Please Note: This page is still a work in process (requiring final edits) and more case studies are forthcoming...
PARENTS AGAINST JUDICIAL BULLIES
“Life is a ﬁght, but not everyone’s a ﬁghter. Otherwise, bullies would be an endangered species.”
― Andrew Vachss
In a system where those of very low character often thrive, there is hope for justice. The collective efforts of Janette Isaacs, Laura Lynn, Donna D'Errico and Locatelli demonstrate justice will eventually prevail. In spite of years of severe judicial brutality, all four remained resilient and pursued every forum available to them until justice was served – Ultimately all four escaped Judge Thomas Trent Lewis (profiled below). Those who champion for justice no longer stand alone against judicial bullies, the voice for justice is louder than ever and significantly gaining momentum.
Our chronologies of extreme "Winner-Take-All" divorces reveal nearly every "Abuse of Discretion" prevalent in Family Law; therefore, we will identify the issue (e.g. Move-Away) and provide you with the case law/precedence the court violated. Please Note: The links in blue provide examples for context purpose only, eventually our goal is to simplify case law for non-attorney's, which in turn will limit the rampant abuse of discretion against those unable to afford counsel (i.e. remove unnecessary complexities and ambiguities and you limit rogue judicial rule).
THE ISAACS CASE
THE LOCATELLI CASE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION – MOVE-AWAY CASE
Other terms for Abuse of Discretion include prejudice, discrimination, bias, and subjectivity
*Petitioner - Mom | Respondent/Locatelli - Dad
2008-most of 2009 – Mom and Dad separated after 8 yrs. of marriage and Dad moved out of the San Diego home to a nearby apartment (due to moral 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 which both parties honored in the best interest of their daughter – Prior to the divorce Mom and Dad had a proven track record of working together in the best interest of their daughter during an approx. year-long separation.
Summer 2009 - Mom 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 - Mom was unemployed prior to her LA employment; however, within 3 months of moving to LA she began meeting with a *"Beverly Hills" Law Firm! Mom indicated her attorney was encouraging her to file for a divorce in LA due to a significant mother bias in the courts and warned Dad : “I would need to be a drug addict, suicidal or abusive to our daughter for a judge to take a child (a daughter!) away from the mother.” Mom's new sense of entitlement would significantly alter the once amicable co-parenting relationship... The Mother entitlement escalated when she begin threatening Dad to forgo shared custody because as a father the court will force an every other weekend custody order.
* How does a Family Law Firm afford the highest priced real estate in the country? Read on...
December 2009 - Mom filed for Divorce in LA a few short months after leaving her longtime home in San Diego - the only home she knew in the US. In emails and in testimony, Mom expressed she hated LA and blamed Dad for forcing her to move to LA…Mom wanted to return to Australia; however, Dad made it clear the Hague Convention would treat a move to Australia as kidnapping and return their daughter to her home country.
2009 Christmas Holiday, Parenting Plans Broken – Mom 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 Mom reneged on the agreement and demanded Dad agree to an every other weekend schedule, or he would not see his daughter. Dad did not have an attorney; therefore, he called the Police for advisement. The Police stated the mother cannot keep him from his daughter and told him to get his daughter from pre-school like he normally would. When Dad picked up his daughter Mom arrived at the pre-school to stop Dad from seeing his daughter. Mom called her attorney and handed the phone to Dad, the attorney threatened to take his daughter from him unless he agreed to an every other weekend schedule. The police were called and the police had Mom and Dad sign an agreement to share custody of their daughter –i.e. to keep the established parenting plan.
Early 2010 - At the custody trial Mom's attorney literally argued for a mother gender bias (see direct testimony below) and demanded Judge Lewis break the co-parenting plan in favor of Mom; Dads attorney argued to continue the parenting plan (literally asking for the status quo) and pleaded with the court for ADR help (evaluation, or other conflict resolution professional). According to case law, Dad did everything right; however, Moms actions were counter to ALL factors which the court is to consider in a Move-Away case. In spite of the law and overwhelming evidence, Judge Thomas Trent favored Mom. The court order devastated Dad and his extended family and would literally split a family indefinitely. The order also became a significant enabler for further contentious behavior from Mom…Mom would no longer work with Dad on ANYTHING, rather than promote the best interest of the child, the courts blatant Abuse of Discretion would create the absolute worst case environment imaginable for the families and child involved. See 2011 timeline below, a child custody evaluator would eventually change the courts order, calling the 2010 order “absurd”.
6 THE COURT: WHY WOULDN'T IT BE TOO MUCH TIME AWAY
7 FROM THE FATHER AS WELL?
8 COUNSEL: WELL, IT IS. BUT I THINK AT TWO AND
9 A HALF, I THINK THE CHILD NEEDS MOM MORE.
10 THE COURT: YOU DO?
11 COUNSEL: I DO. I THINK THE LITERATURE SAYS
12 THAT. WHEN THE CHILD GETS A LITTLE BIT OLDER, MAYBE A
13 WEEK ON AND WEEK OFF
* To better understand Moms attorney's highly immoral tactics/approach to Family Litigation - See Intent to Entrap - #6 below.
