Tag Archives: complacent judges

Derek Todd v. Judge John Ellis IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Posted on by
Reply

Judge Ellis is a former prosecuter with the district of solano county and has a technical background.  He is a very smart guy so it does not surprise me that he won the case.   Basically he is too slick.

You have to recall that Judge Ellis was in the Solano DA’s Office when it exclusively targeted men for domestic violence (and reluctantly handled women)–that is DA’s office at one time had a dual standard for domestic violence and they clearly were intent on primarily prosecuting men–it was an internal policy decision–and it reflects the sense of justice that Judge Ellis has.  One father quoted an assistant district attorney (female) who said getting a broken nose is like getting a paper cut…when she tried to convince him drop charges against his wife who attacked him.  He joins the ranks of complacent Judges at the ivory tower of political decisions known as the Superior Court of Solano County.

Any type of bias that exists at Solano Courts is difficult to show because it is intertwined with patterns of bias by the Court mediators (who give cover to Judges and in return the Judges give cover to the mediators).

The fact that Judge Ellis comes from an Office that openly violated laws about equal protection in their effort to do politically correct prosecutions of men (and some of them were innocent) with a 100% prosecution policy was something like witch hunts of 1600s or the inquisition.  It is not surprising that anyone from the District Attorney Office views justice as a game of politics and power brokering.   Solano County is unfortunately at its heart a club and not an open transparent system of government and justice.   (I know there are hundreds of men in Solano County that were prosecuted for politics and appearance — it makes you wonder if the Nazi’s left children in Solano County who became lawyers.)

The fact is Judges at the Court do have biases and they play them only with cover.  It is very difficult to get a Judge on this matter.  Judge Ellis often chooses to keep one foot on each side so as to make it difficult to get him on bias.   He is very much biased in favor of mother’s in general because of politics.  A mother can pretty much do whatever she wants in his Court and it will be ignored.   I even suspect Judge Ellis somehow edits transcripts within his Court.

Judge Ellis is certainly no friend of Father’s.    I am sorry you lost your case.   To get a Judge like Ellis you will need a pattern and one case where he makes a clear mistake.

If its any consolation, I know another complaint will be filed against Judge Ellis in the future and I imagine a Judge that pretty much plays politics on the bench will continue to receive complaints his entire career.  He should have stayed a dentist or in the DA’s office.   But if not him, the club has many that are worse than Judge Ellis.  Sorry to say, you did not  draw the worst card possible even though you had a hard time.

A summary of the findings are presented below.  I have observed blatant wrong doing personally though not the same as yours so I know there is probably some truth to your perception that Judge Ellis makes politically correct and biased decisions.

DEREK TODD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JUDGE JOHN ELLIS, DEFENDANT.

ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Pending before the court are plaintiff’s objections to the undersigned’s recommendation that this action be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Upon review of the objections, the court will vacate its November 14, 2011 findings and recommendations and, instead, issue the following recommendation for dismissal.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a custody dispute in Solano County whereby plaintiff lost legal and physical custody of his minor son. Plaintiff asserts that the family law judge assigned to his case in the Solano County Superior Court, Judge John Ellis, was prejudiced and biased against plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that as a result of Judge Ellis’s alleged prejudice and bias, plaintiff suffered violations of the following rights: right to freedom of speech, right to a jury trial, right to a presumption of innocence, right to due process, right to be present at a trial, right to a fair trial, right to be heard and right to privacy.

Prior to filing this suit, plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify Judge Ellis in the Solano County Superior Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) based on the latter’s alleged violations of plaintiff’s statutory and constitutional rights. See Compl. at 5, ¶ 8. Judge Ellis denied this motion on June 6, 2011. Id. On June 24, 2011, plaintiff filed a second motion to disqualify Judge Ellis. Id. at 6, ¶ 10. This second motion was decided by a superior court judge from another county. Id. Apparently in receipt of a denial of his motion, plaintiff filed a writ of mandate asking the California Court of Appeal to disqualify Judge Ellis. Id. ¶ 11. The California Court of Appeal denied this motion. Id. Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which ultimately denied review. Id. ¶ 12.

On October 3, 2011, plaintiff initiated this action and concurrently filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In the complaint, plaintiff asserts this court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1651. He seeks relief in the form of recusal of defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)(b)(1), reversal of defendant’s judicial orders in the family law case and, lastly, return of legal and physical custody of the minor to plaintiff.

