Please read the next blog, also. Elizabeth G. had a big victory in reversing a court order that restrained her from making legitimate reports of abuse and discussing her family law case.
This reporter filed the following petition on a similar case, but was rejected.
Does The Court presiding over a dissolution of marriage and custody case have the authority to abridge a litigant’s Constitutional right to freedom of religion, free speech, right to assembly, right to file grievances and the right to equal protection under the law? What standard of proof, and outweighing conflicting objectives are required? If the Court can abridge these fundamental rights, what are the confining parameters?
PETITION FOR REHEARING FILED – DENIED
APPLICATION OF RULE 8.500(b)
This case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court of the State of California to secure uniformity of decision between dissolution and custody cases and all other cases heard in the State of California in regards to the freedom to publicize news and opinions about the cases. It can also help remedy inconsistencies between the Violence Against Women Act and the treatment of domestic violence by trial courts in dissolution and custody cases.
Since 1997 The Superior Court of the State of California has made error after error in the case of Lynn v Lynn, PD 016769. The Petitioner, a university trained journalist, exercising her right to free speech and free assembly began to publicize the facts of her case, the facts of those in similar circumstance and her opinions about the court system in 2007. She also filed a grievance in the United States Circuit Court against some judicial officers and their co-conspirators in an alleged violation of 42 USC 1983 and 18 USC 241 and 242. Instead of offering a remedy, The Court made orders that were extremely restrictive on the Petitioner‘s Constitutional right to a parent – child relationship and ignored the Respondent’s blatant violation of the orders that were in place. Officers of The Court and police with the encouragement of The Court then made efforts inside and outside of court to curtail the Petitioner‘s unprotected speech and assembly activities.
Starting on September 2, 1997 Commissioner Robert Zakon changed a permanent custody order, even though the party asking for the change admitted in several written court documents that he did not serve the other party, violating California Family Code 215 and rendering all subsequent orders invalid.
The Court then secreted portions of the case file, later making admitted alterations in violation of Government Code 6200.
On June 10, 2009 Los Angeles Sheriff Sergeant Wheatcroft harassed the Petitioner just before a hearing saying that Commissioner Alan Friedenthal and Commissioner Steff Padilla asked him to tell the Petitioner that her journaling and sending a demand letter in an effort to settle the 42 USC 1983 grievance out of court were “threatening”. No arrest was made. No charges were brought. There was just a little chat right before the Petitioner was going to argue her case in the courtroom.
Unfortunately the Court of Appeals and The Supreme Court of the State of California have done nothing to correct the errors. In fact, the file on appeal for B208080 asking for the recusal of Commissioner Alan Friedenthal was secreted for a number of years and then marked “Confidential” for another year with no petition or order to do so. The appellate court denied the Petition for Writ of Mandate to Disqualify Commissioner Friedenthal. Eventually the judicial officer recused himself, but none of his earlier rulings or orders were reversed.
In the case at bar, the trial court ordered and the appellate court upheld a restraining order based upon complaints that the petitioner told third parties she planned to include them as defendants in a Federal lawsuit, CV-09-08717 PSG (VBK); that the petitioner made complaints to the police; that the petitioner is a Christian; and that the petitioner “calls herself a journalist” and wrote comments about the respondent’s family that the respondent found to be “slanderous“.
It is the petitioner’s Constitutional right to settle disputes peacefully or litigate differences. It is the petitioner’s Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. It is the petitioner’s Constitutional right to freedom of religion. It is the petitioner’s Constitutional right to practice free unprotected speech and be unfettered by prior restraints on speech by the court. [United States Constitution Amendments 1, 5, 14]
The violation of rights to free speech have been violated by the lower courts by the issuance of “gag orders” and “vexatious litigant” status against many other litigants in the family law court including Tonya Pinkins, Elaina Eustache, Elizabeth Goodman, Janette Isaacs, and many Does in paternity cases such as R.V. .
The trial court and the appellate court also took issue with the amount of time the petitioner spent on her case, even though it is the petitioner’s right to have zealous representation, even if she is in pro per.
Because of communications between Los Angeles Court Counsel Brett Bianco and Judicial Council attorney Eric Schnurpfeil of November 24, 2009, and a taped message to one of the Petitioner’s sources by Commissioner Alan Friedenthal that was presented to both the California Court of Appeals and the California Commission on Judicial Performance, it is apparent that the California Court is basing its decisions on ex parte communications and the petitioner is not treated as any other litigant. Therefore, it is unlikely that the California Supreme Court will agree to grant this petition for review, and may even incarcerate the petitioner for “contempt” for spending too much time on her case.
So, this petition will be submitted as is and should the California Supreme Court decide to make at least a charade of upholding Constitutional rights to citizens that enter the Wild West of the Los Angeles Family Court, the petitioner will use more of the length limit afforded to litigants who are not “Laura Lynn”, and give volumes of case law that support her contention that The Court cannot stop litigants from writing about the court or their cases except under strict parameters. Otherwise, the Petitioner will attempt to be heard in The United Sates Supreme Court.
The petitioner respectfully submits this Petition for Review in the hopes that the California Supreme Court will decide to curtail the wholesale violation of Constitutional rights to free speech, grievance, religion and equal protection under the law being propagated by the lower courts.
Finally the Court of Appeals, Justice Woods and Perluss in particular, recognize the nature of Judge Elizabeth Feffer’s orders separating children from their mothers.
