A Judge’s View of “Best Interests of the Children”Written by: Paco Print This Article
Use of Our Content (Reposting and Quoting)
Highlights of a speech by San Diego’s Honorable Lisa Drunk on June 31st
I am honored to appear before you tonight at this meeting of the San Diego County Bar Association. Thank you for inviting me to speak on my views on the best interests of children as judges see them. This is a very important matter as it is essential to our careers as jurists, attorneys, and court service providers.
As an experienced family law judge, I am tasked with upholding the law in my courtroom and serving the best interests of children. This is a difficult job, one to which I must give a great deal of consideration and attention to creating the best possible outcome to the people who really matter, judges and our friends.
When litigants enter my courtroom, they must understand that I am God and the law is what I say it is. If they question this, I will take their children, property, and other privileges away from them. They have no rights, only privileges which I allow them to have. They have no right to trial by jury, no right to due process of law, and no right to anything except to bask in the glow of my presence so long as they do not annoy me.
If one dares annoy me, I will quickly arrange for arrest and imprisonment. This is why I have armed deputies in my courtroom, to silence anybody who dares to annoy me, just as I did to that unruly mother Joanna Slivka who dared speak when I told her to be quiet. I decide who can talk and what they can say. The five days she spent in jail for thinking otherwise is only a down payment on what I’ll do to her if she ever sets foot in my court again.
My dear friends and colleagues Judge Christine Goldsmith and Judge Lorna Alksne have recently done likewise to that nasty man who wrongly believes that the US Constitution is the law of the land and dared challenge them.
In our courts, WE JUDGES ARE THE LAW and people like him should remember that.
We family law judges have all discussed the necessity of arrests and incarceration at length and know full well our roles in handling such annoying people. We are thankful to have the support of law enforcement, including our friends Sheriff Gore and Chief Lansdowne, in such matters.
clearing throat, sipping water
Children are property of the state…
Wild cheers from audience, Judge Lisa Drunk pauses for a moment for quiet
Let me say that again, to be clear.
Children are property of the state, and this is good for the community.
The law clearly establishes that I can do whatever I fancy with children. There is no right to a jury in my court, and as we judges ensure that litigants are intimidated and bankrupt there is no right to appeal. This helps save taxpayers a great deal of money each year, by the way.
This duty to make decisions about children is well-understood by the entire family and juvenile judiciary across the United States. It is exemplified by the outstanding records of my esteemed colleagues Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan. They know that children are in our courts to enrich judges and our friends and have for many years skillfully extracted millions of dollars of profit from the kids appearing in their courtrooms on such ghastly serious charges as treasonous rebellion against school authorities. Kudos to them for their fine efforts!
Hearty applause from the audience plus a few loud cheers
As we judges rightfully demand, lawyers who appear in our courtrooms give campaign contributions to us and are careful to always support our re-elections. My friend, retired Judge Randa Trapp, was ever so right when she asked the lawyers appearing in her courtroom to give a show of hands in support of her re-election. They all supported her fully, and today she strongly supports incumbent judges. We judges here in San Diego are confident that our friends in the San Diego County Bar Association trust us to make the best use of children to ensure maximum profitability of the family law community.
If for some odd reason a short-sighted attorney dares oppose us, he will lose in court and may, if particularly annoying, be quickly arrested and cast into jail as our friends in law enforcement will see to that.
If an attorney supports us, he will be rewarded with ongoing profitable work as we judges endeavor to take as much time as possible to settle any matter before us and to maximize potential for continued conflict. Children appreciate this, I hear their gratitude when I speak with them to explain how we judges help them. They long to help serve justice and know when their parents fight, our whole community benefits.
The practices that I as a judge apply daily benefit the community. There are many, but I will highlight the three most important.
First and foremost, children are the property over which I can ensure parents will war with each other. War between parents is good for the court and community as it ensures the income and job security for court administrative staff, law enforcement judicial security staff, as well as judges and all of my attorney, mediator, and mental health professional friends in the community.
As a judge, it is my first obligation to uphold government power. By stripping children from parents and rewarding them for attacking each other, I can decide how to best advance this goal consistently. The children are grateful as they know I am powerful and want to help them meet their highest potential to enrich the community. They wish to serve me in any way they can and tell me this every time I meet with them.
Secondly, we judges must reward skilled story-telling. It is the foundation upon which conflict is built. Conflict is good for the courts and our friends and is therefore good for the children. We must encourage it by all means. Any parent who blesses us with another accusation of domestic violence or child abuse is particularly worthy of reward as these are the issues we can use to make ourselves known as protectors of women and children, gain ever more votes, and ensure our continued ability to serve our community.
Thirdly, we must avoid clarity in our court orders. Clarity endangers conflict. This is simply unacceptable and unprofitable. Further, clarity in court orders requires more careful thought. I am simply too busy considering how to reward stories and claims without evidence in thousands of cases before me so I can ensure continuing conflict to have time to waste on expressing clear court orders. Also importantly, my attorney friends like to write and argue over their versions of orders to increase their billable hours and profits. As a judge who derives my income and campaign contributions from their work, I want to keep them busy so they keep my campaign support flowing in.
Cheers of “thank you Lisa!” from audience
My SDCBA friends each year send cards with campaign contribution checks to thank me for thoughtfully applying these practices. I want to you all to know that I very much appreciate this and remember carefully who contributes to our community.
I would like to deeply thank all my supporters for their campaign support checks and referrals to my friends. I particularly thank Sheriff Bill Gore, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, and our esteemed friend Stephen Doyne who have all done so much for our community. Thank you also to the entire San Diego County Bar Association for yet another solid recommendation for my re-election.
Thank you all for your continued support!
Wild applause, slowly dies down
Next to speak will be my esteemed supervisor, Judge Lorna Alksne, who has taught me so much about being a good judge and who is a fine example for all of us.
Audience applauds quickly, spotlight shifts to black-robed woman walking up to podium
A take-no-prisoners condemnation of psychiatric experts being waved into the witness box, this account trashes psychiatry in general as a quack profession. Hagen (a psychology professor) assails most of the diagnostic tools of the field in her text, which roams among court cases whose outcome hinged on the testimony of mental-health experts. Her fundamental contention is that psychiatry is a junk science whose theories when extended to matters of legal culpability go against common sense. Indeed, Hagen assumes the posture of that legendary legalism, the “reasonable person,” and her prose is peppered with exclamations and rhetorical questions like “Who could believe that?” which might annoy as many readers as it might convince about whatever points are in question. Among them are such topically current items as battered-wife syndrome, recovered memory claims, post-traumatic stress syndrome, and urban psychosis claims. The average person could easily encounter in divorce and child custody litigation the situations Hagen vigorously complains of, so her energetic attack could gain considerable attention. Gilbert Taylor
|Child Custody, Children, Civil Rights, Courts, Divorce, Family, Government Abuse, Humor, Legal, Politics|