On November 14, 2011, the undersigned issued an order and findings and recommendations granting plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and recommending dismissal pursuant to the domestic relations exception as set forth in Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992). On November 22, 2011, plaintiff filed objections. For the reasons set forth in those objections, the court will vacate its findings and recommendations.

DISCUSSION

In the November 14, 2011 findings and recommendations, dismissal was recommended for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the undersigned held that 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)(b)(1) does not apply to state court judges, the federal court does not sit as an appellate court over state courts and, finally, the court should decline jurisdiction of the family law matter pursuant to the domestic relations exception. In his opposition, plaintiff argues that Ankenbrandt is limited to cases brought under the diversity jurisdiction statute, not those brought under the federal question statute. See Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal Court Assiniboine, 513 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 2008). Because this action is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, plaintiff is correct in noting that the domestic relations is inapplicable. Thus, to the extent dismissal was recommended based on the domestic relations exception, that doctrine does not apply to this action. Regardless, for the following reasons, the court finds dismissal is warranted.

In this case, plaintiff contends jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1651. Plaintiff argues that writ relief is necessary to disqualify Judge Ellis, to overturn the current visitation order and to grant plaintiff legal and physical custody of his son.

As to plaintiff’s first request for relief, namely, that the court recuse Judge Ellis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, the court finds that Section 455 may not be used to disqualify a state court judge. As discussed in the November 14, 2011 findings and recommendations, Section 455(a) provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Section 455(b) then requires that judges covered by section 455(a) disqualify themselves in certain specific situations. By its own terms, Section 455 applies to judges “of the United States.” These judges “include[] judges of the courts of appeals, district courts, Court of International Trade and any court created by Act of Congress, the judges of which are entitled to hold office during good behavior.” 28 U.S.C. § 451. A California state judge is not a judge “of the United States.” Rather, a California state judge is a judge of a court created by the California Constitution. See Cal. Const. art. 6. Thus, Section 455 may not be used to disqualify Judge Ellis.

Next, insofar as plaintiff seeks appellate review of the state courts’ denial of plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Judge Ellis, this court does not sit as an appellate court over the state courts. See Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1986). As the Ninth Circuit held in Worldwide, Federal district courts may exercise only original jurisdiction; they may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions. This rule arises from the interplay of two jurisdictional statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants district courts original jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under” federal law, and 28 U.S.C. § 1257, which grants the Supreme Court the right to review “final judgments … rendered by the highest court of a State.” This rule applies even when the state court judgment is not made by the highest state court, and when the challenge to the state court’s actions involves federal constitutional issues.

Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, this matter must be dismissed absent original jurisdiction.

Finally, even assuming the court has original jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, dismissal is recommended here under the abstention doctrine derived from the matter of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Abstention under Younger, through which a federal court seeks to avoid interference with state court proceedings, “is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in overlapping principles of equity, comity, and federalism.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (footnote omitted). A federal court “must abstain under Younger if four requirements are met:

(1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.” Id. at 1092 (citing Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc)). Younger abstention applies not only where a federal action would interfere with a state criminal proceeding, but also “to federal cases that would interfere with state civil cases and state administrative proceedings.” Id. (citing Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 627 (1986)). Abstention under Younger is the “exception rather than the rule.” Id. (citing AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen each of an abstention doctrine’s requirements are not strictly met, the doctrine should not be applied.”)).

Here, the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint indicate that state court-initiated proceedings were ongoing at the time plaintiff filed his federal action and are still proceeding in the Superior Court. See, e.g., Doc. No. 11. Accordingly, the first condition precedent to application of Younger abstention has been satisfied.

It is also beyond dispute that the custody proceedings in the Superior Court implicate important state interests, i.e., domestic and family relations. “‘Family relations are a traditional area of state concern.’” H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel,203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415(1979)). Additionally, “a state has a vital interest in protecting ‘the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are not rendered nugatory.’” Id. (quoting Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 336 n.12 (1977)). As a result, the second requirement of the abstention doctrine has been met.

Next, nothing in plaintiff’s complaint provides the court with any reason to believe that plaintiff would be barred from litigating his constitutional claims in the California state courts. Thus, the third Younger abstention requirement has been met.