1 COUNSEL: YOUR HONOR, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT
2 THE STATUS QUO OF SHARED CUSTODY, AT LEAST TEMPORARILY
3 GOING FORWARD, AS A TEMPORARY ORDER IS IN THE BEST
4 INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, PURSUANT TO WHICH THERE WOULD BE
5 ALTERNATING ONE WEEK PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD WITH
6 EXCHANGE HALFWAY IN BETWEEN. THAT WOULD REALLY, IN
7 EFFECT, MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.
8 THE PETITIONER HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY
9 EVIDENCE AS TO WHY THAT ARRANGEMENT IS NOT IN THE BEST
10 INTERESTS OF THE CHILD,WHEN IT CERTAINLY IS IN THE BEST
11 INTERESTS THAT THERE BE CONTINUED AND FREQUENT CONTACT
12 WITH BOTH PARENTS. THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE HAS BEEN
13 THAT THERE HAS BEEN CONTINUED SHARED CUSTODY, AT LEAST
14 BEGINNING IN APRIL (2009), AND IN PERIODS OF TIME THAT
15 PETITIONER HAS ADMITTED THAT THERE WERE WEEKS AT A TIME
16 WHEN CUSTODY -- THE RESPONDENT HAD SOLE PHYSICAL CUSTODY
17 OF THE MINOR CHILD DOWN IN SAN DIEGO.
Similar to the Hague Convention, County jurisdiction is established through case law; the case law in “move-away” cases #1 Does NOT support rewarding Mom for breaking the parenting plan to deny and frustrate Dads custodial time; #2 Does NOT support Mom moving away from the family home to a location Mom did not want to live. Ironically, Dads San Diego family and daughter would have been better protected had Mom fled to Australia.
In addition, had this case gone in front of a progressive ADR court this case ends amicably in 2010 and the court would have recognized parents often know best and should be encouraged to work together; instead the party who broke the parenting plan and demanded a mother bias during trial was awarded! This case demonstrates the significance of ADR and the consequences when a judge is averse to ADR.
ABUSE OF DISCRETION – WINNER-TAKE-ALL / LEVELING OF THE PLAYING FIELD / RIGHT TO COUNSEL / DEBTORS PRISON
*Significant detail left out to highlight the key areas of abuse of discretion
Click Here- To put faces to the losers in Judge Thomas Trent Lewis Winner-Take-All divorce (not pictured, the taxpayers).
2012-2013 Property & Assets Trial - The trial court rushed the case to trial (*without cause) forcing Locatelli’s counsel to withdraw, because he could not adequately put on a case in the time the court allowed! Locatelli's attorney, among the best in the business, upon his withdraw stated he could not ethically represent Locatelli due to the cases complexity and shortened time to trial. A seasoned attorney with over 25 yrs experience could not represent Locatelli; however, the court forced Locatelli to proceed on his own with no/zero experience - against a Goliath Beverly Hills Law Firm! Judge Lewis knows full well the ease at which a party afforded counsel will exploit a self-represented party; Judge Lewis participated in the Elkin's Task Forcewhich reported a 75% pro se failure rate when the other party is afforded counsel. The failure rate for a remote pro-se (Locatelli) is 90%; therefore, Judge Lewis knowingly set Locatelli's opportunity for a fair trial @10%, before commencement of the trial. Forced into Pro Per (anointed to overnight attorney status), Locatelli was NOT allowed access to legal services the opposing counsel was afforded, including paralegal support and court systems only available to attorneys (Dissomaster, etc.).
*Without Cause: The Judgment was not final until a year following the start of the trial; therefore, the court was without cause to rush the case to trial.
Compounding the position to fail which the court placed Locatelli, he was denied his legal right to “Meet-and-Confer”. Without opportunity to vet trial requirements and opposing counsel positions and documents, the following would occur ...Locatelli was not allowed to present witnesses, Mom's significant Community Assets were never disclosed and Mom was awarded Locatelli's Separate Property, in spite of testifying the assets in question were Locatelli's separate property. In addition, the court misplaced/lost Locatelli’s documents prior to trial and later would not allow Locatelli to re-enter his exhibits! - a scenario avoided by a Meet-and-Confer (click on the title to further appreciate the importance). Further alarming details are provided in Locatelli's Declaration, which he provided to another Pro Per experiencing similar circumstances (Judge Lewis's blatant egregious favoritism toward the party afforded counsel).
Concurrent with the complex property assets trial, the court held a trial to extend a fraudulent DVRO indefinitely (see below). Locatelli now had TWO complex trails without representation - against an entire law firm!! To understand the duress, Locatelli's financial life was at stake in a David vs. Goliath match-up; while at the same time he had to contend and defend against extremely emotional false allegations against him. Faced with overwhelming circumstance, Locatelli's actual profession greatly suffered and he was put on a performance review (damaging his once stellar reputation) - The significant duress of becoming an overnight attorney and traveling from San Diego to LA to attend numerous trial dates had become more than he could handle. In addition, Locatelli was closing escrow on the community home and dealing with a difficult buyer - without support from Mom - and he moved twice during the trial.
...add your quotes here, the court forced Locatelli to "bring a pencil to a gun fight", "David vs. Goliath"...
