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: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home