4 Years Later Orange County Continues to Allow Family Courts to Permit Child Abuse
Four years after this special report ran in the mainstream media, Orange County continues to place children in harms way by sending divorce cases to private judges, where lawyers like David Weinberg are given judicial immunity to use highly paid supervised visitation personnel. , custody evaluators and reunification camps to essentially brainwash children and take custody away from protective parents seeking to protect children from child abuse.
The case in this video was a child custody case, which can be sealed by a court, denying the public transparency to protect children in their own communities. Divorce cases however are not sealed where children are concerned , and the open cases , or those before private judges show a startling pattern that indicates a core group of lawyers are using custody and divorce cases to make millions in bogus fee churning, profiting off innocent children by escalating conflicts between their parents in family court, then calling for custody experts sure to give an opinion based on payment.
Orange county is plagued with corruption issues related to custody cases, and is now paying dearly for federal and state lawsuits being brought against CPS workers, lawyers and others routinely appointed by the courts, or lawyers acting as private judges.
If you have information on an Orange County case, please contact us, groups now forming to expose the vast corruption in family law cases and the court's new CEO David Yamasaki is currently under investigation by the FBI and Attorney General's office for misusing public funds while he acted as CEO in Santa Clara County.
7/25/2018 10:49:20 am
I never saw this in California, but the exact same thing is happening in South Carolina. the south Carolina Supreme Court, the only intity trying to make a difference, has put a mandate out that cases end in 365 days, in the last three years across the borad judge and lawyers end a case, use fabricated documents and re-bring the same case agaun, implucating the preclusion clause. When pleaded the clerk's won't docket those motions, while the opposition's motion are put on the docket in few days. One case the judge forced a custody evaluator into the case I the father was "forced" or go to jail to see this Dr. Who made 121 false statements of fact.the judge then, after accusing the father of having a mental problems and a mental disorder, 7 doctors says no, but the same report with the 121 false statements assesses the mother with a mental disorder and a high level of dishonesty that everything she says must be investigated, per the mmpi-2 experts, with T-90 scosco in the L (lie) scale. As soon as the judge was called on it, placed the child in DSS custody and without probable cause to have the father investigated, and the child was just then hospitalized for the mother beating the child trying to force her to lie and say the father had been touching her inappropriately. The Dr. Report, By the Dr. Says the report couldn't be used in any other cases, yet the judge asked DSS to state case number 4 same subject matter and parties, again violtion of res judicata and directdestipple under Article IV section 1 and all case law in a SC Vforbids this, yet not its epic. The scheme, opposing counsel argues what took place in thr orior action, uses fabricated court irder, thet judge refuses go to the prior action file and use the real court order, this is systemic and The FBI won't touch it.
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.