2012/2013 Property & Assets Judgment Revisions – Judge Lewis’s initial judgment [Exhibit 14] (order #1) looked nothing like the final order [Exhibit 15] (order #2) – why? Opposing counsel practically re-wrote the entire judgment/order on *objection (Judge Lewis literally gave them a blank check to re-write his order - order #2). Judge Lewis previously set a hearing date for both parties to represent their objections; however, he later revoked the hearing and accepted nearly all of opposing counsels numerous objections –which obviously resulted in a significant financial variance in Petitioners favor (imagine you get to write your own order on objection!!) - Locatelli challenges anyone (any judge, attorney...anyone period) to explain the discrepancies between Judge Lewis's order #1 and the final order #2 opposing counsel prepared.
*Objections are typically denied by the ruling judge, and never accepted in their entirety (as occurred in this matter). Locatelli (or any pro se) was ill equipped to contest objections; therefore, when Judge Lewis did not honor (broke his word) the opportunity for a hearing on objections Locatelli was denied due process to contest the objections (opposing counsel virtually had a “blank check” to write their own order).
2012/2013 Property & Assets Judgment – The judgment was worse case (no shock). The approx. $200,000 deviation in Petitioner’s favor was well above the baseline established during financial mediation (mediation is meant to be consistent with how a judge would rule). Besides grossly awarding Petitioner, Judge Lewis froze Locatelli’s assets (only his assets) to ensure he would not have representation at future trials. FOUR additional trials would ensue through 2015…all 4 would be increasingly devastating until leaving Locatelli with excessive debt and less time with his daughter.
May 2014 Fees/*Sanctions - Judge Lewis continued the hearing and gave his oath to look for and provide the courts prior order (from a previous matter) which neither party received! Upon starting the hearing, opposing counsel ambushed Locatelli with volumes of pleadings/exhibits which required Locatelli to go to his car to store the excess documents. In route to his car, Judge Lewis called Petitioner and her counsel and held the hearing absent Locatelli (who would return in a reasonable time)! Petitioner (local to courthouse) has been late on several occasions, each time she delays a proceeding the court goes to great extent to contact her on her cell phone. On at least 2 occasions, Judge Lewis continued the hearing into the afternoon session to accommodate Petitioner. Unlike Petitioner, Locatelli must drive up from San Diego, yet he has never been late to a proceeding in 6 yrs.; however, in spite of good cause, the court would not attempt to contact Locatelli on his cell phone, or allow him a reasonable opportunity to return to the courthouse. The court would award Petitioner over $40,000 in Locatelli's absence!
10 RESPONDENT: I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE ORDER OF
11 MY RESPONSE FOR DIQAULIFICATION.
12 THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, WE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH A
13 COPY OF THAT TODAY.
Neither opposing counsel, or Locatelli received the courts order and the court could not find the order in the file; therefore the court continued the hearing. When a judge continues a hearing and gives an oath to provide an order from the prior hearing --Must parties ask is this a trick? Is the court lying to me? The mockery of justice was not even the courts deception, this trial should not have been calendared- The court set precedence with the following matter (2015 Fees/Sanctions) by bifurcating and continuing fees and sanctions since 2010; the only explanation to hold the 2014 Fees/Sanctions trial was opposing counsel needed more money to fund their lopsided onslaught against Locatelli in pro-per...
*Sanctions - In most courts sanctions consider ability to pay and are a couple thousand dollars (as was the case when Mom was sanctioned); however, sanctions against Locatelli have reached approx. $200,000 ("ironically", the same amount opposing counsel required to continue their out-of-control 6 yr. litigation against Locatelli). Sanctions reaching this level are levied against the very wealthy, never against someone in Locatelli's financial position unless ulterior motive/malice are at play - we highlighted mom's bad faith and fraudulent actions in her willfull intent to evade disclosure (above), which she committed with legal counsel; in contrast Locatelli acted in good faith, but made mistakes while disclosing community property "without counsel" and was sanctioned at an alarming level.
2015 Fees/Sanctions Judgment -The August 26, 2015 Fees/Sanctions trial involved matters dating back to 2010! Over SIX years the court bifurcated and continued the matter, for SIX years Locatelli had to live with the concern and anxiety of this trial. Finally, on August 26, 2015 the trial court, Judge Thomas Trent Lewis, abuse of discretion would reach unconscionable levels (by any standard) - The court literally ordered the now indigent party to pay the wealthy parties fees + a hefty sanction which further widened the already egregiously lopsided Winner-Take-All divorce. The indigent Locatelli (now depleted of his lifesaving) and forced into pro per actually funded his own demise from a significant debt position (paying for opposing counsel while not afford counsel himself); while, Petitioner (now living above the marital standard of living) was afforded legal excess and would often appear in court with THREE attorneys against a hapless Pro Per – it’s been like “shooting fish in a barrel” for Petitioner’s counsel. The case history in this dissolution matter demonstrates when the court has an aversion to ADR and “Leveling The Playing Field” the party afford counsel can/often literally take the life of the party without counsel. Locatelli has appealed the $65,000 judgment (compounded with interest) which he likely will never be able to repay on top of the existing significant divorce debt (i.e. Debtors Prison).
