The job of a judge is to find a just solution.
I was recently before Judge William Nevitt in the San Diego Superior Court for a restraining order hearing. Judge Nevitt has a good reputation and judicial demeanor. He looks like an intelligent and kind man. And he probably makes good decisions most of the time.
After the evidence was presented, Judge Nevitt gave a nice little speech about how glad he was that the litigants brought their dispute to court, instead of handling it on their own. I was thinking about mid-eastern countries like Iran and Iraq, where a land dispute turns into centuries of senseless killing. I am glad I do not live in Iraq. Yet.
When our judicial system loses its integrity, it will soon look like Iraq in the United States of America.
I’m sure most of the people who came to The United States from Iraq do not want to see our system become like their homeland’s. Unfortunately, those of us born in the U.S. of A. probably don’t have up our guard against the insidious deterioration of systems of government when the pigs start making little changes to the rules, to help themselves and their friends. (Hint: read Animal Farm by George Orwell.)
I think Judge Nevitt tried to bend the rules to help a friend. I think Commissioner Friedenthal wanted a little help from Judge Joan Lewis and Judge Ipema, who wanted a little help from Judge Schall, who was watching her own ass and passed it on to Judge Nevitt. No one would suspect kindly old Nevitt of bending the rules.
And all they wanted was a restraining order against Laura Lynn. A restraining order hearing is not a criminal trial. Litigants are not given an attorney if they cannot afford one. It is not supposed to be about property rights. It is a strange bird. It is a warning, an injunction saying one person may do something criminal or harassing in the future, and if they do the harassing thing or criminal thing, they will have criminal charges added. The added charge is breaking the restraining order.
Unless the restrained party lives with the victim, there is no loss of property rights involved. Unless Judge Nevitt, Judge Ipema, Judge Lewis or Judge Schall decide to bend the rules.
Judge Friedenthal was definitely biased against me. The California Supreme Court said so. It is not easy to get the California Supreme Court to say anything, so his bias must have been pretty serious.
Why did Friedenthal feel so strongly against me? At first I think he ruled against me to help a friend or paying customer. He might have been biased from the start due to his friendship with my sister’s brother-in-law. But his livid animosity came when I started to expose him for his bias against strong women in general and his propensity to generate income for a few attorneys he appointed as minor’s counsel.
This is the paradox of judicial power. A judge’s job is to keep people honest and right, and to punish them and force them to correct their errors. But when someone tries to correct a judge, the judge gets his underwear all in a bunch. He starts using his power to make things worse. When I asked attorney Gary Weyman to file a motion for disqualification, known as a CCP 170.1 against Friedenthal, Weyman, an expensive Encino attorney said “No Way!” He said he had to go in front of Friedenthal again and he would never win another case.
Not only were judges all attorneys once, but they were once also women and men.