Send a Message
to Lomtevas

Comments

452

Joined

Apr 12, 2007

Lomtevas Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Newport Beach, CA

michael j. naughton family court judge

That's why no one listens to you. A federal politician with no budget to balance and no limit to deficit spending will say that Uncle Sam's main purpose in life is to protect kids. Who'll disagree? A state politician with a budget to balance will always support protecting kids. A local politician will say he's all about protecting kids. There is no precedent in history whereby a good cause became the basis for arbitrage in a court. Even prohibition did not reach the courts. In family practice, the court becomes a policy arm of the executive and actually indulges in the profits that flow from top down. So cases are decided entirely upon the redirection of federal funding. The super lawyer enters the case, and by his words alone is able to cause the redirection. For example, super lawyer argues the mother and child are "conflictual " and a paid off psychologist agrees. Then a custodial flip shuts off child support matching funds. If the mother is moneyed or not, a new support order enters for further tactical purposes: fleecing the mother in return or incarcerating her if she cannot pay. The matching funds resume and the games have no end.  (Nov 22, 2013 | post #790)

Martinez, GA

Dr. Joseph Frey III - Custody Evaluator

You miss the purpose of the full panoply of family litigation. The federalization of family law - largely written by young conservatives - means that cruel results are possible. The vicious spouse who chooses to screw over the opponent can do so easily with federal family law. For example, a kid's custody can mean the imputation of whopping amounts of child support that can yield jail. Isn't jailing an adversary neat? How about lumping up child support arrears and waiving them if the adversary surrenders marital property in the state or even outside the state? How about getting a really negative psychological report about an adversary, and using it in other litigation? So family law is not about amicable divisions; it is about having fun. Court becomes an arena and the judge becomes a gladiator to entertain the winning side. Don't you understand this?  (Nov 18, 2013 | post #471)

Newport Beach, CA

michael j. naughton family court judge

You have to change the way you think. This isn't corruption because implementing federal family policy, which is the conscious objective of every judge no matter the level of experience, is paramount. Even the most inexperienced judge knows she must act in a way so that her decisions bring federal money to the state.  (Nov 18, 2013 | post #788)

Newport Beach, CA

michael j. naughton family court judge

You spend too much time focusing on things that don't matter. Family law is a code. Lawyers shoehorn situations to match the code to get results. Further, in family law, money flows from two directions: the Fed pays a mint to implement family policy; and parents pay a mint to get kids. The judge is charged with the duty to get the most federal money into the state system or he'll lose his job. The successful lawyer is the one who can swing the flow from the Fed to the state as well as shift net worth away from his adversary to his client. You'll find that successful lawyers are themselves members of the judiciary in some capacity. The confluence of the code and money is what you are experiencing, but you miss that point and dwell on "lying". Family law is all about the art of the lie. The 'maximum effective lie' is one which achieves results without lifting too many eyebrows. It is this threshold that maximizes the flow of money.  (Nov 18, 2013 | post #787)

Newport Beach, CA

michael j. naughton family court judge

Much depends upon who is the adversary's lawyer. It appears that judges pro tem take private cases and perform spectacular wins. Personal greed take priority over justice. You need to know all the players in a case and their political/legal affiliations. California is a strange place when it comes to statutory implementation. Wealthy people use the legal system to gain even more wealth through the orchestrated rip off of an unknowing litigant.  (Oct 16, 2013 | post #784)

Martinez, GA

Dr. Joseph Frey III - Custody Evaluator

Let's not limit our view to what happens in only our own case. The variations are numerous and the assembly of the characters in the courtroom is variable. The central idea is the manufacture of a bogus record that yields the children and the property to one side as opposed to the other. The two primary methods are the coerced settlement where the record is so stacked that the loser gives in and takes the loss. The other method is to go forth through trial and lose that way. It is questionable whether the average American judge realizes this is happening. Cases have to move along so if the characters in the courtroom speed a case to resolution, that is good news for the judge. Also realize the typical American judge hates matrimonial/family court. It is the entry-level court for new judges and the level of civil practice is well above the training and experience of the typical new judge. This is typically set up deliberately so that the inexperienced judge defers to the characters and goes along with their recommendations. Appellate courts will not challenge the findings in light of recommendations from the characters. The overall idea here is that despite a crushing loss, the final judgment is never final and the loser can return later and seek modification. Indeed, the circus continues while the child is a minor and eventually, the child masters the system and uses it to his advantage.  (Aug 11, 2013 | post #370)