Finally, the judge would prepare his own 2015 Order after allowing opposing counsel a blank check to write the prior lopsided orders - However, if you read the courts order, you will understand why the court allowed opposing counsel to write the previous orders. The courts order is riddled with fatal errors and provides No/Zero basis for the egregious sanction/penalty against an indigent Locatelli. Also, the order sensationalizes a slight variance in Locatelli's "unemployment" income (EDD); while ignoring the following THREE significant facts: #1 Mom understated her income by $100,000; #2 Mom understated her assets by greater 1/2 a Million; #3 Mom did not disclose $200,000 in community assets; #4 Opposing counsels total fees were understated by $100,000+ (so the lopsided litigation would not appear as gaudy). Another monumental fact the court ignored - Opposing counsel refused to provide exhibits for the trial, which they acknowledged on the record- The court determined Locatelli was not privy to opposing counsel's exhibits!! Maybe the court felt it made progress by allowing Locatelli to be present at this trial?!
Note: The courts order demonstrates a complete disregard to the IRS (Dad has significant IRS debt) and will impose certain bankruptcy; therefore, incurring further litigation!! The order suggests Locatelli pay the judgment via high-interest credit card balances – can you name any credit card which will allow a $65,000 cash advance to someone in Locatelli’s position?!
The Isaacs and Locatelli cases share a common link, they both challenged the courts unconstitutional supplemental benefits/kick-backs – See our “Judicial Fraternity” page for more detail. Janette was co-chair of the Friends of Free Richard I. Fine coalition and frequently appeared on various Full Disclosure Network video broadcasts. Locatelli took matters a step forward and filed a Civil Case against Judge Thomas Trent Lewis, which led to the disqualification of the ENTIRE Los Angeles Judicial – Every Los Angeles Superior Court and Appellate Court Judge disqualified (see 2DCA Recusal) in matters relating to the civil case except one – Judge Thomas Trent Lewis. In fact, Judge Lewis refused to recuse in spite of losing judicial immunity – The San Diego Superior Court denied his immunity request and declared Judge Lewis an individual – Tom Trent Lewis. Judge Lewis’s vigor/determination to punish Locatelli reached alarming proportions when Judge Lewis illegally transferred Locatelli’s case to his new court following his demotion and transfer. Judge Lewis literally committing mutiny to carry out his vendetta against Locatelli - His supervisor/superior, the Presiding Judge, ordered Locatelli’s case to a new judge – See ABUSE OF DISCRETION - PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE below...
Indisputable Fact: Locatelli’s financial devastation was a direct result of the egregious imbalance in legal representation - Although anointing Locatelli to act as his own attorney weeks prior to a complex property and assets trial, the court PROHIBITED him from legal advisement - THIS IS NOT A TYPO?! Had there been the slightest balance in legal representation: #1 Opposing counsel would NOT have received a "blank check" to write their own orders/judgments (on objection!!); #2 Petitioner would NOT have evaded discovery (Petitioner never disclosed over $200,000 in community assets, the court gave her a pass on her legal obligation, so she could keep this money too!) #3 Locatelli’s assets would NOT have been the only assets frozen in the judgment (the court set aside significant funding only for Petitioner’s pending litigation); #4 The court would NOT have taken the opportunity to bludgeoned Locatelli when he went to his car - due to the courts own continuance
Allowing Locatelli counsel certainly would have stopped the court from pursuing debtors prison and would have significantly inhibited Petitioner from overzealously pursuing her THREE additional fees and sanctions demands which only ensued because Locatelli was extremely easy prey as a pro se. This case demonstrates the ease at which a party afforded counsel can exploit the party not afforded counsel. The Our Family Law civil case will help ensure the exploitation of the self-represented (parents/families/children) is no longer a common/accepted practice in court proceedings.
...See "Leveling of the Playing Field" on our Case Law page to understand the egregious Abuse of Discretion in the Locatelli case, and the courts direct defiance of the Supreme Courts directive following the landmark Pro Per / Pro Se civil rights case - Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337
ABUSE OF DISCRETION - FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
No civil liberty is sacred in the trial courts unconscionable pursuit to punish Locatelli, not even the First Amendment. While friends and family raised their children with spiritual and positive values within their church community, the court would not allow Father/Daughter this once revered civil liberty. Over $30,000 was paid to an evaluator, Dr. Mary Lund (an acknowledged friend of the court), to instruct Judge Lewis he could not revoke Appellant’s Religious Freedom under the US Constitution. Unfortunately, the irreparable damage to Locatelli and his family cannot be undone. [Exhibit 43 7-16-14 transcript p39-40]
28 PETITIONERS COUNSEL: BASED ON THE JUDGMENT, YOUR HONOR.
1 THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO. YOU MADE AN ORDER
2 SPECIFIC TO RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES.
3 THE COURT: WHAT DID I SAY?
4 MR. MC EACHERN: I'LL HAVE TO FIND THE JUDGMENT,
5 BUT IT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE PARTIES SHALL AGREE ON
6 RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES.
7 THE COURT: THEN I SHOULDN'T HAVE MADE THAT ORDER.
8 SO WE'LL TALK ABOUT VACATING THAT ORDER WHEN THE TIME
During the most impressionable period of their daughters life, Mom and her attorneys would threaten Dad with severe sanctions and worse - removing Dad's time with his daughter - if Dad took his daughter to church, the same church Mom and Dad were blessed for their marriage!! Prior to the courts order, Mom worked with Dad and encouraged their daughter to attend pre-school at a church which held a daily prayer. When Father/Daughter were allowed to attend church, her joy of sharing this positive experience with her Dad was infectious and she was frequently praised for her positive and friendly spirit. However, once the court stole Father/Daughters religious freedom their positive experiences with family and friends was forever lost.
