Showing posts with label Justice Kelli Evans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice Kelli Evans. Show all posts

26 December 2024

Court Appointed Experts: Family Court Services, Custody Evaluators, Visitation Supervisors, Parenting Counselors & More

 Divorce Corp Chapter 5: Checks Without Balances

"[F]amily courts have attracted enough friends to make Facebook blush, and they all have one thing in common: money. There are visitation supervisors, custody evaluators, court reporters, anger management counselors, parenting counselors, judges pro tem (temporary judges), rent-a-judges, appraisers, income consultants (for computing what parent 'should' be making) and above all, psychologists."

"[The attorney] at one point asked the judge to ban [the parent] from accessing public records in the court's own records department, presumably because of her success in digging up so many conflicts of interest."

"When you look at the records, you find that law firms that give the most money to judges win most of the time."

 

 Divorce Corp, by Joseph Sorge, with James Scurlock.

04 December 2024

Attorney Misconduct: Concealment, Omission of Facts, Half-Truths the Same as a Lie Under California State Law

 Attorneys are prohibited from engaging in misleading and deceptive acts, including concealment of material facts, false statements, and half-truths. In the Matter of Chesnut, 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.166.

"Respondent's argument is that a misrepresentation to a court is not material unless it sucessfully misleads the court is contrary to the express wording of Business and Professions Code section 6068 subdivision (d), which provides that it is the duty of an attorney to never seek to mislead a judge by a false statement of fact or law. 

"The conduct denounced by this statute is not the act of an attorney by which he successfully misleads the court, but the presentation of a statement of fact, known by him to be false, which tends to do so. It is the endeavor to secure an advantage by means of falsity which is denounced. Whether respondent violated section 6068, subdivision ( d) depends first upon whether his representation to the court was in fact untrue, and second, whether he knew that his statement was false and he intended thereby to deceive the court. 

"With regard to whether respondent intended to deceive the court, the presentation to a court of a statement of fact known to be false presumes an intent to secure a determination based upon it and is a clear violation of section 6068, subdivision (d). 

"Respondent's statements to the two courts were in fact untrue and he knew they were untrue. Thus, it is presumed that the statements were made with an intent to secure an advantage. No credible evidence rebutted this presumption."

California Supreme Court Responsible for Attorney Oversight and Accountability

 California Attorney Misconduct and Malpractice: Laws, Rules, Ethics, and Moral Turpitude.