Martinez, GA

Dr. Joseph Frey III - Custody Evaluator

It seems in very affluent jurisdictions, there has to be a channel to custody so the affluent man does not have to pay child support to the mother. The conduit to start this process is the lawyer - typically a "super lawyer" unaffiliated with "firms". This lawyer can be a part time judge. Fees exceed $500/hour. Once the wealthy client connects with the correct attorney, the correct psychologist is assigned and the clerk assigns the case to the correct judge. The mother's downfall is inevitable. In the wealthy dad scenario, mom loses contact with the kids tight away. Then she is forced out of the home. Then she is divested of her property. As for the custodial evaluator, the entire evaluation is a put on. Every negative inference that can be taken is taken against the innocent mother. This gives the judge a basis to destroy the mother.  (Aug 11, 2013 | post #368)

Martinez, GA

Dr. Joseph Frey III - Custody Evaluator

Remember that your attorneys are controlled and punished by their local disciplinary committees and that judges have a phone number to call to file a complaint on a lawyer. Your lawyer does not and cannot divulge to you the forensic report. It's contents is kept secret under the pretense that kids should not eventually have access to these reports. It will be 'too shocking for them to read' goes the truism. In actuality, these reports are bogus contrivances consisting largely of hearsay assertions of the parents skewed in favor of the intended winner. Some reports accuse the attorney of manipulation and without a rebuttal forensic report, lawyers can be and have been severely punished (those that do not fall in line with the government's apparatus). Without a collection of these reports, it will be impossible to write cogently about the specific violations of the APA Ethical Code being committed by the psychologist. All you can do is recall factual inaccuracies which carry very little weight against the psychologist. You cannot know whether a particular psychological principle was violated because you don't have the documentary evidence in your hands to pick it apart. Stated another way, whoever in federal government it was who set up these forensic interventions thought through very carefully how to hide the reality of what's going on from the common litigant. The litigant is clueless about psychologist ethics, knows nothing about mental health testing, knows nothing about the role of the court's psychologist and many times has no idea what the ultimate fees will be due the psychologist. Nonetheless, good luck.  (Dec 13, 2012 | post #298)

Martinez, GA

Dr. Joseph Frey III - Custody Evaluator

Complaining against court appointed psychologists requires two steps. First, google the American Psychological Association's web site to get the canons of psychologists' ethics (APA Ethical Guidelines) and pattern the facts of your complaint along the ethical provision being violated. Then, you have to file a copy of that complaint with the supervisor of the local court's mental health office that administers these psychologists. It's a little broad to cover typical psychologist failures here. Generally, like a judge, they cannot be biased or abusive. They must issue a retainer agreement and specify their exact role. They cannot lull you into a false sense of security making you think they are there "to help" you (to get you to spill your guts) but instead must reveal they are an agent of the court and must report everything they hear and see back to the court. They have to contact people you specify and read documents you provide. They typically prepare a boat load of hearsay to navigate the waters of the rules of evidence to land on the Mount Ararat of the judge's bench. Their forensic testing is usually improper: a sick-person test is given to a healthy person and the skewed results are used against the test taker - or the loser's lawyer. They testify in court peppering their testimony with psycho babble evading answers to questions: such as what authority guided you to make a certain conclusion ("a book on my shelf"). In the more absurd cases, they take up sexual relations with opposite sex litigants and even take bribes. These last two are impossible to prove, but the details of their work product are easier to disassemble. Here, the art of convolution is costing you your children and you have to develop the sophistication to tell when convolution is fraudulent.  (Dec 7, 2012 | post #283)