The cost to overturn Judge Thomas Trent Lewis's violation of Locatelli's First Amendment rights was approx. $100,000. The exorbitant cost of violating Locatelli's civil rights was not the courts to bear, it fell solely on Locatelli to shoulder.
ABUSE OF DISCRETION - FALSE ALLEGATION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE, LEGAL ABUSE, DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ILLEGALLY OBTAINED RECORDING WITH INTENT TO ENTRAP
The trial court, Judge Thomas Trent Lewis, improperly awarded Petitioner/Mom for the DV TRO. As the record indicates, Mom initially sought a DV TRO before the Presiding Judge, Scott M. Gordon. The application was denied. Incredibly, Mom subsequently filed an application for the same DV TRO before Judge Lewis who granted the request on the exact same evidence as was presented to Judge Gordon. [Exhibit #2 p38] Transcript below -Moms counsel references the rejected restraining order from Hon. Scott M Gordon.
4 Q DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU FILED YOUR FIRST --
24 0826 PETITIONERS COUNSEL FINAL
5 THE FIRST DVRO APPLICATION WHETHER IT WAS REJECTED BY
6 THE COURT?
7 A ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT WITH REGARD TO THE ONE
8 IN JULY OF 2010?
9 Q YES.
10 A THE REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY DOMESTIC
11 VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER WAS REJECTED BY JUDGE GORDON,
13 Q AND DID YOU EVER FIND OUT WHY IT WAS
15A NO, IT DIDN'T MATTER, IT WAS REJECTED.
The second application of Petitioner/Mom before Judge Lewis should have been barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Moreover, since Locatelli prevailed on the first application, it should have been a “wash” on the issue of attorney’s fees. Instead, Mom was rewarded for re-litigating the same issue with an award of fees for both applications. Again, Locatelli was also denied access to representation in additional proceedings as well. During the 2nd preceding, Judge Lewis's abuse of discretion included permitting an illegal recording...[Exhibit 27 p18] Petitioner secretly records with intent to entrap Locatelli – Moms only evidence. The hypocrisy and blatant gender bias of this ruling was demonstrated when the court advised Locatelli not to incriminate himself by secretly recording, Locatelli’s recording was of his daughter not Mom. Excerpts of the transcripts clearly outline Moms premeditated actions to entrap Dad, Mom executed the script her attorney outlined to perfection (See point #6 below) - Question: Would you move away a camera which was quickly shoved in your face by a belligerent person aggressively seeking a reaction?
The miscarriage of justice continued with a 3rd DV when the trial court awarded Mom for bad faith actions and blatant retaliation which the court acknowledged (Mom was sanctioned)! [Exhibit 10] Mom signed a Stay Away stipulation which she reneged, because Locatelli filed a RFO, had Locatelli literally waited One Day to file his RFO, the Stay Away Stip. would have been executed. Locatelli’s legitimate RFO was awarded and Mom was sanctioned for her bad faith actions.
Continuing a pattern of hypocrisy, gender bias and abuse of discretion the court awarded Mom for blatant legal abuse and domestic violence against Locatelli Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq. The brief facts in the DVRO below leave absolutely no doubt this DVRO is fraudulent and it was Mom who perpetrated domestic violence against Locatelli. Had Locatelli known Mom's actions below constitute Domestic Violence, he could have filed a TRO against Mom to stop Mom's provoking attempts and most importantly to protect his family from Judge Thomas Trent Lewis.
1. Petitioner acknowledged several provoking attempts prior to the incident and refused to meet Locatelli in a public location, emails confirm – [Exhibit 21]. On the day of the incident, Petitioner left her secured parking area to park next to Locatelli, which she never had before. Then, she proceeded to argue/pick a fight with him on the way to his car. At the opportune time, she would shove a camera in his face which he naturally moved out of his face. Throughout the incident Petitioner refused to involve the police, in spite of Locatelli's pleas for law enforcement intervention/mediation.
2. Petitioner’s predatory actions included refusing to leave Locatelli’s car on the prior exchange and eliciting argument at every opportunity which often included Locatelli's family. If roles were reversed could Locatelli get a DVRO against the clear perpetrator, Mom?
3. On the stand Locatelli’s counsel caught Petitioner with perjury, [Exhibit 28 p44] and she retracted false allegations that he hit her and admitted he merely moved the camera out of his face. She further affirmed there has never been violence at anytimeever [Exhibit 41, p10]
THE COURT: WAS HE EVER VIOLENT TOWARDS YOU, ABUSED
THE WITNESS: NO.
