Click Here for a high-level chronology of my case which is profiled on the Our Family Law website.
The case study provided on this site begins in 2009 and will continue into 2017, many years later the parties involved have not been allowed to resume their post-divorce lives. Through this site, you will learn this is not an isolated case and there are far too many similar cases by the same judge, Judge Thomas Trent Lewis. What stands out in these cases is the judges aversion to *Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and a frequent *Abuse of Discretion. If you read the DivorceCorp book which the movie (see - DivorceCorp.com) is based, it is Judge Lewis who is referred to as the "maverick" judge. The "maverick" touts - "Family courts are on the cutting edge of the law. They are creating the law, not just following it, on a daily basis." The timeline which starts below is what happens when "Mavericks" with a narcissistic/egomaniac disorder abuse their power/discretion to be above the law (becomes a scary hopeless world when it is a Pro Per who "gets on their bad side").
*Abuse of Discretion; *ADR - Descriptions and examples provided below, further examples will be forthcoming (provided in italics). The Golden Rule on Abuse of Discretion - If an order defies the common logic principal, the judge likely abused their discretion - research case law and challenge the ruling (you will find case law typically supports the common logic principal).
CASE TIMELINE (click on the tabs above for further details)…
*Additional evidence (pleadings, communication and transcripts, etc) provided soon. Names/personal info redacted.
2008-most of 2009 – Petitioner (ex-wife) and Respondent (me) separated after 8 yrs of marriage and the Respondent moved out of the San Diego home to a nearby apartment (over ethics concerns). The yearlong separation was amicable and they shared equal custody of their daughter. Co-parenting was excellent due to a mutually established parenting plan both parties honored in the best interest of their daughter.
Summer 2009 - The Petitioner took a job in Los Angeles (LA) indicating it was a “short term” career move. She would return home to San Diego on weekends until the end of summer.
Fall/Winter 2009 - The Petitioner begins meeting with an attorney, the attorney encourages her to file for a divorce in LA due to a significant mother bias in the courts. As a result, Petitioner begins threatening the Respondent and demands he forgo shared custody, because as a father the court will force an every other weekend custody order.
December 2009 - Petitioner Files for Divorce in LA a few short months after leaving her longtime home in San Diego - the only home she knew in the U.S.. The Petition acknowledges in transcript she hated LA and blamed Respondent for forcing her to move to LA (she wanted to leave the country) Anyone forced to a place they hated would return to their child's home and family right?...Enter Judge Thomas Trent Lewis - was it a gender bias, a favor to attorneys, his background (a little research will show he is not a family man), or all of the above which led him to split a family? ...There must be significant cause to award a move away - to make an order with intent to split a family is an absolute act of malice. There is absolutely no doubt this divorce ends amicably in 2010 had this case been held in the families/child's home court - San Diego. The winners - only Petitioners gang of Beverly Hills attorneys - Click Here to put faces to the losers (*tax payers not pictured)
* Abuse of Discretion - The landmark "move-away" case In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal 4th 1072 1) clearly indicates Judge Lewis abused his discretion to award his Beverly Hills partners in crime. The Supreme Court established precedent for justices to consider "best-interest of the child" factors, including: stability and continuity: are the parents willing to put the children first; will the distance of the move break the relationship between the non-moving parent, extended family and the children; what are the ages of the children - if the ages of the children are really young, that gives more reasons not to move because young children have short memories. Additional factors will include: 2) are the parents capable of cooperating? Do these parents have the ability to communicate? Had "any" of the aforementioned factors been taken into consideration this family is would not have been torn apart.
2009 Christmas Holiday, Parenting Plans Broken – Petitioner agreed to allow their daughter to spend time at a Christmas Party with her dad and grandparents and to continue the parenting plan. However, under the strong influence of her attorney Petitioner reneges on the agreement and demands the Respondent agree to an every other weekend schedule, or he will not see his daughter. Respondent did not have an attorney; therefore, he calls the police for advisement. The Police state the mother cannot keep the Respondent from his daughter and tells him to get his daughter from pre-school like he normally would. When the Respondent picks up his daughter the Petitioner arrives at the pre-school to stop Respondent from seeing his daughter. The Petitioner calls her attorney and hands the phone to the Respondent, the attorney (a major scum bag…more details soon) threatens to take Respondents daughter from him unless he agrees to an every other weekend schedule. The police are called and the police have the Respondent and Petitioner sign an agreement to share custody of their daughter –i.e. to keep the established parenting plan.
Monster is a term Respondents family uses to describe Judge Thomas Trent Lewis
Early 2010 Learning My Judge is a Monster (Judge Lewis severely emotionally terrorizes Janette during the same period) – At the custody trial the Petitioners attorney literally argues for a mother gender bias and demands Judge Lewis break the co-parenting plan in favor of mom - Click Here. Respondents attorney argues to continue the parenting plan (literally asking for the status quo) and requests *ADR help - parents know best and should be encouraged to work together right (as case law dictates)? Not with the highly intrusive Judge Lewis presiding - In a blatant Abuse of Discretion, the Pet is awarded regardless of moving away from the family home in San Diego (where her daughter has extended family) to a place she hates (Los Angeles). She is awarded in spite of the quasi kidnapping attempt and breaking the parenting plan - clearly the factors set forth by the Supreme Court in determining the best interest of the child were not considered.
In disbelief, Respondents attorney hears Judge Lewis award the Petitioner primary custody while eliminating weekends and holidays from Respondents entire family for almost 2 years (grandparents/extended family harshly impacted/punished too). Weekends were extremely important for a father/family working in San Diego, imagine having a couple week nights in which one involves driving and returning from LA after work – Judge Lewis forcing a toddler to now have little time with her father and to arrive home near midnight.
*Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - The LA courts put little emphasis on ADR - "it's just a tick in the box" and was literally discouraged in this case; San Diego courts put much more emphasis on ADR and strongly encourages ADR in the court room - If this case were held in the proper court, the home court (San Diego), this case concludes amicably in the best interest of both families in 2010 - most importantly it would have concluded in the best interest of their daughter.
Spring 2010 Signs of an Egomaniac Emerge – Respondent files for a modification of custody, asking for a slight change to the custody schedule, so he and his family can have time during weekends and holidays with his daughter. Respondents request is denied and he is scolded for questioning the Courts custody order (in a how dare you manner), Respondent learns family/children will not come before this man’s immense ego. A year 1/2 later, the order would be overturned after a costly evaluation (the 1st of 2 which help the Respondent), the evaluator would tell Respondent Judge Lewis’s custody order is absurd (especially for a father/family living in San Diego) and not in the best interest of their daughter. Unfortunately, the evaluation would take significant time and the immediate impact of Judge Lewis's ruling on Resp would result in a diagnosis of deep depression and a dependence on anti-depressants.
Awarding blatant gender bias (above) and blatant entrapment (below) - it draws into question Judge Lewis's relationship with the Petitioners attorney.
Spring/Summer 2010 – Judge Lewis’s blatant bias further emblazons the Petitioner and she begins provoking the Respondent. Out of concern, Respondent requests the Petitioner meet him in a public location, Petitioner refuses.
2010 Father’s Day Weekend Tragedy - Their daughter reacts to salmonella during Respondents time with his daughter, during the peak of the salmonella Respondent takes his daughter to the bathroom nearly every 15mins for a 48 hr. period – both are exhausted; although, his daughter holds her daddys hand throughout never letting go (Resp even holding her hand laying on the floor of the bathroom exhausted). Respondent is extremely scared and keeps Petitioner posted, Pet is fully aware her daughter requires repeated trips to the bathroom for severe diarrhea and dry heaves. In spite of their daughters severe condition Petitioner demands their daughter drive to LA Sat and return Sunday morning to San Diego for father’s day…This Monster (Lewis) would not even allow Respondent the full father’s day weekend with his daughter.
Soon after 2010 Father’s Day - After numerous failed attempts to provoke the Resp (which both her and her attorney acknowledge), Pet had the perfect bait. Their daughter loves her dog dearly and pleaded to take the *"community" dog to her dads house while recovering from salmonella. Any/all parents faced with the life threatening illness of their child would do anything for their child right? Not the Petitioner, in spite of agreeing to share the family dog between homes (prior to their daughter contracting salmonella) the Pet now adamantly refused to allow their daughters dog to go to dads house to comfort her during this scary time. Dad in disbelief pleaded with the Pet to stop the divorce posturing and make their daughter a priority, Pet refused.
*The community dog, correspondence shows the Pet agreed to split the dog 50/50 - her words - prior to her daughter contracting a life threatening illness. It was only on the onset of their daughters illness when she began fighting to keep her daughter from her dog. Resp took the appropriate actions and requested the dispute over their dog be resolved in court, or worse case by engaging law enforcement - Pet refused. After Pet got her trophy/DVRO and her daughter recovered from a life threatening illness, Pet has happily allowed her daughter to take her dog to her fathers house - she even has the audacity to comment her daughter would be excited to take her dog with her.
Blatant Entrapment – The trap was about to be set. The Pet was still refusing to meet in a public location and continued to pick fights to keep her daughter from her dog. The exchange prior to her DV allegations, she got in the back of the Respondents car and refused to get out while leaning her hip closer to Resp (now it is clear it was an attempt to record, but she did not get the reaction she wanted this time). On the next exchange, Pet parked next to Resp, far from her assigned parking located several floors above in a gated/secure area…she had never parked next to Resp before. Walking towards Resp car, it is the Resp requesting the police (recall the police helped with an amicable solution during the Pet 2009 quasi kidnapping), Pet adamantly refuses to involve the police. Once at her car the Pet shoves a camera in Resp face, naturally Resp moves the camera out of his face…she got him. Ironically, had the police been involved it would have saved Resp from years of judicial brutality.
Instead of calling the police, Pet immediately calls her attorney. For months she went looking for any reaction she could get from the Resp; while her attorney continued to aggressively press conflict -Recall, prior to her attorney Resp/Pet had been extremely cooperative and amicable during separation - However, with her attorney calling the shots - Pet left all debt responsibilities on the Resp (including her attorney bill!!), she forced full responsibility of the community home on the Resp and she was contentious over even the pettiest of items (items easily resolved during their year long separation)
The Pet Beverly Hills Attorney's (important- read more on her attorneys below) are the self-proclaimed experts on false charges of domestic violence for good reason, their steps in this case were textbook - #1 Create a worse case environment for the other party #2 Constantly attempt to provoke a reaction while secretly recording #2A Absolutely refuse to meet in a public place, so there will be no witnesses #3 Use any unethical means to stage an incident, even if you have to use your daughter as a pawn during a life threaten illness #4 Quickly shove a camera in the persons face, it will force them to move it away #5 Never call the police, or engage the police - you will get more money from you Family Law Judge, especial a judge who was the primary enable to the conflict in this case - Judge Lewis literally took a family with a proven track record of successful co-parenting and cooperation and created the most contentious ugly environment you can imagine - Today the Pet threatens Resp cannot see his daughter if he cannot pick-up his daughter from school @ 2:30 on Fridays, because he works/lives in San Diego. Therefore, April, 2016 Resp must go back in court to adjust the 2:30 order, so it is not used as means for the Pet to deny and frustrate the Resp custodial time. You see Judge Lewis's last custody order again discouraged the parents from working together (Pet/Resp had stipulated to meet at a mid-point in the best interest of their daughter), so he could further punish the Resp and create conflict -there is much more to provide on this outrageous order when time permits.