Finally, the final Younger abstention requirement favors abstention because plaintiff’s federal court action would have the practical effect of enjoining the proceedings in the Superior Court. Plaintiff not only seeks an express injunction that directs the hand of the Superior Court, but he also seeks declaratory relief in the form of judicial determinations regarding the minor’s mother and allegations of drug use and child abuse. See Compl. at 33. Granting plaintiff this relief would have the effect of effectively invalidating the decisions of the Superior Court and directing the future proceedings in that court. See Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 977-80 (noting that the Supreme Court “extended Youngerbeyond injunctions to declaratory judgments because a declaration has the same practical effect on a state court proceeding as an injunction”). Based on the foregoing, all of the requirements upon which application of Younger abstention is conditioned are met in this case, and, accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the court abstain from hearing plaintiff’s claims against Judge Ellis.

Plaintiff has also filed a second request to seal documents. Doc. No. 9. Plaintiff provides no basis for this request. Accordingly, this request will be denied.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to seal is denied;

2. The November 14, 2011 findings and recommendations are vacated; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Combating Parental Alienation and the Reality of Why the Superior Court of Solano County is key support for the existence of Parental Alienation Child Abuse PACA

Posted on by
Reply

At the end of this post is a link with suggestions for dealing with Parental Alienation Child Abuse.  I believe they could be helpful for early stages of PACA.  But for later stages, there is only one solution–ending the the alienating parent’s ability to destroy the other parent.    This is why the support of the Court is needed.

In the Superior Court of Solano County, it is standard practice to issue orders that would prevent PACA, but the problem is that the Courts do not enforce the orders.  I repeat for emphasis that the Superior Court of Solano County does not enforce their orders.  This is a problem that is squarely on the shoulders of the Judges and the Court system.  This gets back to the wholesale toleration of lying and false allegation in the Solano Family Court, and the influence of politics on the Court system.  The Judges of Solano Courts have courage when the issues are domestic violence or child support, but on other issues they are cowards and show their true character–they will not punish for lying or false allegations and do no want to hear about Parental Alienation.  Usually, you will not get the issue of PACA before the Court because they use court appointed mediators that throw a doubt into any proceedings.  The Court appointed mediators usually paint any case in terms of domestic violence even based on false allegations.  (The mediators write up their reports as if they are fact after an hour or so of interviews–when they are nothing more than a guess.  There is no real fact finding and no desire upon the Court to find facts.)  There is a false Justice system at the Superior Court of Solano County based on treating people as pegs and your case must fit in one of the holes they have provided.  Parental alienation child abuse is not one of the holes for pegs.  I would have never known what a snake pit of business, politics, and artful disregard of truth though administrative policies and rules had I not used the Court, so I assume most out their don’t know the truth.   The Solano Court system in character is no different than a criminal organization except that it happens to have some serious judicial responsibility.   The Judges are nothing more than a cog in the divorce business — most Judges are there to climb ladders or draw a steady pay check.  (As with most County Courts you can find many Judges who are married or friends with lawyers in the community and this Judges have great sympathy for the need to keep their own kind employed and they place their own kind (lawyers) high on the pedestal.   There is a caste system in place and parents are at the bottom of the caste and the interest of lawyers (top of the caste) — to prolong bureaucracy to fill their bank accounts is supreme.)

So when the Court whines openly about their budget cuts.  I say cut their budgets because the Court system is a mess.  It no longer serves justice.  It is nothing more than a tool for politicians and an employment agency for lawyers.   No Court system is better than a bad system.  The County Court fails to be a real player in Justice and needs to be reformed on done away with…employing lawyers (many of whom the Judges have connections) or having superficial justice for administrative reasons does not meet the common sense basis of why the people want a Court.

But if you are lucky enough to catch parental alienation early enough, see references for how to battle it.

http://www.parental-alienation.info/publications/24-sigofparalisynandhowtocouitseff.htm

1. Destroy the effects of denigration by one parent towards the other by making the child aware of the happy history before the acrimony and separation between the parents occurred.

2. Get the child to see the good points about the denigrated parent.

3. Be firm and proactive in changing attitudes and behaviour that have caused the parental alienation.

4. Try to get the alienating parent to cooperate in stopping the alienation. This is easier said than done, and many alienators will refuse to cooperate in this although claiming otherwise. This is even the case when it is highlighted that such actions are actually harmful to the child’s development.

5. Appeal to the child’s conscience that he or she is rejecting, hurting, and humiliating an innocent party who cares for that child.