4. 2010 Father’s Day Weekend Tragedy - Their daughter reacts to salmonella during Dads time with his daughter, during the peak of the salmonella Dad takes his daughter to the bathroom nearly every 15 mins for a 48 hr. period – both are exhausted; although, his daughter holds her Daddy's hand throughout never letting go (Dad even holding her hand laying on the floor of the bathroom exhausted). Dad is extremely scared and keeps Mom posted, Mom is fully aware her daughter requires repeated trips to the bathroom for severe diarrhea and dry heaves. In spite of their daughters severe condition, Mom demands their daughter drive to LA Sat and return Sunday morning to San Diego during the father’s day weekend…This Monster (Lewis) would not even allow Dad the full father’s day weekend with his daughter.
5. Using their daughter as a pawn, Mom leveraged her life-threatening illness as bait to provoke an argument after trying other means to provoke a reaction failed. Only on the onset of the illness, Mom refused to allow her daughter to take the community dog to her father’s house, before and after the illness she happily shared the dog. [Exhibit 21]. Father requested to resolve the community dog issue in the proper venues, court, or with law enforcement – Mom refused both. Out of concerns for Mom's behavior Dad insisted they involve the police - Mom vehemently refused to call the police!...why involve the police, knowing she had a judge in her pocket.
6. As outlined above, Judge Lewis frequently abused his discretion and ignored significant facts in the case, including testimony from an employee who worked for Moms attorney who testified she quit her employment, because Moms attorney encouraged his clients to claim abuse to gain a court advantage! The employee (a legitimate domestic violence victim) quit because she ethically could not stomach Moms attorneys abuse of the legal process...clearly Judge Lewis is guided by a much lower moral standard. Please see her powerful Declaration which includes the appropriate procedure in domestic violence matters.
Note: Mom's second attorney, from the same Beverly Hills Law Firm was removed due to conduct issues. The Beverly Hills Law Firm in question, they blog and tout themselves as experts in false allegations of domestic violence (Locatelli confirms)...and the ease at which accusers manipulate the court.
2012 order, Judge Lewis hammered Locatelli with a lifetime DVRO in spite of acknowledging Petitioner pursued the lifetime DVRO out of retaliation - DVRO's are supposed to be renewed every 5 yrs.. In addition, the court's abuse of discretion would result in years of adverse lopsided rulings and blatant discrimination against Locatelli - The judge using a DVRO as smokescreen to divert attention from the judicial brutality occurring against Dad, which follows the same pattern in the Janette Isaacs case.
The involvement of a Family Law Judge in DVRO was not intended to circumvent the proper authorities – law enforcement. To encourage a party to circumvent law enforcement is an absolute abuse of the legal process and an invitation to litigate out of control (i.e. what has occurred in this case). The miscarriage of justice in this case is staggering – in 2010, the Hon. Judge Gordon intended to end Mom’s legal abuse; however, in 2016 the DVRO continues to be litigated to bloated proportion resulting in unconscionable punishment of Locatelli (capital punishment is clearly not warranted). Ironically, had the proper authorities been engaged litigation would have ended in 2010 at virtually no cost, and the parties would have resumed their post-divorce lives – in 2010! To help place things into perspective – Judge Lewis’s elicitation of legal abuse has incurred a cost equivalent to housing several maximum security prisoners.
Throughout the divorce, Locatelli pleaded with the court for help, in most of his declaration's Locatelli highlighted to the court a request for professional help. Help to steer the adversarial divorce back towards the amicable relationship the parties held prior to the divorce - during their year-long separation. In addition, Locatelli's attorney (see move-away) attempted to set the appropriate tone for the divorce by requesting greater ADR intervention - This divorce was the perfect candidate for a "Triage ADR Model" which would have provided the tools and resources both parties needed to avoid an adversarial divorce; while ensuring the judge did not compound the problem.
ABUSE OF DISCRETION - PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
The right to exercise a peremptory challenge under section 170.6 is a substantial right and an important part of California's system of due process that promotes fair and impartial trials and confidence in the judiciary. Courts must refrain from any tactic or maneuver that has the practical effect of diminishing this important right.” (Hemingway, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1158, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 363.)
(1) There is no evidence the presiding/supervising judge ever delegated any assignment power to the judge Lewis (Hemingway, at pp. 1154, 1155, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 363); In fact [Exhibit 8] - In fact, the Presiding Judges January 27,2015 Notice to Attorneys states: “Effective February 2, 2015 at the Stanley Most Courthouse all cases currently assigned to Judge Thomas Trent Lewis in Department 79 will be transferred to Department 27 and assigned to Judge Kathleen O. Diesman.”
(2) Rules adopted in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 981.13 This provision requires that each court publish its local rules controlling the practice or procedure of a court, or judge, and make copies available for distribution to attorneys and litigants. ‘Local rule’ is defined as ‘every rule, regulation, order, policy, form, or standard of general application adopted by a court to govern practice or procedure in that judge's courtroom.’ Should the presiding judge choose to delegate any aspect of his or her authority to another judge, adequate notice must be given so litigants and lawyers can make intelligent decisions regarding the filing of disqualification motions.” The aforementioned Notice to Attorneys was just that – A notice to attorneys only.
