the briefs on the spot, and she stamped that one as the "original".

The clerk quizzed me about serving the other parties, but not about the fundamental catch-22 in the rules. I cannot serve the other parties with copies of the brief until I know that the clerk has accepted it, but the clerk will not accept it until I prove that the other parties have been served. So I pretty much have to lie to somebody.

I mailed copies to the California Supreme Court, the Santa Cruz Superior Court, and my ex-wife, as required. They should get it in the mail tomorrow. They can get an electronic version from the web site today.

I wish the court would just switch to electronic filing. That would completely eliminate a lot of hassle, including the crazy service rules.

The appeal court now has all the necessary paperwork to make a decision. The case is not formally submitted yet, because there is a pending motion to seal parts of the record. There is also a missing transcript that a court reporter has not done yet. I am expecting those matters to be taken care of shortly.

Once the record is finalized, and the appeal court reads our papers, then it will schedule oral arguments and make a decision. The clerk could not predict how long that would take.

Not quizzing the opposing lawyer

My ex-wife's appeal brief argues that James M. Ritchey's opinion should be given some extra weight because I did not ask him any questions in court:

Appellant argues that the Counsel appointed by the trial court did not adequately represent the minors because Appellant claims that the minors' Counsel's involvement in the case was minimal. Respondent respectfully asserts that the minors' Counsel had more than enough contact with the minors and both the Appellant and Respondent. Additionally, Appellant argues that minors' Counsel was not present at any evidentiary hearings and that minors' Counsel did not sign his report to the trial court under oath. Respondent respectfully notes that minors' Counsel was at that January 9,2008 hearing and that Appellant was given an opportunity to ask him questions.

MINOR'S COUNSEL: [Minors' Counsel] for the minors, your Honor. I didn't know what input you wanted from me, but I was here last.
THE COURT: Right. It would seem first off that [Minors' Counsel] did not have to stay around. The Court has received his report. And to the extent that either of the parents has any questions of [Minors' Counsel], I'll now give you an opportunity to ask those questions of him. And then I think I can excuse [Minors' Counsel]. I don't see any reason for him to be around for the balance of the hearing. So I does Father or Mother have any questions? First, have both of you had an opportunity to review [Minors' Counsel] report?
THE RESPONDENT: Yes, I have.
THE PETITIONER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And does Father have any questions about the report or any desire to ask [Minors' Counsel] any questions at all?
THE RESPONDENT: No, I don't have any questions.

(Reporter's Transcript on Appeal, January 9, 2008, page 1756, line 9 through page 1757, line 5.) Appellant was given an opportunity to ask questions of minors' Counsel.

Here, James Ritchey is the Minors' Counsel, Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph is the Court, my ex-wife is the Petitioner, and I am the Respondent.

I had good reasons for not asking Mr. Ritchey any questions. He is a dishonest and corrupt slimeball lawyer. He knows very little about the case. He told me that he was opposed to doing any fact-finding, and that his role in the case was to help Comm. Joseph punish me as much as possible. He took his family to Lake Tahoe instead of attending the trial in which the CPS social worker testified.

I thought that in the above transcript, Comm. Joseph was dismissing Mr. Ritchey for incompetence. Comm. Joseph was worried that Mr. Ritchey would say something idiotic that might interfere with Comm. Joseph's scheme to fix the trial.

Mr. Ritchey did submit a report to the court, but it was unsworn. He refused to say anything under penalties of perjury. I had a chance to ask him some questions, but his answers would not be under oath.

Comm. Joseph was essentially saying this:

Mr. Ritchey, thanks for the report that slams the Angry Dad, as I requested. Since you do not know what is going on, and might be an embarrassment to our plan, you had better leave now. I will give the Angry Dad a chance to ask you some questions, just so I can use your report as evidence against him. But don't worry, I will not let him ask you any questions under oath, so feel free to continue to tell lies against him.

No, I was not going to ask Jim Ritchey any questions unless he is under oath. I have gotten tired of him being able to tell lies because he is not under oath.

Ex-wife makes false arguments

I am writing my reply to my ex-wife's brief, and I am finding some false statements. Her brief says:

On December 6, 2007, the trial court indicated to the parties that for anyone other than the parties to view the contents of the CWS file, including the CWS narrative report, a Court order must be obtained.