6. Have the child together with the alienated parent in due course while seeking to change both attitudes and behaviour via rational emotive therapy. There is a need in this process for very firm communications.

7. Make the child aware of what a blood relative might sacrifice for that child which is not the case for strangers.

8. Warn the parent who alienates the child of the harm that they are doing to the child not just in the present time but in the future also.

9. Appeal to the child’s critical thinking (intelligence and emotions) and make the child aware of the unfairness and cruelty in rejecting a loving parent.

10. Make the child aware that they need both parents without endangering the relationship with the alienating parent.

11. Make the child aware that they may lose a good parent if the process of alienation continues.

12. The child should be made aware that the extended family of the alienated parent is also being unfairly rejected.

13. Encourage the child not only to engage with the alienated parent but with the alienated parent’s extended family, i.e. grandmother, grandfather, aunts, uncles, etc. This will serve to reverse the alienation process.

14. Curtail or eliminate telephone calls and other communications from the programming parent while the child is with the non-custodial parent.

Parental Alienation is a Criminal Offense in Brazil–but supported and nurtured by the Superior Court of Solano County here in the USA

Posted on by
1

I learned something new….See Library of Congress Article.   After reading this, I realize what a bunch losers we have as Judges in the Superior Court of Solano County….cow towing to women’s rights groups and fixated on a domestic violence witch hunt.

Article 2 of Law No. 12,318 of July 26, 2010, defines an act of parental alienation as the interference with the psychological formation of a child or adolescent that promotes repudiation of a parent or damage to the establishment or maintenance of ties with a parent, when such an act is practiced by a parent, grandparent, those who have the child or adolescent under their authority, custody, or supervision.

The Law provides examples of parental alienation, including but not limited to:

  • waging campaigns of disparagement of a parent’s behavior in the exercise of parenthood;
  • hindering the exercise of parental authority and limiting contact between the child or adolescent and the other parent;
  • making the right to have a close family life with the child or adolescent difficult;
  • deliberately omitting relevant personal information about the child or adolescent, including educational, medical, and change-of-address data, from the other parent;
  • submitting false complaints against a parent, family members, or the grandparents, preventing them from having a relationship with the child or adolescent; and
  • moving to a remote site with no explanation, in order to hamper the relationship between the child or adolescent and the other parent or the grandparents or other relatives (art. 2 (sole para.), Law No. 12,318).

Boy do we have a long ways to go in Solano County.  First, we need to get rid of the old white mediators who only know how to talk about domestic violence and child support….a whole new world is out there.

Next we need get rid of the complacent Judges who cover their ears and click their heels to make it all go away…for fear of the wrath of women’s rights groups.   We need Judges are interested in fairness and the best interest of children ….not in their careers.

Currently, the Superior Court of Solano County fosters and empowers the parent who alienates.   The Court is fixated on hunting down domestic violence and is incapable of looking at other issues.   In doing so, the Court is itself facilitating child abuse.  Judges  in the Superior Court of Solano County using biased mediators (the Court chooses and you have no right to object) as cover to facilitate and foster child abuse in the name of their careers.

Way to go Brazil!   Maybe our backward hillbilly Judges in Solano County will start to learn something about justice…someday.

In the best interest of the children….what does this mean? Another Rant.

Posted on by
Reply

The court, judges, and everybody will use this phrase over and over as if it had a specific meaning.  It really is just rhetoric to put the speakers actions or words beyond questioning.   Its a dirty lawyer’s trick…a game of words.

I went to Court for the best interest of my kids.  I saw a Judge who ignored blatant serious lies and even when I brought the lies up again, the Judge ignored them.   I saw the Court mediator lie under oath and her lie was self-evident.   I saw my ex’s attorney negotiate in bad-faith and then advise my ex not to follow the Courts interim orders.   I brought this up.   (Her attorney claimed attorney-client rights.)  It did not change the fact that the lawyer was playing dirty games and there was enough open information for the Judge to act–but of course the Judge did not act.

Yes…a lot went against me.  Because I was playing by the rules.  I did not realize that the court factors in that every parent will lie– you are behind from the get-go if you are not telling terrible lies about your ex.

All in all, I would have to say that the Solano Family Court is a circus.   There is no point in being honest.  The Judges don’t care–they just want your case gone.   Even the Court’s own mediator can lie under oath and be forgiven.    The lawyer’s are in it for money–so expect them to do everything to drag out the case (lazy bloodsuckers).