That's all the Pet needed to spend the next 6 yrs devastating Resp life, every single year for the next 5 yrs Judge Lewis would mercilessly terrorize the Resp with worse case judgments. The cumulative effect of the years of horrible Judgments were so ruthless/inhumane Resp would often leave the court room distraught and at times sobbing uncontrollably. The hopelessness of driving to Judge Lewis's court far from Resp home in San Diego had the Resp appearing in court alone (In Pro Per, against Pet gang of high-priced Beverly Hills attorneys) on zero sleep and a mess from the weeks of night terrors prior to the trial date.
2010 DV Trial – The Presiding, Judge Scott Gordon (Judge Lewis's superior) hears the evidence and "rejects" Pet request for a DVRO, because PET is the obvious aggressor/perpetrator - not the Resp (who took all appropriate steps to avoid incident). Astonishingly, Pet is allowed to re-file her request with Judge Thomas Trent Lewis (the same request Judge Gordon denied). During trial, Resp attorney catches Pet lying (perjury) on the witness stand and she admits Resp only moved a camera out of his face (which Pet shoved in his face by surprise); Pet retracts much worse allegations acknowledging she did not tell the truth. At trial Judge Lewis allows the illegal recording (the camera shoved in his face) without Resp consent (a civil rights violation - Pet should have been held liable not rewarded for illegal recordings and blatant entrap). Judge Lewis again awards his Beverly Hills partners in crime and ignores the clear entrapment and once again defies logic to award Pet. Petitioner acknowledges Resp was never violent, ever (past, present); however, for the next 6yrs the courts would sensationalize and highlight "violence" in court judgments and opinions, often indicating there was a pattern of violence...as you can see from the facts - Judge Thomas Trent Lewis as exhibited a far greater propensity of a pattern of violence than occurred in this case.
Click Here for Emails Prior to the Incident
Below is the 8-26-15 trial transcript (answers below are provided by Pet attorney) - Correct, in 2015 Judge Lewis continued to rule on the same DVRO the Presiding Judge rejected in 2010!! The Presiding Judge, The Hon. Scott M Gordon is now the head of Criminal Law - https://csudhbulletin.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/594/. The Abuse of Discretion by Judge Lewis in this matter is alarming, and includes violating The Doctrine of Res Judicata and Resp Civil Rights...more to be disclosed thru the civil case.
15 Q DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU FILED YOUR FIRST, THE
16 FIRST DVRO APPLICATION WHETHER IT WAS REJECTED BY THE
17 COURT?
18 A ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT WITH REGARD TO THE ONE
19 IN JULY OF 2010.
20 Q YES?
21 A THE REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY DOMESTIC
22 VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER IT WAS REJECTED BY JUDGE
23 GORDON A YES.
24 Q AND DID YOU EVER FIND OUT WHY IT WAS
25 REJECTED?
26 A NO IT DIDN'T MATTER IT WAS REJECTED.
Judge Thomas Trent Lewis is the Teflon Don of the judicial - Why? He is an extremely skilled/accomplished politician - look no further than his LinkedIn to see he is the judicial champion at networking among legal influencers. Which is why the norm/typical/logic, civil rights, embezzlement (Isaac's case) and the law does not apply when you are the target of Judge Lewis - just 2 days after the 8-26-15 trial Judge Lewis savagely hit Resp with a $75,000 judgment - Correct, for the same issue the Hon. Scott M. Gordon rejected in 2010. At this point Judge Lewis had stripped Resp of all assets and buried him in debtor’s prison ($100,000+ in debt), and he was unemployed!! There are supposed to be laws to protect those in Resp position (Google: ability to pay), laws don't matter when it comes to the courts voracity to punish the Resp – much like Janette – Judge Lewis sent Janette to jail for sending a birthday card to her son! - you have to be one mean/evil SOB to beat someone as he has beaten Janette and I - Police brutality typically involves one incident - Judge Lewis caries out his acts of brutality for many, many years. I rather Judge Lewis physically beat the hell out of me and got it over with.
The only evidence in the case was not admissible, it is illegal to secretly record without consent – why? As above demonstrates it is easy for an immoral party to manipulate/entrap/stage the recording – in addition you don’t see the other side of the camera and the face and actions of the other party - Pet in this case was elated (and flashing mischievous grin) that her plan/trap finally worked after many failed attempts to provoke the Resp.
The Leader of Petitioners Attorneys – An employee working for Petitioners attorney quit due to ethics/moral concerns while working for Pet attorney. The female employee's high morals/ethics would not allow her to continue her employment with Pet attorney, especially after he frequently boasted of encouraging his female clients to gain a court advantage by falsely claiming abuse – A victim of Domestic Violence she could not stomach such abuse of the legal process. Her declaration was shared with Judge Lewis - see excerpt at bottom of site, or Click Here. For gods sake! What more could Judge Lewis need right (Judge Gordon rejected the DVRO on significantly less grounds)??
Online, Pet attorney touts being an expert and specializing in false claims of DV (google false charges of domestic abuse Los Angeles family law – his firms name will appear). In addition to the former employee’s declaration, Resp provides declarations of legitimate victims of DV which demonstrate Pet actions were that of a perpetrator, not a victim. No victim would refuse to meet in a public location and refuse to call the police. There is no border-line/gray area here, absolutely nobody takes the actions of the Pet, her story is extremely implausible (the Easter Bunny is more plausible). I will provide exerts from additional declarations to demonstrate how powerful they are, there will be no question false claims of DV are far too easily rewarded by judges like Mr. Lewis.