This is just not true. The court said nothing about “anyone other than the parties”. To support her statement, Julie cites the Dec. 6, 2007 transcript of a discussion between the judge and me:

THE RESPONDENT: I have the report. That's probably 90 percent of the file.
THE COURT: I'm willing to report it's 5 percent of the file in terms of pages and interviews and documents.
THE RESPONDENT: Okay. I wouldn't know. The procedures you outlined for seeing the file, can I do that just with CPS or Court order?
THE COURT: If all you want to do is look at the file, not take photocopies, not remove any portion of the file, not copy it for anyone else, you can do that directly with CPS. Anything beyond looking at the file requires that you get a Court order.

But I never requested or received a court order to take photocopies or to remove a portion of the file. Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph never said that there was any restriction on the use of the report that I already had. Even if I had received a court order, he does not say whether I would be allowed to show the file to others. It seems to me that if I can get a copy for myself, then I can show the copy to others, and he never said anything to the contrary on Dec. 6, 2007.

Comm. Joseph later said on Jan. 4, 2008 that I could not even show the report to my own lawyer, and applied that legal theory to prevent me from presenting a rebuttal witness. He said that I would not be allowed to rebut the report or testimony because no one is allowed to see the report or testimony.

Comm. Joseph was just wrong about the report being 5% of the file. The file was mainly a rough draft of the report, along with some stuff like some printouts from this blog.

There is nothing secret about the report. It is posted on the internet. I have given out copies to many people who offered to comment on it. I did get some useful feedback from others about the report, and I was entirely within my rights to do that.

Lesbian child custody battles

Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks write:

At the National Organization for Women's recent national conference, NOW declared that there is a "crisis for women and their children in the family law courts." According to NOW, fathers often "aggressively litigate against mothers" and "use family court to stalk, harass, punish and impoverish their former partners and children." But what happens in divorce and child custody matters when there's no man around to create problems?

It can be ugly. Very ugly.

There are now many publicized cases of lesbian custody disputes. While NOW blames fathers for contentious litigation, lesbian custody cases are strikingly similar to heterosexual ones. When a lesbian mother breaks up with her partner, she often tries to drive her partner out of their children's lives – just as some heterosexual mothers do.

Moreover, lesbian mothers often employ the same tactics. These include: denying visitation or access to the children; making dubious abuse claims; moving the children far away; and denigrating the breadwinning parent's bond with the children.

So it cannot be all the fault of the men.

Also, more and more, lesbians are suing sperm donors for child support.

US blogger to be tried for insulting Singapore judges

AFP reports:

A US national said Tuesday he will be tried in Singapore next month for allegedly insulting two judges who had presided over cases involving an opposition leader.

Gopalan Nair, a former Singaporean lawyer who is now a US citizen, told AFP he has not yet hired a lawyer to represent him in the trial from September 8-19.

"At this moment, I am representing myself," he said.

Nair faces two charges of insulting judges on his blog. Each charge carries a jail term of up to one year, a 5,000 Singapore dollar fine (3,676 US) or both.

In the first charge, he is accused of insulting Justice Belinda Ang, who presided over a defamation case where Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his son Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong testified against the leader of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).

Nair, 58, alleged that Ang was "prostituting herself during the entire proceedings by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders," a court document said.

In the second charge, Nair is alleged to have sent an e-mail to Supreme Court Justice Lai Siu Chiu in 2006 saying he has "no shame" and that judges "are selling their souls and their conscience for money," according to a court document.

I am glad I live in a country that has free speech. I have said worse things about Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph. He sold his soul a long time ago. Just go into his court, and you will see that he acts cruelly and maliciously against people that he does not like.

Husband-killer gets the 3 kids

AP report:

A lawyer for Mary Winkler says the woman convicted in the shooting death of her pastor husband in Tennessee has taken custody of her three daughters.

Rachael Putnam, an attorney for Winkler, says the former minister's wife picked the girls up Friday from the slain man's parents, Dan and Diane Winkler.

Putnam said Monday that the children will remain with Winkler permanently.

Wow.

Glenn Sacks writes:

Mary Winkler--who shot her husband in the back and then refused to aid him or call 911 as he slowly bled to death for 20 minutes--walked away a free woman last year after serving a farcically brief "sentence" for her crimes.