So where is the best interest of children to be found by a faulty process?   The courts don’t really care about the best interest of the kids.  It is sham from the start.

It breaks every value I have, but I have to say if you go to Court….lie..lie..lie and do whatever you have to win.   Because the Court is just as dishonest.  The Court has no integrity and is a place where complacent Judges collect their pay checks and greedy lawyers harvest blood.  (politics and making money are the masters of our Judges and Solano Lawyers)

The winner in the Solano Family Court is the one who will lie the most and the losers are the children.

I look forward to next years budget cuts because if nothing else no courts are better than bad courts.

I hope I adequately explained my feeling of disgust for the three ring circus called the Superior Court of Solano County.  If there is a hell, I am quite sure that many people who work for and at the Court will get their just reward.

Refer to this blog and then consider how many times the Judges and lawyers of the Solano County Court act if the expression in the best interest of the children was something definitive.  (Goes back to lawyer egos and not being able to understand how little they understand or that that they talk using meaningless rhetoric.)

Do we need another panel on domestic violence? What about Parental Alienation? Vote Republican this year.

Posted on by
Reply

Solano County forum focuses on family violence prevention

Here we go again….Dr. Ron Chapman with the California Department of Health, Solano Family Court Judge Wendy Getty, Vacaville Police Chief Richard Word and Solano County Supervisor John Vasquez, the forum revolves around reviving the spirit of collaboration within the county.    As the Reporter reports.

Domestic Violence is something that can be seen and is politically popular topic.  It enjoys the support of women’s rights groups.  It enjoys the funding of many government agencies.  It is the focus of every father that passes through the Solano Family Court.

You will not see any such emphasis on parental alienation.  Nor will you see any such forum on the bias within the Courts on this topic.  The fact is that the Courts choose mediators who do not believe parental alienation occurs.  The fact that Judges will look dumbfounded about the topic because they are politically motivated.

The Courts are not about fairness or the law.  The Courts are about the politically correct subject of the day.  You see this in the Court’s obsession with domestic violence with a parallel complete ignorance of parental alienation.  This is purposeful by the Court.  Both forms of abuse are abuse.  But in the Solano Family Court only one form of abuse is considered.

The Solano Family Court and the Judges in the Court system and the mediators they select do not serve fairness with regard to parental alienation.   I hope one day the purposeful bias of the Court and Judges is made known and the biased complacent Judges are replaced.

Until women’s rights groups stop playing with the laws to favor women and at the expense of the best interest of children, parental alienation will never get the attention it should.  Parental alienation is primarily implemented by women–this is why the Court and Judges will not look at the topic or take action….Judges are literally monkey not see, monkey not hear on this topic.

Father’s that know the reality that the Solano Family Court is biased against father’s and serves nothing more than a facade of justice….vote.  And the democratic party is not your friend.  The party of Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are the reason why the Courts are so biased against fathers.  They are also the reason that the Justice system goes on witch hunts against innocent men for domestic violence.

Perhaps our next president will stop pandering to women’s rights groups.

Parental Alienation–A topic buried by Women’s rights groups blinded by revenge and not interested in equality

Posted on by
1

Since the women-rights dominated Superior Court of Solano County does not believe or take into account Parental Alienation….you need to look around for information.   Here’s another father’s story and some info….take a read of the short article.    I abstracted their recommended links too.   I think they are worth taking a look at.   By the way, watch out for the ambulance chasing lawyers that advertise themselves as Parental Alienation lawyers…..think ambulance chaser.

This story is from Georgia.     Why is it that the progressive state of California lags Alabama and Georgia and many Countries?   Could it be the women’s rights movement is happy to steam roll men’s rights?   Think about the irony and the sadness.  But it is true California lags in this area because of the strong influence of the most militant core of the women’s rights movement who are not interested in justice.  And it is true, they wield power through Boxer, Feinstein, and Peolsi and many state politicians to ensure that Judges lean the right way.  Until this generation of angry old white women fade away, California will not make progress in Father’s rights.  (Election coming up soon–Vote against all of them)