This reporter watched a hearing between Elizabeth G and her ex spouse Gregory G. The words on the transcript could not capture the callous and bitchy tone of voice Feffer used in addressing the beautiful young mother.
Apparently the words spoken in a different hearing, where Elizabeth G was represented by attorney Robert Canny did appeal to the justices’ sense of decency.
You can read the “unpublished” opinion by clicking here, but the online version is only available for 60 days from when it is posted. If the link no longer works, write to email@example.com and I’ll try to send a pdf. When I have more time, I’ll try to convert the entire pdf to a word doc and post it here.
My favorite line from the opinion was toward the conclusion. “Issuance of such a draconian restraining order was not proper unless failure to issue it might jeopardize [the child’s] safety.”
A few things bothered me.
First, the glaring resemblance to my own case, also decided by Feffer, Perluss and Woods, in which the restraining order against me was affirmed. My ex was not represented by counsel, unless you count Feffer as his personal attorney, and Feffer cited Nadkarni, on her own.
Second is the practice of taking out the identifying names in the opinion, supposedly to protect the innocent children. The stigma from having the school, church, friends and neighbors told that Elizabeth was such a despicable human being that she could have no contact with her son was irreversible and defamatory. If the Court did not grant itself absolute immunity from liability, it seems Elizabeth G would have a slam dunk, multi-million dollar lawsuit against Feffer and her employer. It is the least the Court could do to print and broadcast a retraction on the cover of the L.A. Times. There is more good than harm done if the names of the victims of court abuse are published.
(Elizabeth G did not give me permission to publish her full name. The opinion was emailed to me by a third party and I recognized the parties from my prior investigation.)
Commissioner Debra Losnick is running for judge and this turns our collective eyes back to Family Law Los Angeles Style.
Can we coin the phrase Kindercaust to describe what happened to the first generation of children who fell under the court’s authority due to the desire of their parents to get a divorce?
Judges did not march children into ovens, but they destroyed countless lives and left these children emotionally, educationally and sometimes physically crippled. Biased judges separated children from perfectly good parents and left children in the homes of probable abusers.
Some of the judges were motivated by drumming up business for their friends in the cottage industry. Some were sickos. Some were stupid.
When a parent-litigant began to make strides against the family court, often, the case would be transferred to the Dependency Court.
The dependency court was able to operate like the Star Chamber. There was little transparency. Somehow, not allowing open court was supposed to protect the young kids from embarrassment and stigma, but it really just protected abusive parents and less than adequate judges and commissioners.
Commissioner Debra Losnick served in the dependency court for many years. She is running for judge now, and thinks her longevity entitles her to the respect and power that comes with the upgraded title. She turns her memory from 1996, when the following report was made by County Counsel as told in the L.A. Times.
“The county counsel said two toddlers had been ordered by Commissioner Debra Losnick back to the home of their father, who was shown on a confiscated videotape lying on a bed, nude except for a T-shirt, having his son demonstrate how an older cousin had sexually abused him.
“The counsel’s report said that Losnick rejected an allegation of sexual abuse and ‘found that there was no risk to the child.’
“In fact, the [offended] judges said, Losnick rejected a sexual abuse finding but affirmed ‘inappropriate conduct by the father which placed the child at risk of harm.’ Losnick’s order allows the father to see the 3-year-old boy and his 1-year-old sister only with a monitor present, an arrangement that even the county’s own social workers have supported since this spring, the rebuttal states.
“On Aug. 27, the state Court of Appeal served notice that it would overrule Losnick and send the case back to another judge. The order admonished the lower court that the ‘purpose of Juvenile Court Law is to protect minors.'”
Someone just wrote another negative review about Judge Elizabeth Feffer on The Robing Room website. It mentioned how she ordered an eviction of a poor family, even though they paid their rent, so the slum lord could raise the rents. I don’t know if there is truth in what they wrote.
But I am involved in a real estate dispute in San Diego and am pro per (representing myself). You can read about it at SanDiegoEstateSale.wordpress.com.
Thanks to the private legal training received at the hand of Alan Friedenthal and Elizabeth Feffer, trying to protect my children from their corrupt decisions, I am holding my own against a team of specialized attorneys. But, I am not normal. Some, not qualified to diagnose, call me insane. Really, I just have developed my logic, creativity, research and writing skills. God blessed me with good genes and an environment that encouraged achievement.
Most people are not so blessed. Heaven help them if they ever need to protect their rights, or their children’s rights in court.
Here is my idea of the week. Any one of you readers involved with the court may adopt it as your own and take full credit for saving the world. We will know the truth.
When someone wants to become a therapist, they are required to put in a significant number of hours working as an unpaid intern under the direction of a licensed therapist. I don’t have the exact number off hand, but think it works out to full time for a year.
Why not require all law school graduates to do the same? Or, even better, make it a requirement that all attorneys work 1/10th of billable hours on pro bono work?
Besides feeling good about themselves, the attorneys may also use their wins for the little guy in advertising and PR. Imagine. “William Spiller Helps Sunday School Teacher Save Her Home.” “Linda Grillo Gets Young Drug Addict Rehab in Lieu of Jail.” “Ken Sherman Wins $10,000,000 Law Suit for Children Who had Their Mother Taken Away.”
Hey…It’s my fantasy. I can end it any way I want to.