Martinez, GA

Dr. Joseph Frey III - Custody Evaluator

Then your complaints must address one of the canons of judicial conduct. Across the U.S., the model code looks like this: CANON 1 A judge shall uphold and promote the, independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Most complaints fall into the appearance of impropriety category. That's where the judge appears to form an opinion of a parent and then push the whole case in favor of the other side. This is all actually a way to speed a settlement, but judges do not pressure both sides; they ruin one side. An example here is blocking access to a child using an order of protection and then appointing a guardian ad litem and billing the losing parent to determine "whether alienation exists". Yet another example is throwing the parent's case if the guardian ad litem (or the custodial evaluator) complains to the judge that the loser did not pay him his fee. CANON 2 A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently. Here, the key issue is competence. The judge has to know the law of experts, the law of evidence and the rules of the administration of his court. One example here is taking expert witness testimony without ever formally qualifying the expert. Another example is after qualifying the expert, the judge blocks entry of the expert's report into evidence (if the report is disfavorable to the designated winner of the case). CANON 3 A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office. This one usually does not apply in the typical family case unless the judge is somehow related to the parents and is acting to ruin one parent. CANON 4 A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary. This one also does not typically apply. In some jurisdictions, a fifth canon applies: one that governs the judge's treatment of litigants in the court room. Typically, the judge must exercise the highest decorum and the most courteous treatment of litigants. Here, if the judge screams at a litigant or insults his lawyer openly, this triggers a complaint based upon that canon. Go to your state's specific provisions. Search for them on google. Pattern your complaints exactly along the lines of the individual canon being violated. Send a copy to your state's judicial conduct commission. Send copies to your state level judiciary committee leader and a copy to the federal General Accounting Office for their review as to fraud, waste and abuse of tax payer funds if federal family legislation is involved (CSSA, CAPTA, ASFA, UCCJEA, for example).  (Dec 6, 2012 | post #279)

Martinez, GA

Dr. Joseph Frey III - Custody Evaluator

You don't patch up guardian ad litem standards; you cut off funding for he whole scheme and eliminate guardians. You don't patch up psychologist's standards; you cut off funding to eliminate psychologists. The spigot pouring out all the money is in Washington, D.C.  (Nov 29, 2012 | post #271)

Martinez, GA

Dr. Joseph Frey III - Custody Evaluator

I disapprove of reform. This system of using children for the state to make money has its roots in federal law. For example, CSSA which compels child support is a federal rule intended to make daddies pay for their children so as to eliminate welfare. However, CSSA spread into the middle class because of lucrative federal payments to the states to help pay for their welfare systems. So for the state to get its money, they have to take away your kids. The use of psychologists makes this larceny by extortion appear legal and correct. There are numerous federal laws that make it easy, even necessary to remove a kid. These masquerade as state laws and are implemented in state court so you get the impression this is a state law unique to your case, The reality is that this system of child removal bolstering the receipt of federal money by the state occurs throughout this country and the method is identical: fathers never get custody and mothers always lose it. So patching up the problems as you see them your area alone will make no difference. Using the press will gain nothing. Hence, attacking this problem at the federal level is the answer, and in my view, if there is a choice between losing my child and losing my elected officials, my child remains with me.  (Nov 27, 2012 | post #265)

Orange County, CA

County Checked on Boy Found Dead

Vote your government out of office. This is because there is no one to complain to no matter how high you go. Congress established these federal family statutes with an eye toward streamlining these cases and doing a Judge Judy on litigants who needed it. What you see today is a bastardization of these principles to fleece all litigants of their money using these statutes.  (Feb 10, 2012 | post #883)

Newport Beach, CA

michael j. naughton family court judge

Every day I write about court frauds with the goal of educating people of what is going on nation wide. If you are a victim, you can join forces with others who were defrauded. If you are on the side that defrauds litigants, you will be written up in detail and exposed.  (Feb 2, 2012 | post #704)

Martinez, GA

Dr. Joseph Frey III - Custody Evaluator

This is difficult in most cases. Judges are taught in judging school that the court system's professionals are infallible by their membership in the court apparatus. So, the judge will take steps to prevent your privately retained expert from taking the stand. This is usually done by the adversary calling for a voir dire of the expert where the judge decides the expert is not qualified to testify. In extreme cases, the judge will decide without voir dire that a certain expert is not qualified to testify. The judge will focus on a lack of licensure (which is not required by Frye/Daubert) or limitations as to practice acts. So it's not that simple to bring another psychologist to court to rebut a connected crony.  (Jan 28, 2012 | post #115)

Q & A with Lomtevas

Headline:

Parental Alienation Attorney

Hometown:

Forest Hills, N.Y.

Neighborhood:

Ozone Park

Local Favorites:

City Family Courts

I Belong To:

A few Bar Associations

When I'm Not on Topix:

I have a life

I'm Listening To:

Politicians' speeches

Read This Book:

Children of the Dragonfly

Favorite Things:

law and order

On My Mind:

how to get parents their kids back

Blog / Website / Homepage:

www.lomtevas.com

I Believe In:

family integrity and unity with no government intervention