Petitioner is onto her 3rd attorney (actually a gang of attorneys who frequently appear together in court against me In Pro Per/Easy Prey), her second attorney left the case due to conduct issues which even Judge Lewis called out. Her second attorney (whom the Petitioner had a personal relationship with) was under apprenticeship of the attorney mentioned above...apple does not fall far from the tree.
...Scary to think Pet attorneys could very easily be the next "Family" Law judges, many former attorneys with similar poor ethical and integrity standards already are.
DV Smokescreen – Judge Lewis’s "Trophy" – A DV provides significant grounds for a judge to severely punish their targeted party. All subsequent orders for the next 6 yrs Judge Lewis used the DV as a smokescreen to justify the brutal beatings Resp would receive in court, culminating in Judge Lewis's final judgment which was nothing short of a hate crime. As a result of the egomaniacs (Judge Lewis) determination to replace law enforcement (the appropriate institution), litigation for the DV exceeded $50,000 in attorney’s fees and Resp was penalized an additional $100,000+ - You/The tax payer paid well over a million. In addition, career opportunities were taken from Res and the emotional impact was as though Judge Lewis repeatedly beat the hell/life out of him and broke his spirit emotionally and financially (exactly what Judge Lewis did to Janette). The quote below (employee who worked for the Pet attorney) puts into perspective why law enforcement Must Not be circumvented by overzealous judges.
The Petitioner - 6 months into the divorce - Had roles been reversed Resp would have been sickened with guilt at this point and told Judge Lewis to give her a break. Not Resp ex, the evil of Judge Lewis was contagious and she would spend the next 6 yrs pursuing the destruction of his life. During that time she spent approx. $300,000 on attorney fees (gross by any standard - all funds Judge Lewis took from Resp to fund her egregious litigation), she often appeared with 3 attorneys in court against Resp (he was literately forced into In Pro Per - details provided soon)...like buzzards circling a wounded animal her attorneys went for the kill. In spite of the terror Resp has endured, he doesn't don't hold a grudge against her and would be happy to resume the amicable co-parenting shared before Judge Lewis intervened. Judge Lewis is the enabler, the sick/twisted/demented evil man who holds no value in a life, nor gives a damn about the best interest of a child. He made it too easy, she literally could get away with murder and at times nearly did.
The above resonates more if you switched gender roles, a father would never get away with the outrageously immoral actions of the Pet - regardless of a judges hate. Can you imagine if a dad moved away, quickly filed for divorce while admitting hating LA and acknowledging provoking the other party prior to the most immoral imaginable actions which leads to a DV award?? The Ronda Rousey domestic violence incident (link below) provides a great analogy - fitting "the punishment to the crime" - a comparison to the case above and the severe punishment the Resp received, wouldn't Ronda Rousey deserve life in prison? Of course not - I hope this example added a little perspective to why the DVRO laws must change.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2015/11/12/ronda-rousey-domestic-violence-autobiography/75652260/
ABOVE IS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
The retaliation by Judge Lewis intensified in 2012 when Respondent identified judicial tax fraud (IRS case# provided on request) and EVERY JUDGE in Los Angeles's central district disqualified in matters related to Respondents civil case against Judge Lewis...every judge except one...Judge Thomas Trent Lewis (whom he had the civil case against!!) Click here to view the recusal/disqualification of THE ENTIRE 2nd District Court of Appeals.
CONTEXT AND FACTS BELOW ARE MEANT TO ADD PERSPECTIVE
Fact: It costs approx. $20,000 per year to house a prisoner
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-average-cost-to-house-inmates-in-prison/
Fact: Due to limited state funding CA released 6,000 prisoners this year – 30,000 since 2011
http://time.com/4065359/california-prison-release-department-of-justice/
Fact: It cost $0 to engage the appropriate authority – "Law Enforcement" - for a Restraining Order (DVRO) – Click Here to view a powerful statement regarding the miscarriage of justice in this case.
Fact: To bypass the appropriate authority to pursue favor with your Family Law Judge the cost may exceed $1,000,000 (well over a million in this case), or the cost equivalent of housing approx. 6000+ prisoners.
Fact: Attend any of the court ordered training - Judges often foster worse case environments and high-conflict divorces – Judges like Lewis need training, especially anger management and ethics and integrity training (it has curbed police brutality). When you review the case timeline below, you will see it was a collaborative effort between judge and Petitioners unethical attorneys who staged this divorce from hell.
Judge Thomas Trent Lewis's new court house...
Central Civil West Courthouse
Central Civil West Courthouse
600 South Commonwealth Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90005
600 Commonwealth Los Angeles
The case study provided on this site begins in 2009 and will continue into 2017, many years later the parties involved have not been allowed to resume their post-divorce lives. Through this site, you will learn this is not an isolated case and there are far too many similar cases by the same judge, Judge Thomas Trent Lewis. What stands out in these cases is the judges aversion to *Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and a frequent *Abuse of Discretion. If you read the DivorceCorp book which the movie (see - DivorceCorp.com) is based, it is Judge Lewis who is referred to as the "maverick" judge. The "maverick" touts - "Family courts are on the cutting edge of the law. They are creating the law, not just following it, on a daily basis." The timeline which starts below is what happens when "Mavericks" with a narcissistic/egomaniac disorder abuse their power/discretion to be above the law (becomes a scary hopeless world when it is a Pro Per who "gets on their bad side").