(3) Judge Lewis did NOT hold jurisdiction when he transferred the trial with him from the Central Court House to a new “Long Cause” jurisdiction. Locatelli's case did not fit the parameters of a “Long Cause” case matter and should have remained in the Central Court House per the discretion of the Presiding Judge. In fact: Judge Lewis acted with egregious Abuse of Discretion and absolute mutiny following his demotion/transfer when he disregarded direct orders from the new Presiding Judge - The second ruling in which he would overrule the Presiding Justice (his direct supervisor/boss) to propagate excessive litigation. [Exhibit 9] (February 9 2015 transcript, p3 ln25) On the record Judge Lewis states: “YOUR CASE CAME WITH ME BY MY ORDER, NOT BY JUDGE MAREN NELSON'S ORDER”. Judge Lewis goes on to misstate the facts by indicating the case was “IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF ATTORNEY'S FEES”. In fact: the case was nowhere near ready for trial, a trial which was not held for another 8 months! Over the next 8 months, Judge Lewis would continue the trial several times and on each occasion he asked for additional pleadings at great expense to all parties. There certainly was no expeditious justification for the transfer. The transfer only furthered Moms already immense advantage by introducing additional complexities for the pro se Locatelli including a requirement for a “Case in Chief” which was fitting for “Long Cause” cases, not Locatelli's. In addition: #1 In spite of the immense documentation requirements “post” transfer, the court would not allow Locatelli electronically filing from San Diego #2 Locatelli would have to track down orders in 2 separate courthouses – None of these complexities are introduced had the trial remained in the proper court, per the Presiding Judge.
Jurisdiction lies in the court and not a particular judge. (People v. Osslo (1958) 50 Cal. 2d 75, 103 [323 P.2d 397]; see also 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) § 50, Courts, p. 65.) TheOsslo court held "[a]n individual judge (as distinguished from a court) is not empowered to retain jurisdiction of a cause. The cause is before the court, not the individual judge of that court, and the jurisdiction which the judge exercises is the jurisdiction of the court, not of the judge." (People v. Osslo, supra, 50 Cal. 2d at p. 104.).
This principle applies to post-dissolution proceedings. In In re Marriage of Matthews (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 811, 815-816 [161 Cal. Rptr. 879], the appellate court held the trial court's personal retention of jurisdiction was beyond the court's authority. Here, also, Judge Mitchell was without power to reserve personal jurisdiction over this cause. Thus, an order to that effect was beyond the court's jurisdiction and could not have been enforced. (Id. at p. 816.).
As supported by Hemingway v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 363 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) and the reasons identified above, Locatelli's peremptory challenge is not untimely as Judge Lewis contends. Judge Lewis also contends there is no transfer involved it was a reassignment; however, the courts own press release clearly states a transfer occurred and parties were to be notified.
Prior to the aforementioned transfer, TWO separate attorneys took the extraordinary step to recuse Judge Thomas Trent Lewis due to the egregious bias against Locatelli. In 30 yrs. practicing law Locatelli's first attorney never filed for a recusal, Judge Lewis's would be his first! EVEN opposing counsel questioned if Judge Lewis would recuse.
EVID §Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Only the "presumption" of bias is required for recusal.
...A 5 year old would question why Judge Lewis would not recuse! When the system allows a judge to get this far out of control, we/the public must pursue change.
ABUSE OF DISCRETION - CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION
Preventing a vengeful judge, a judge with a history of abuse, from maliciously removing his daughter from her loving father would cost Locatelli approx. 1/2 million. Far too many children are loosing their parents to ill-intended judges, because they do not have the support or resources Locatelli received. Imbalance/unfair rule extends beyond the exorbitant financial burden on our society, the social impact on children forced into single parent homes (absent court intervention, the child benefited from extended love and support -parents, grandparents, etc.) is unconscionable.
Late 2010-2011 The First Evaluation – Emblazoned by the court's egregious abuse of discretion in Moms favor (outlined above), her next move was to eliminate dad from his daughter completely. In spite of testifying Dad was an excellent father, Mom demanded full custody and infrequent supervised visits for Dad. Once Mom had Dad out of the picture she would have her ticket out of LA. Dad was terrified of losing his daughter and began learning details of another lopsided Judge Thomas Trent Lewis beating, the Janette’s Isaacs case. The court did not physically beat Janette, but ask anyone subjected to a merciless abuser and they will tell you the emotional pain and suffering is often more painful than the physical abuse – victims don’t take their lives from a physical attack, it is the emotional suffering which causes them to take their lives.
Dad could never fathom the terror Janette endured, he was not as strong as Janette. Dad was already suffering from a deep depression from the hopelessness of the divorce and fear of losing his daughter to the same judicial bully. Thank god, Mom and Dad were required to attend a child custody mediation...saving Dad’s life. Mom was already 45 minutes late, but Dad pleaded with the compassionate mediator to wait for Mom, she agreed. The mediator heard both parties and was distraught by what she heard from Mom. In dismay, she told Dad, unfortunately, there was little she could do to help him; however, she would check the box for an evaluation. A check box would not be enough; therefore, the mediator recommended Dad plea for the evaluation, and she recommended he read the book “Joint Custody with a Jerk”.
Nov. 2011, 1st Evaluation Begins - Judge Thomas Trent Lewis would order Mom and Dad to attend a child custody evaluation, no surprise - he would allow Mom to choose the evaluator. During the evaluation Dad requested weekends/holidays with his daughter (See Move-Away above) Since the court's 2010 order, Dad and his family were not allowed a weekend/holiday with their daughter. The 2010 order would not even allow Dad to spend father’s day weekend with his daughter.