From the article   bubbles-of-love-in-loganville

“My husband has an 8-year-old daughter he has not seen in going on three years. Due to his case still being handled in court I don’t want to go into too much detail, but his daughter is suffering from and has been diagnosed by two counselors as having Parental Alienation Syndrome. For whatever reason, this innocent child has been talked out of having any kind of positive relationship with her dad, and it has resulted in years of hurt and pain for every party involved,” she wrote in a blog on Patch. “Parental Alienation, to keep it short, is basically when one parent tries to create a negative relationship between a child they share with the other parent. This can be done by talking negatively about the other parent in front of their child, making the child fear the other parent, bringing the child into adult discussions concerning the other parent, and the list goes on and on.”

http://www.paawareness.org/

http://www.parental-alienation-awareness.com/

http://www.bubblesofloveday.com/home.asp

 

 

Restrain, Don’t Restrain, Restrain, Restrain Sometimes: One clear request understood only by Judge Ellis

Posted on by
Reply

I was watching a court case once.   A mother had asked for a restraining order against her ex-husband because of his alleged violence and abuse.   (Yes, here we go again with more false allegations of abuse and the Court eager to pander to women’s rights groups.)   The woman was convincing and teary eyed (women get mileage with props in the Courts too). The Judge listened and was her knight in shining armor to beat down the bad abusive father.   He ordered the father to stay away from the mother.   Subsequently, the mother said –but wait I only need the order for certain times.   The mother explained that she had no car and the father picks their daughter up from her place to go to school.  The father then returns the daughter after school.   The Judge then modified the order to have an exception for the picking up the daughter and returning her.   The mother then said but the father sometimes picks her up and drops her off to work.   Well, the Judge said can’t you find another way to work.

I hope you can see that the frightened mother was not so frightened at all.  If the abuse was real, she seemed to only care about abuse when it was convenient for her.

Judge Ellis did not question the mother’s honesty.   It is not his job to question a mother.  It is his mandate to ferret out abusive fathers and to punish them.  And the word of an inconsistent mother is good enough.

So this is the Solano Family Court system.   Mothers often lie and make false allegations.   But the smartest people in our system have figured out that if you punish the lying mothers, you will deter the women truly suffering from abuse.   Therefore in one swoop, self-justification and arrogance has changed our judicial system.    You the father are presumed guilty and the mere allegation is enough to convict.

I hope you are as disgusted as I am — I will never look down upon a father for lying again because the Courts have set the bar that lying is acceptable.  False allegations are acceptable.  Our district attorney will not prosecute lying mothers.  Our police will not arrest mothers for filing false charges.

Judge Ellis is not unlike every other Judge at the Solano Court.  He looks to stay on the politically correct path, stay in the middle, and looks to climb career ladders.

Actually, I lied as Judge Ellis is in the middle of the pack.   Judge Jones is the bottom because she carries into the court room her personal negative bias of fathers.

Our justice system does not protect the individual in Solano County.

 

Hello is this the year 2012 and is this America? Women’s Rights groups have gone too far

Posted on by
Reply

Colorado father’s custody fight moves back to his home state

This is a short news article worth reading.   It won’t be long before fatherhood requires an application and approval from the government.   The quote below is from the article.  You can thank the many angry women who fought for women’s rights for this….they continue to support organizations that in practice are fundamentally biased against males and fathers.

“I believe that birth fathers who are willing to step up to the plate and parent their children should be given an opportunity,” Reyes said after Wednesday’s hearing. “Before she was even born, he was saying to everyone, ‘Hello, I’m here, I want to have custody of my daughter, I want to take care of her, I want to love her.’”

I don’t know the details but it sure does parallel the ultimate form of parental alienation.

 

 

The Pain of Old White Women and their Influence on Justice: Lack of Equal Justice for Fathers in Solano County

Posted on by
Reply

There was a time in America when women did not have justice in many ways.  They fought for justice in the Court and ultimately got justice by changing laws.  The Courts are filled with the same Judges today (different names but same results–no justice).

Family Courts are the most subjective of Courts.  A judge has ability to make arbitrary decisions that practically will never be challenged.  (The keyword is practically)   Your justice depends on a Judge who will make arbitrary decisions and will do so in a way that is safe.

Safe from the old white women that have become politically powerful and pull strings of who become judges and who performs custody evaluations.  The anger of a generation of old white women has been turned into a new injustice of unequal custody rights for fathers.

The Solano Court on surface appears to be fair….but in reality it practices the same politically acceptable discrimination it has always practiced.   Throughout history, Courts have made decisions that reflected the biases of those that put them in power.   It is a myth that Judges are interested in Justice and fairness.   The only thing different now from the past is that it is now politically correct to stereotype and punish fathers.