He also has a story about the UK creating a new defense for husband-killers in court. A woman will be able to get manslaughter instead of murder if she claims to be responding to the slow burn of abuse, and she feels 'seriously wronged' by 'words and conduct'.

Ex-wife files appeal opposition

I just got my ex-wife opposition brief to my appeal. I thought that I would see some actual arguments as to why should get custody of our kids. Instead, her main argument is that the family court has broad discretion under the law to do whatever it wants, and the transcripts show that the commissioner did indeed take the kids away from me. End of argument. Sigh. If anyone can ever win a custody appeal, then I should be able to win this case.

Here is an excerpt from her arguments:

Based on the 'Material Facts' above and the procedural history, Respondent contends that a witness may be denied the opportunity to testify as to documents to which the witness has no right to access, and the witness may be denied the opportunity to testify as to irrelevant matters.

Respondent respectfully submits that the trial court followed the directive of the reviewing court in re calculating child support for the time period of January of 2006 onwards.

D. May the trial court seal the CWS social worker's transcript from public disclosure?

Respondent respectfully submits that the trial court may seal the CWS social worker's transcript from public disclosure to protect the privacy rights of the minors named within the document.

If arguments like this were persuasive, then there is no need to even have an appeals court.

Letter from presiding judge

I had been told that commissioners are supervised by the presiding judge, and that I might get some relief from him. So I sent him a copy of my appeal brief. I just got this reply:

Please know that I, as Presiding Judge, have no authority to overrule or reconsider decisions made by any other judge, commissioner or pro tem judge of the court. (See Williams v. Superior Court (1939) 14 Cal 2d 656, 662-663). I am also prohibited from giving you legal advice.

Notwithstanding the review of the complaint, you may wish to act independently to review any possible avenues of legal redress in connection with the disposition of the case, in consideration of time limits associated with review of a court decision or appeal.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT B.ATACK
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
RBA:sh
cc: Alex Calvo, Chief Executive Officer

So I guess that he cannot do anything directly to help me. Nevertheless, he is an elected judge and he is responsible to supervising the commissioner, so I think that it was worthwhile informing him as to what a bad job the commissioner is doing.

Fishy signature

My ex-wife's motions to seal the testimony on appeal has 22 pages of junk. I would post it if it were shorter. There is no substance to any of it, except to argue that the appellate court should seal the CPS testimony because the trial court did. But the trial court never actually sealed the testimony, so she argues that it should have been sealed. And she never explains why, except to respect the intent of Commissioner Irwin Joseph who supposedly wanted the testimony sealed and neglected to do it.

Anyway, I am wondering whether she even signed her court papers herself. Look at the above signature on her sworn declaration. Doesn't it look a little bit fishy? Have you ever heard of anyone misspelling her own name?

Forget about her last name. That is just the name of her current husband, and she may not be used to it yet. But she has had that first name all of her life. She has always been able to spell it correctly as long as I've known her. The paper was supposedly signed on July 17 and filed with the court this week, so there was no hurry to sign it. Why is her name misspelled?

A reader responds:

i'm so very sorry about the ordeal you're being put through, i continue to wish you the best.

of all the inexplicable occurrences that you've described, this one sort of stands out a little more. i wish that i could explain to you exactly why. maybe, it's not much stranger than many of the others, but, here's my best "guess".

george, she's lawyer. we're laypersons, of course. this is a sworn declaration, that may have broader legal implications than other b.s.,previously submitted. maybe there's some sort of greater accountability, or repercussions to this particular document. she's an "officer of the court". there's a different set of standards of conduct and expectations placed on her to behave in greater accordance to the laws.

as one helpless dad to another, i'm going to go out on a big limb here. i suppose that, if, i were to want to prove, in the future, that i actually did not sign something myself, i might misspell my own first name to demonstrate how implausible it could be that it was MY signature, vs. not.

i could be so very wrong. even if i was right, or partially right, i wouldn't know what a person should do about it. it just seems to me, that out of the various, "fishy" things you've cited, this one stands out as "extra fishy".

as always, i appreciate the effort you exert to help your kids,other kids, and their families. i continue to pray for you and hope matters improve.

I really don't know. I do not believe that she can gain anything by disavowing the signature.