The evaluator told Dad the courts 2010 custody order was “absurd” and she would recommend for his family to finally share weekends and holidays with his daughter. Mom agreed with most of the recommendations from the evaluator, which forced the court's hand to follow the evaluator's recommendations - After approx. 19 months, Dad and his family could share quality time with their beautiful little girl.
Following the 2011 Custody Trial, Moms counsel was ordered to write the custody order. In writing the order, counsel included many previsions which restricted Dads activities with his daughter, including Dads constitutional right to religion. In addition, counsel omitted the school breaks in the order which allowed Mom to take ALL school breaks by default. They weren’t done…counsel would also write their own inflated child support order, which greatly misstated Dads income and omitted his expenses/costs - The court accepted counsel’s additional custody provisions and their child support order which ignored significant evidence (Dads W2s, etc.)!
2012, The Second Evaluation - In spite of receiving the lion’s shares of the custody, Mom frequently violated the custody order - The court had become an enabler to an extreme entitlement behavior, to the point Mom constantly broke agreements and frequently threaten dad to manipulate/dictate Dad's time with his daughter. On one occasion, Mom threatened to take Dad back to court to force infrequent supervised visits if Dad did not take his court ordered vacation during the time Mom dictated. Dad knew he could do nothing knowing Mom controlled and treated “her judge” like a puppet. However; Mom’s egregious custody violations escalated to point dad had to act. Mom took a vacation in Australia and would not allow Dad to see his daughter for an entire month, blatantly taking Dads court-ordered custodial time. In addition, Mom frequently violated the Skype order and would not allow Dad any contact with his daughter for weeks at a time. However, the final straw was when Mom told Dad she intended to take his court order summer vacation. Dad filed a Request for Order (RFO), this is the RFO in which Mom would renege on the Stay Away Order and pursue a lifetime DVRO (see above).
Because the 2011 order did not include the school holidays, Dad requested time during the school breaks. He also requested to remove the activity restrictions in the 2011 order, so Mom could no longer stop Dad from hiking, participating in sports and practicing religion with his daughter…THIS IS NOT A TYPO, the 2011 custody order allowed Mom to threaten court if Dad went hiking, or if he attended church with his daughter (the same church Mom/Dad were blessed for marriage). Dad's request was reasonable; however, not in a Judge Thomas Trent Lewis court. The court ordered another evaluation and asked both parties to recommend evaluators.
Locatelli is currently appealing an order which cost him employment and will become an indefinite impediment to his career. In addition to the appeal, Locatelli may pursue a civil case (the courts may impose debt; however, there is no jurisdiction to impose a job loss and force bankruptcy).
*Pummeling is the term Locatelli’s prior counsel used when pleading with the court to end the 6 years of lopsided court beatings
Update: Locatelli is the front runner for San Diego County Board of Supervisors, please see is interim website to follow his campaign - http://districtfoursd.weebly.com/
Other domestic violence cases on our watch list: Voisine v. United States & Lancaster V Lancaster Texas 1st COA cause 01-14-00845-cv.
Let's meet the judge responsible for the egregious abuse of discretion detailed above (the families of those in our case studies less politely refer to him as a "MONSTER")...
O-F-L Profile of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Thomas Trent Lewis
Judge Thomas Trent Lewis is an exceptional politician and despite his recent transfer remains closely connected to many of LA’s judicial leaders – “The Old Establishment” (quoting Bernie Sanders). His credentials (and conflicts of interest) can be viewed on his LinkedIn page; although, you likely will not be able to connect with Judge Lewis unless you are a judicial influencer. As an attorney, Judge Lewis had a stellar career and was the recipient of several prestigious awards which culminated in the appointment to President of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association (tip: you do NOT want to oppose a SFVBA attorney in a Lewis court). In spite of his legal accomplishments, you will learn a legal prowess is absolutely NOT a metric the public should use to entrust the lives of post-divorce families.
Our sources indicate Judge Thomas Trent Lewis is the narcissistic "maverick" judge in DivorceCorp the book. In the book, 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." Our case studies certainly highlight a “maverick”/egomaniac personality who holds no regard for established case law, or the constitution. In one of our case studies - 6 years of out-of-control litigation is avoided had the “maverick” merely followed the orders of his supervisors!! TWO separate Presiding Justices orders were ignored/overruled to propagate extreme litigation (excessive by any measure).
In addition, our case studies below highlight a "maverick" judge with an aversion to ADR - In his own words, he reveals a propensity to teach people lessons with their livelihood, instead of conveying low conflict ADR practices/methods. Excessively heavy handed justices (bullies) who promote/enable high conflict divorces never teach lessons - they breed mistrust. The "maverick" at one of his many meals with attorney associations was quoted the following:
"As couples watch their $1 million estate reduce to $200,000 after the cost of litigation, people might begin behaving differently."
- Judge Thomas Trent Lewis
Above Judge Thomas Trent Lewis is being generous, he indicates leaving people with a portion of their life savings to survive. Unfortunately for those In our case studies above - He would not stop at their life savings, he went after their kid's, and would ensure the unfavored parent could no longer care for their children.