*Abuse of Discretion; *ADR - Descriptions and examples provided below, further examples will be forthcoming (provided in italics). The Golden Rule on Abuse of Discretion - If an order defies the common logic principal, the judge likely abused their discretion - research case law and challenge the ruling (you will find case law typically supports the common logic principal).
CASE TIMELINE (click on the tabs above for further details)…
*Additional evidence (pleadings, communication and transcripts, etc) provided soon. Names/personal info redacted.
2008-most of 2009 – Petitioner (ex-wife) and Respondent (me) separated after 8 yrs of marriage and the Respondent moved out of the San Diego home to a nearby apartment (over ethics concerns). The yearlong separation was amicable and they shared equal custody of their daughter. Co-parenting was excellent due to a mutually established parenting plan both parties honored in the best interest of their daughter.
Summer 2009 - The Petitioner took a job in Los Angeles (LA) indicating it was a “short term” career move. She would return home to San Diego on weekends until the end of summer.
Fall/Winter 2009 - The Petitioner begins meeting with an attorney, the attorney encourages her to file for a divorce in LA due to a significant mother bias in the courts. As a result, Petitioner begins threatening the Respondent and demands he forgo shared custody, because as a father the court will force an every other weekend custody order.
December 2009 - Petitioner Files for Divorce in LA a few short months after leaving her longtime home in San Diego - the only home she knew in the U.S.. The Petition acknowledges in transcript she hated LA and blamed Respondent for forcing her to move to LA (she wanted to leave the country) Anyone forced to a place they hated would return to their child's home and family right?...Enter Judge Thomas Trent Lewis - was it a gender bias, a favor to attorneys, his background (a little research will show he is not a family man), or all of the above which led him to split a family? ...There must be significant cause to award a move away - to make an order with intent to split a family is an absolute act of malice. There is absolutely no doubt this divorce ends amicably in 2010 had this case been held in the families/child's home court - San Diego. The winners - only Petitioners gang of Beverly Hills attorneys - Click Here to put faces to the losers (*tax payers not pictured)
* Abuse of Discretion - The landmark "move-away" case In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal 4th 1072 1) clearly indicates Judge Lewis abused his discretion to award his Beverly Hills partners in crime. The Supreme Court established precedent for justices to consider "best-interest of the child" factors, including: stability and continuity: are the parents willing to put the children first; will the distance of the move break the relationship between the non-moving parent, extended family and the children; what are the ages of the children - if the ages of the children are really young, that gives more reasons not to move because young children have short memories. Additional factors will include: 2) are the parents capable of cooperating? Do these parents have the ability to communicate? Had "any" of the aforementioned factors been taken into consideration this family is would not have been torn apart.
2009 Christmas Holiday, Parenting Plans Broken – Petitioner agreed to allow their daughter to spend time at a Christmas Party with her dad and grandparents and to continue the parenting plan. However, under the strong influence of her attorney Petitioner reneges on the agreement and demands the Respondent agree to an every other weekend schedule, or he will not see his daughter. Respondent did not have an attorney; therefore, he calls the police for advisement. The Police state the mother cannot keep the Respondent from his daughter and tells him to get his daughter from pre-school like he normally would. When the Respondent picks up his daughter the Petitioner arrives at the pre-school to stop Respondent from seeing his daughter. The Petitioner calls her attorney and hands the phone to the Respondent, the attorney (a major scum bag…more details soon) threatens to take Respondents daughter from him unless he agrees to an every other weekend schedule. The police are called and the police have the Respondent and Petitioner sign an agreement to share custody of their daughter –i.e. to keep the established parenting plan.
Monster is a term Respondents family uses to describe Judge Thomas Trent Lewis
Early 2010 Learning My Judge is a Monster (Judge Lewis severely emotionally terrorizes Janette during the same period) – At the custody trial the Petitioners attorney literally argues for a mother gender bias and demands Judge Lewis break the co-parenting plan in favor of mom - Click Here. Respondents attorney argues to continue the parenting plan (literally asking for the status quo) and requests *ADR help - parents know best and should be encouraged to work together right (as case law dictates)? Not with the highly intrusive Judge Lewis presiding - In a blatant Abuse of Discretion, the Pet is awarded regardless of moving away from the family home in San Diego (where her daughter has extended family) to a place she hates (Los Angeles). She is awarded in spite of the quasi kidnapping attempt and breaking the parenting plan - clearly the factors set forth by the Supreme Court in determining the best interest of the child were not considered.
In disbelief, Respondents attorney hears Judge Lewis award the Petitioner primary custody while eliminating weekends and holidays from Respondents entire family for almost 2 years (grandparents/extended family harshly impacted/punished too). Weekends were extremely important for a father/family working in San Diego, imagine having a couple week nights in which one involves driving and returning from LA after work – Judge Lewis forcing a toddler to now have little time with her father and to arrive home near midnight.
*Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - The LA courts put little emphasis on ADR - "it's just a tick in the box" and was literally discouraged in this case; San Diego courts put much more emphasis on ADR and strongly encourages ADR in the court room - If this case were held in the proper court, the home court (San Diego), this case concludes amicably in the best interest of both families in 2010 - most importantly it would have concluded in the best interest of their daughter.
Spring 2010 Signs of an Egomaniac Emerge – Respondent files for a modification of custody, asking for a slight change to the custody schedule, so he and his family can have time during weekends and holidays with his daughter. Respondents request is denied and he is scolded for questioning the Courts custody order (in a how dare you manner), Respondent learns family/children will not come before this man’s immense ego. A year 1/2 later, the order would be overturned after a costly evaluation (the 1st of 2 which help the Respondent), the evaluator would tell Respondent Judge Lewis’s custody order is absurd (especially for a father/family living in San Diego) and not in the best interest of their daughter. Unfortunately, the evaluation would take significant time and the immediate impact of Judge Lewis's ruling on Resp would result in a diagnosis of deep depression and a dependence on anti-depressants.