Then and now, the slimy lawyers profited off both ends any disagreement.   Then as now, Judges make biased decisions.  Then as now, you have experts that profit off of expert opinions.  There is no such thing as Justice.

The only thing that I know for sure is that the Superior Court of Solano County is filled with people all too willing to tilt custody in favor of the mother.  The system is sexist.

The solution will be– as it always has been– the dying out of a generation.  The laws will change to reflect new experiences of a new generation.  The injustices of the past will be replaced by new injustices.

The lawyer of the past will be the devil and the lawyer of the future will also be the devil.   The Courts will always be filled with politically chosen people who will be complacent.

The Superior Court of Solano County is only more special in that it is more biased than most–against fathers.  You need only go back to the old white woman who the Court loves to appoint to offer expert opinion to understand where and why the bias of the Courts exists.

Lawyers and Child Custody Experts, Same as a Pimp and Prostitute except the latter are honest: Making Money at the Solano Family Court

Posted on by
Reply

As with every institution, money eventually becomes kings and maximum profits influences  how processes are actually performed.

So whether you find your lawyer from Vallejo, Napa, Fairfield, or Vacaville, know they are pimping themselves in general.   They are selling you an image and promises they may or may not keep.  Some lawyers are honest.  But face it, most lawyers went into law with dreams of power or making money, not justice or protecting human rights.  Lawyers are (in general) no different than the drug dealer on the corner with baggy pants.  The only difference is that the drug dealer is up front about what he does and probably was dealt a bad hand in life.   The lawyer lies up front and probably had a better draw of the cards of life.   Which attributes do you respect more…honesty and hard work versus lying and taking advantage of people?   So if you are truthful and put aside all of our preconceptions and beliefs (I am thinking of middle class America), the corner drug dealer could be considered to be a better person than the average lawyer.

So how much money is involved in the Solano Family Courts?   A lawyer will charge you some intial fee usually — a retainer.  And will add a statement– I think that will pretty much cover it.  This is a used car salesman inner-self of a lawyer.  They hook you like a fish and when you have no choice but to pay more, they will start to talk about complications.  Most lawyers do very little other than show up to court, talk on the phone, and tell you how much work they do.   The average lawyer at the Solano Family Court is very similar to a thief, a criminal, a rapist, and so on…..except what they do is legal and even characterized as an important function in society.

So in the end the average lawyer will charge you between 3000 and 20,000 dollars for doing nothing more than showing up in a suit and pontificating.

Now what about child custody experts?   What kind of expert volunteers and choose to be on a list approved by the Court.  A real expert can make a fine living outside of the extreme conflict mixed with lawyers.   You end up child custody experts who want to make money and who are mediocre.  You also have a high probability of the old white woman who will break every ethical rule to help the poor abused mother.   Child custody experts make more money if your conflict gets elevated–more work.  There is no real system of accountability and no transparency.  Behind paper degrees they are people who have their own biases.  Sometimes they are racists, sexists, or have different perspectives in life than you.  But generally, they will favor the mother because this is the type the Court system will select.  There is a big difference between generations about views of child custody.  The Court system has a facade of paper work and degrees….but most fathers know the horrible truth.  The Solano Family Court is stacked against them.

Child custody experts can make more than the lawyers especially if they don’t bother reading the volumes of documents they are supposed read.  They live very well if they simply take short cuts of stereotyping fathers into something that seems believable to the Courts.   Most child custody experts who volunteer and actively seek work from the Courts use stereotypes and short cuts to maximize their profit.

Equality in Custody is just a fantasy that the Superior Court of Solano County stamps on its webpage or documents.  There is no independent oversight, no transparency, and no accountability.  The excuses of no resources, other priorities, no money, workload etc. will always be acceptable excuses for an imperfect system that is biased against fathers.

As always, fathers remember to pay your taxes and child support because it makes it too easy for the Court to destroy you.  They may not care about Father’s rights, but when it comes to being politically correct expect your Solano Judge to be PC.

In then end you fathers will serve on Juries, will vote, and the generation of men hating women will die out.   The pendulum will swing.    I hope you remember to make wise choices when donating money, voting, and serving on Juries.   The reality that the Judicial system is about human biases and justice is for the rich and powerful has always been there.  We just get side tracked by things we want to believe and biased information that is presented through schools and mass media.