Monday, June 12, 2006

DOC+PLEADING – The origins of PA in this case

Parental Alienation (PA) as many destructive human behaviors, has been present for eons. Yet as a human behavior malady it did not manifest nor become widely apparent until certain conditions existed. Consider “alcoholism”, did that condition not exist prior to it being clinically recognized and identified as destructive behavior? I’m certain it did exist, and the damages it created prior to being “credentialed” were equal (possibly greater due to denial) as today, even when the condition is known.

Upon learning the magistrate’s near instant 6/2/06 DENIAL of our motion, I was not particularly surprised, but certainly still appalled. I’d lived through the life of this case so I’d actually predicted a month earlier to my attorney this could be the likely outcome. Given we’d spent a month reviewing, studying and redrafting the motion to make it as acceptable, unthreatening and legally compliant as possible he also was utterly amazed. His exact words in his email informing me of the DENIED motion (not sent till Mon 6/5/06) included:

  • “….He (magistrate) claims that… I (attorney) citied no legal authority pursuant to a Rule, he (magistrate) violates that very rule by failing to allow a response..."
  • “…Frankly, the whole thing is bizarre”.

So now - what to do next? I took a week to emotionally recover from the shock of such judicial incompetence (to be detailed in later post) and to ponder the issue, the following Mon 6/12/06 I sent the following email to my attorney:

From: Tom Smith (TechEn)
To: DJapha4064@......
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:54 AM
Subject: PAS goes back to very beginning, a possible strategy

David, having reviewed various options of strategy for response to my ex's 5/31 reply to our 4/31 pleading I'd like to present an option I'm sure is not on your list. I title it the "revelation of truth" approach. The court has clearly demonstrated its total ambivalence (at best! more likely acute directed bias) with respect to this case and my personal self. While one is told to view the court as utterly objective (no particular bias toward Tom Smith) and forming its decisions on facts - case history proves this is not be so. …

There is little to nothing one can do when the court perpetually selects to violate its own statutory procedure AND moral/ethical obligations - but judicial process does remain an avenue for formally archiving truths (per the record) regardless of whether it acts on them or not. With this in mind one option that remains is to provide in reply - a comprehensive documentation of truth and fact to the court, even under the awareness it most likely will do nothing at all with it.

This was the strategy I selected back in Dec 1999 when the condition described above was also in full swing --- namely ongoing denial of due process for myself and the condition of my children being denied any sense of "knowledgeable" human compassion. It is interesting for me to again review the attached 5 yr old pleading as it CLEARLY illustrates the conditions for creating PAS since inception of this matter. I just simply had no official "word" or syndrome to refer to it.

Labels: ,

Friday, June 2, 2006

ORDER (by Magistrate not even a Judge)

You figure it out – is any favoritism (or simple insanity) going on here?????

Over 30 days eariler in attempt to gain knowledge of the progress and health of my own child’s life I make simple request to get access to basic records (school report cards/attendance records, records or any medical professionals that have treated her etc). The request is basic and focused solely on serving the best interest of the child. It does ascertain the current state resulted from a grievous and hostile draconian ruling that came about via illegal acts and gross errors – however it makes no effort to blame nor seek revenge. It is directed solely to bringing to an end a serious 8-year wrong initiated by people that abused the system and the children, it seeks only to restore the basic human rights of the child.

15 days is the allowance for reply per civil rules of procedures. The ex-wife and her attorney violate that, but no issue, they just petition the magistrate and are immediately granted pardon -plus- get an additional 15 days (total of 30 days). They use that time to compile a unbelievable, overwhelming 90 page encyclopedia size reply.

Here is the calendar at this point

  • Wed 5/31 late day – ex-wife’s attorney, after double the normal allowed time, finally submits a 90 page encyclopedia size reply.
  • Thur 6/1 – is a single day in a shortened work week, due to observance of the Memorial day National Holiday
  • Barely 48 hours later on FRI 6/2 – Magistrate’s ruling in favor of wife is finished, been completely filed and processed, RESULT - father’s request is unilaterally dismissed.
  • Father never even knew all this happened until into the following week.


  • father is barred access to exercise his legal right to respond (10 days) per civil rules of procedure.
  • even under the pressure of heightened holiday week workloads, Magistrate has affectively considered all appropriate information related to an 8 year highly litigated case (with zero access to the prior judge as he has now been retired over 1 year) in basically 24 hours (the other 24 of the 48 hours used just in paper processing time).
  • and please pay very close attention to Para 9 in the Magistrate’s order (entire order can be viewed by clicking title of this blog) try to comprehend anyone making a similar conclusion as he did:

These are direct specific extracted quotes (believe me, I don't have sufficient imagination to make up this type of insanity). Para 9 of the Magistrates’ order is response to my attorney's statement about a prior judge's ruling:

Wording in original August 11, 1999 order “...there was no way “under present circumstances for the Court to allow the Respondent any role in these children’s [sic] lives…not to contact the children, their teachers, their schools, their mother, their camp, any other activities in which they are involved, their friends, their neighbors, or any people involved with any of those activities, at any time, in any manner, for any duration, or for any purpose, or for no purpose at all.”

---- putting aside the absolutely draconian element of that wording alone, consider the Magistrate's interpretation of those words is to basically equate it to "an adjustment in parenting time: ----

Para #9 - The Court finds that this characterization (sic “de-facto termination of parental rights”) of the proceedings and order of August 11, 1999 is incorrect. The Court did not terminate the parental rights of the Respondent. For instance, the children can still inherit from the Respondent and the Respondent still has a duty and obligation to support the children. However, the Court did issue an order affecting the Respondent’s right to exercise parenting time with the children.”