Awarding blatant gender bias (above) and blatant entrapment (below) - it draws into question Judge Lewis's relationship with the Petitioners attorney.
Spring/Summer 2010 – Judge Lewis’s blatant bias further emblazons the Petitioner and she begins provoking the Respondent. Out of concern, Respondent requests the Petitioner meet him in a public location, Petitioner refuses.
2010 Father’s Day Weekend Tragedy - Their daughter reacts to salmonella during Respondents time with his daughter, during the peak of the salmonella Respondent takes his daughter to the bathroom nearly every 15mins for a 48 hr. period – both are exhausted; although, his daughter holds her daddys hand throughout never letting go (Resp even holding her hand laying on the floor of the bathroom exhausted). Respondent is extremely scared and keeps Petitioner posted, Pet is fully aware her daughter requires repeated trips to the bathroom for severe diarrhea and dry heaves. In spite of their daughters severe condition Petitioner demands their daughter drive to LA Sat and return Sunday morning to San Diego for father’s day…This Monster (Lewis) would not even allow Respondent the full father’s day weekend with his daughter.
Soon after 2010 Father’s Day - After numerous failed attempts to provoke the Resp (which both her and her attorney acknowledge), Pet had the perfect bait. Their daughter loves her dog dearly and pleaded to take the *"community" dog to her dads house while recovering from salmonella. Any/all parents faced with the life threatening illness of their child would do anything for their child right? Not the Petitioner, in spite of agreeing to share the family dog between homes (prior to their daughter contracting salmonella) the Pet now adamantly refused to allow their daughters dog to go to dads house to comfort her during this scary time. Dad in disbelief pleaded with the Pet to stop the divorce posturing and make their daughter a priority, Pet refused.
*The community dog, correspondence shows the Pet agreed to split the dog 50/50 - her words - prior to her daughter contracting a life threatening illness. It was only on the onset of their daughters illness when she began fighting to keep her daughter from her dog. Resp took the appropriate actions and requested the dispute over their dog be resolved in court, or worse case by engaging law enforcement - Pet refused. After Pet got her trophy/DVRO and her daughter recovered from a life threatening illness, Pet has happily allowed her daughter to take her dog to her fathers house - she even has the audacity to comment her daughter would be excited to take her dog with her.
Blatant Entrapment – The trap was about to be set. The Pet was still refusing to meet in a public location and continued to pick fights to keep her daughter from her dog. The exchange prior to her DV allegations, she got in the back of the Respondents car and refused to get out while leaning her hip closer to Resp (now it is clear it was an attempt to record, but she did not get the reaction she wanted this time). On the next exchange, Pet parked next to Resp, far from her assigned parking located several floors above in a gated/secure area…she had never parked next to Resp before. Walking towards Resp car, it is the Resp requesting the police (recall the police helped with an amicable solution during the Pet 2009 quasi kidnapping), Pet adamantly refuses to involve the police. Once at her car the Pet shoves a camera in Resp face, naturally Resp moves the camera out of his face…she got him. Ironically, had the police been involved it would have saved Resp from years of judicial brutality.
Instead of calling the police, Pet immediately calls her attorney. For months she went looking for any reaction she could get from the Resp; while her attorney continued to aggressively press conflict -Recall, prior to her attorney Resp/Pet had been extremely cooperative and amicable during separation - However, with her attorney calling the shots - Pet left all debt responsibilities on the Resp (including her attorney bill!!), she forced full responsibility of the community home on the Resp and she was contentious over even the pettiest of items (items easily resolved during their year long separation)
The Pet Beverly Hills Attorney's (important- read more on her attorneys below) are the self-proclaimed experts on false charges of domestic violence for good reason, their steps in this case were textbook - #1 Create a worse case environment for the other party #2 Constantly attempt to provoke a reaction while secretly recording #2A Absolutely refuse to meet in a public place, so there will be no witnesses #3 Use any unethical means to stage an incident, even if you have to use your daughter as a pawn during a life threaten illness #4 Quickly shove a camera in the persons face, it will force them to move it away #5 Never call the police, or engage the police - you will get more money from you Family Law Judge, especial a judge who was the primary enable to the conflict in this case - Judge Lewis literally took a family with a proven track record of successful co-parenting and cooperation and created the most contentious ugly environment you can imagine - Today the Pet threatens Resp cannot see his daughter if he cannot pick-up his daughter from school @ 2:30 on Fridays, because he works/lives in San Diego. Therefore, April, 2016 Resp must go back in court to adjust the 2:30 order, so it is not used as means for the Pet to deny and frustrate the Resp custodial time. You see Judge Lewis's last custody order again discouraged the parents from working together (Pet/Resp had stipulated to meet at a mid-point in the best interest of their daughter), so he could further punish the Resp and create conflict -there is much more to provide on this outrageous order when time permits.
That's all the Pet needed to spend the next 6 yrs devastating Resp life, every single year for the next 5 yrs Judge Lewis would mercilessly terrorize the Resp with worse case judgments. The cumulative effect of the years of horrible Judgments were so ruthless/inhumane Resp would often leave the court room distraught and at times sobbing uncontrollably. The hopelessness of driving to Judge Lewis's court far from Resp home in San Diego had the Resp appearing in court alone (In Pro Per, against Pet gang of high-priced Beverly Hills attorneys) on zero sleep and a mess from the weeks of night terrors prior to the trial date.
