Petition to California Supreme Court on Freedom of Speech in Reporting About Litigation
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.