2010 DV Trial – The Presiding, Judge Scott Gordon (Judge Lewis's superior) hears the evidence and "rejects" Pet request for a DVRO, because PET is the obvious aggressor/perpetrator - not the Resp (who took all appropriate steps to avoid incident). Astonishingly, Pet is allowed to re-file her request with Judge Thomas Trent Lewis (the same request Judge Gordon denied). During trial, Resp attorney catches Pet lying (perjury) on the witness stand and she admits Resp only moved a camera out of his face (which Pet shoved in his face by surprise); Pet retracts much worse allegations acknowledging she did not tell the truth. At trial Judge Lewis allows the illegal recording (the camera shoved in his face) without Resp consent (a civil rights violation - Pet should have been held liable not rewarded for illegal recordings and blatant entrap). Judge Lewis again awards his Beverly Hills partners in crime and ignores the clear entrapment and once again defies logic to award Pet. Petitioner acknowledges Resp was never violent, ever (past, present); however, for the next 6yrs the courts would sensationalize and highlight "violence" in court judgments and opinions, often indicating there was a pattern of violence...as you can see from the facts - Judge Thomas Trent Lewis as exhibited a far greater propensity of a pattern of violence than occurred in this case.
Click Here for Emails Prior to the Incident
Below is the 8-26-15 trial transcript (answers below are provided by Pet attorney) - Correct, in 2015 Judge Lewis continued to rule on the same DVRO the Presiding Judge rejected in 2010!! The Presiding Judge, The Hon. Scott M Gordon is now the head of Criminal Law - https://csudhbulletin.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/594/. The Abuse of Discretion by Judge Lewis in this matter is alarming, and includes violating The Doctrine of Res Judicata and Resp Civil Rights...more to be disclosed thru the civil case.
15 Q DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU FILED YOUR FIRST, THE
16 FIRST DVRO APPLICATION WHETHER IT WAS REJECTED BY THE
17 COURT?
18 A ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT WITH REGARD TO THE ONE
19 IN JULY OF 2010.
20 Q YES?
21 A THE REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY DOMESTIC
22 VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER IT WAS REJECTED BY JUDGE
23 GORDON A YES.
24 Q AND DID YOU EVER FIND OUT WHY IT WAS
25 REJECTED?
26 A NO IT DIDN'T MATTER IT WAS REJECTED.
Judge Thomas Trent Lewis is the Teflon Don of the judicial - Why? He is an extremely skilled/accomplished politician - look no further than his LinkedIn to see he is the judicial champion at networking among legal influencers. Which is why the norm/typical/logic, civil rights, embezzlement (Isaac's case) and the law does not apply when you are the target of Judge Lewis - just 2 days after the 8-26-15 trial Judge Lewis savagely hit Resp with a $75,000 judgment - Correct, for the same issue the Hon. Scott M. Gordon rejected in 2010. At this point Judge Lewis had stripped Resp of all assets and buried him in debtor’s prison ($100,000+ in debt), and he was unemployed!! There are supposed to be laws to protect those in Resp position (Google: ability to pay), laws don't matter when it comes to the courts voracity to punish the Resp – much like Janette – Judge Lewis sent Janette to jail for sending a birthday card to her son! - you have to be one mean/evil SOB to beat someone as he has beaten Janette and I - Police brutality typically involves one incident - Judge Lewis caries out his acts of brutality for many, many years. I rather Judge Lewis physically beat the hell out of me and got it over with.
The only evidence in the case was not admissible, it is illegal to secretly record without consent – why? As above demonstrates it is easy for an immoral party to manipulate/entrap/stage the recording – in addition you don’t see the other side of the camera and the face and actions of the other party - Pet in this case was elated (and flashing mischievous grin) that her plan/trap finally worked after many failed attempts to provoke the Resp.
The Leader of Petitioners Attorneys – An employee working for Petitioners attorney quit due to ethics/moral concerns while working for Pet attorney. The female employee's high morals/ethics would not allow her to continue her employment with Pet attorney, especially after he frequently boasted of encouraging his female clients to gain a court advantage by falsely claiming abuse – A victim of Domestic Violence she could not stomach such abuse of the legal process. Her declaration was shared with Judge Lewis - see excerpt at bottom of site, or Click Here. For gods sake! What more could Judge Lewis need right (Judge Gordon rejected the DVRO on significantly less grounds)??
Online, Pet attorney touts being an expert and specializing in false claims of DV (google false charges of domestic abuse Los Angeles family law – his firms name will appear). In addition to the former employee’s declaration, Resp provides declarations of legitimate victims of DV which demonstrate Pet actions were that of a perpetrator, not a victim. No victim would refuse to meet in a public location and refuse to call the police. There is no border-line/gray area here, absolutely nobody takes the actions of the Pet, her story is extremely implausible (the Easter Bunny is more plausible). I will provide exerts from additional declarations to demonstrate how powerful they are, there will be no question false claims of DV are far too easily rewarded by judges like Mr. Lewis.
Petitioner is onto her 3rd attorney (actually a gang of attorneys who frequently appear together in court against me In Pro Per/Easy Prey), her second attorney left the case due to conduct issues which even Judge Lewis called out. Her second attorney (whom the Petitioner had a personal relationship with) was under apprenticeship of the attorney mentioned above...apple does not fall far from the tree.
...Scary to think Pet attorneys could very easily be the next "Family" Law judges, many former attorneys with similar poor ethical and integrity standards already are.
DV Smokescreen – Judge Lewis’s "Trophy" – A DV provides significant grounds for a judge to severely punish their targeted party. All subsequent orders for the next 6 yrs Judge Lewis used the DV as a smokescreen to justify the brutal beatings Resp would receive in court, culminating in Judge Lewis's final judgment which was nothing short of a hate crime. As a result of the egomaniacs (Judge Lewis) determination to replace law enforcement (the appropriate institution), litigation for the DV exceeded $50,000 in attorney’s fees and Resp was penalized an additional $100,000+ - You/The tax payer paid well over a million. In addition, career opportunities were taken from Res and the emotional impact was as though Judge Lewis repeatedly beat the hell/life out of him and broke his spirit emotionally and financially (exactly what Judge Lewis did to Janette). The quote below (employee who worked for the Pet attorney) puts into perspective why law enforcement Must Not be circumvented by overzealous judges.
The Petitioner - 6 months into the divorce - Had roles been reversed Resp would have been sickened with guilt at this point and told Judge Lewis to give her a break. Not Resp ex, the evil of Judge Lewis was contagious and she would spend the next 6 yrs pursuing the destruction of his life. During that time she spent approx. $300,000 on attorney fees (gross by any standard - all funds Judge Lewis took from Resp to fund her egregious litigation), she often appeared with 3 attorneys in court against Resp (he was literately forced into In Pro Per - details provided soon)...like buzzards circling a wounded animal her attorneys went for the kill. In spite of the terror Resp has endured, he doesn't don't hold a grudge against her and would be happy to resume the amicable co-parenting shared before Judge Lewis intervened. Judge Lewis is the enabler, the sick/twisted/demented evil man who holds no value in a life, nor gives a damn about the best interest of a child. He made it too easy, she literally could get away with murder and at times nearly did.
The above resonates more if you switched gender roles, a father would never get away with the outrageously immoral actions of the Pet - regardless of a judges hate. Can you imagine if a dad moved away, quickly filed for divorce while admitting hating LA and acknowledging provoking the other party prior to the most immoral imaginable actions which leads to a DV award?? The Ronda Rousey domestic violence incident (link below) provides a great analogy - fitting "the punishment to the crime" - a comparison to the case above and the severe punishment the Resp received, wouldn't Ronda Rousey deserve life in prison? Of course not - I hope this example added a little perspective to why the DVRO laws must change.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2015/11/12/ronda-rousey-domestic-violence-autobiography/75652260/
ABOVE IS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
The retaliation by Judge Lewis intensified in 2012 when Respondent identified judicial tax fraud (IRS case# provided on request) and EVERY JUDGE in Los Angeles's central district disqualified in matters related to Respondents civil case against Judge Lewis...every judge except one...Judge Thomas Trent Lewis (whom he had the civil case against!!) Click here to view the recusal/disqualification of THE ENTIRE 2nd District Court of Appeals.
CONTEXT AND FACTS BELOW ARE MEANT TO ADD PERSPECTIVE
Fact: It costs approx. $20,000 per year to house a prisoner
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-average-cost-to-house-inmates-in-prison/
Fact: Due to limited state funding CA released 6,000 prisoners this year – 30,000 since 2011
http://time.com/4065359/california-prison-release-department-of-justice/
Fact: It cost $0 to engage the appropriate authority – "Law Enforcement" - for a Restraining Order (DVRO) – Click Here to view a powerful statement regarding the miscarriage of justice in this case.
Fact: To bypass the appropriate authority to pursue favor with your Family Law Judge the cost may exceed $1,000,000 (well over a million in this case), or the cost equivalent of housing approx. 6000+ prisoners.
Fact: Attend any of the court ordered training - Judges often foster worse case environments and high-conflict divorces – Judges like Lewis need training, especially anger management and ethics and integrity training (it has curbed police brutality). When you review the case timeline below, you will see it was a collaborative effort between judge and Petitioners unethical attorneys who staged this divorce from hell.
Judge Thomas Trent Lewis's new court house...
Central Civil West Courthouse
Central Civil West Courthouse
600 South Commonwealth Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90005
600 Commonwealth Los Angeles
Koch family has been making substantial donations to criminal justice reform organizations for decades, which could explain why police reform efforts are 10 years ahead of judicial reform. The Koch family involvement in judicial reform will champion another leap forward in bringing civility to another barbaric institution - Family Law. Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch — the two brothers still with Koch Industries — are affiliated with the Koch family foundations.[5]
ourfamilywizard, child alienation, Family, Law, Superior Court, Corruption, Constitutional Rights, Liberty Rights, Parental Rights, Winner takes all, Due Process, Fraud, Vexatious Litigant, Family Law Appeals, Divorce Corp, Father's Rights, Non-Custodial Parent, Joint Custody, Legal Abuse, Legal Abuse Syndrome, Power and Control, Domestic Violence, HAP, Hostile Agressive Parent, Children's Rights, Parental Alienation, Disqualification of Attorney, Judicial Abuse, due process, jurisdiction, Family courts, 14th amendment
ourfamilywizard, child alienation, Family, Law, Superior Court, Corruption, Constitutional Rights, Liberty Rights, Parental Rights, Winner takes all, Due Process, Fraud, Vexatious Litigant, Family Law Appeals, Divorce Corp, Father's Rights, Non-Custodial Parent, Joint Custody, Legal Abuse, Legal Abuse Syndrome, Power and Control, Domestic Violence, HAP, Hostile Agressive Parent, Children's Rights, Parental Alienation, Disqualification of Attorney, Judicial Abuse, due process, jurisdiction, Family courts, 14th amendment
below_is_an_email_prior_to_redact.pdf | |
File Size: | 414 kb |
File Type: |
status_quo_redact.pdf | |
File Size: | 314 kb |
File Type: |