Why Damon Moelter Is Being AbusedWritten by: Chris Print This Article
Use of Our Content (Reposting and Quoting)
Cindy Dumas is the San Diego mother who has been flooding the media for years with claims of child sexual abuse against her son Damon Moelter. On July 15, 2010, Judge Lorna Alksne gave full custody of Damon Moelter to his father, the person Dumas continues to insist sexually abused him, with minimal contact with his mother. You might think the title of this article implies we’ll be joining in the woe-is-me chanting of her supporters. Perhaps refreshingly, we won’t waste your time with that — you’ve read enough of it already if you have followed this case. Instead, I’m going to explain to you why Damon Moelter and his entire family are victims of the corrupt San Diego courts and that Damon in particular is experiencing court-ordered parental alienation child abuse. The primary driver of the corrupt and abusive decisions in this case is a biased and incompetent Judge Lorna Alksne. The type of corruption and bias that are occurring in her court are little different from that in many other family law courts. As a result, many children are being seriously harmed. Damon Moelter is just one of these many.
Perhaps ironically, this child abuse that is truly occurring is the parental alienation emotional abuse that Damon’s mother staunchly denies exists. But the chief motives and methods involved in the abuse occurring now are not the usual malicious mischief of a parent who can’t separate her or his own needs from those of the children. Instead, they involve the collusion of Judge Lorna Alksne and her friends pursuing their own purposes by violating the law and harming a child and a family.
We may never know what really happened to Damon while with either of his parents, nor if the versions of events coming from him, his parents, or his brothers are accurate. Mom wants us to believe that dad sexually abused him, dad wants us to believe that mom made it up as is far too common for malicious parents in custody battles. Both sides have their supporters. The children are being pulled into the fray to support one parent or the other. This family finds itself back in court many times every year while a never-ending stream of divorce industry professionals parade themselves through Alksne’s court amassing more billable hours while continuing the conflict to nobody’s benefit but their own.
What has been missed in all of this is that Damon and his family are suffering more than necessary or reasonable. This is occurring precisely because Judge Lorna Alksne and her friends have decided that their varied interests concerning power, influence, and money trump Damon’s right to grow up free from abuse with two loving parents. Abusing kids can be beneficial, even profitable, for judges and their friends. What is happening to Damon Moelter is simply a demonstration of this.
Dumas Viewed As Guilty, Prosecuted In Family Law Court Without a Jury
Contrary to what Cindy Dumas and her supporters appear to believe, Dumas was viewed as guilty of parental child abduction after she ran off with her three sons for more than two years with a stated intent of protecting them from abuse. Dumas mistakenly thinks this is not so because the DA’s office dropped the charges against her as part of a deal in which Judge Lorna Alksne promised there would be fair treatment in family law court.
DA Bonnie Dumanis knew that she could not successfully prosecute Cindy Dumas for parental child abduction as a jury of impartial peers would be highly unlikely to unanimously find her guilty. At least a few of the jurors would be likely to believe she abducted the children to protect them from the father, making a conviction impossible. Instead, Alksne, Dumanis, and possibly other parties in the ruling elite of San Diego decided they would “prosecute” Dumas in family law court where there is no jury to interfere with the predetermined guilty verdict. They wanted to send a strong message that parental abductors will be stripped of their children, regardless of their professed intent to protect their children, and that no jury can protect them from this.
The Saving Damon website describes the arrangements dishonestly promised by the DA Bonnie Dumanis and Judge Lorna Alksne as follows:
2007 On August 8, the boys were granted a restraining order NO0107 against Eric by Commissioner John Chemelenski. In October, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis dismissed the abduction charges after a review of the family court file. On January 31, Judge Lorna Alksne agreed to do a fair and proper investigation of the sexual abuse and said the children would be placed with a friend of the father’s for approximately two weeks while Damon was evaluated according to FC 3118 by William Dess, Ph.D.
2008 On February 1, Cindy and the children returned, with the understanding that Damon would be listened to and protected if he reported the abuse. Although Damon described four years of abuse in detail to Dr. Dess, his attorney Gary Plavnik, and the Chadwick Center, the three boys who were now 12, 14 and 16 were not returned to their mother as promised. In August, the judge decided that there would be no hearing on the abuse and that she was simply upholding Judge Smyth’s old ruling. The new evaluation was not conducted pursuant to Family Code Section 3118. Dr. Dess reported that unless Cindy changed her position about the abuse and participated with “reunification” with the father, she would have no contact with the children.
The court adopted his recommendations and added that she must take down the Saving Damon website as well. In October, Judge Alksne found there was no credible evidence of abuse and Cindy had “influenced” Damon. Cindy was declared an abductor, an extreme flight risk, a danger to her children because she believed Damon and not allowed to have any contact with the children. Judge Alksne gave Eric partial legal custody and full custody if he moves to San Diego. Damon must undergo an evaluation for anxiety by a new psychologist Dr. Randy Robinson. All three children must participate in $200/hr. reunification therapy with their father under Breffni Barrett, Ph.D. for six months and then be reunited with their father, despite their adamant statements that they do not want to see him. Damon and his brothers have reported the abuse to Dr. Barrett as well. The boys must continue to see therapist Dr. Craig Carlson at $165/hr. All these professionals are mandated reporters, but instead are complicit in covering up the abuse.
Dumas somehow thinks this is all about whether she and Damon are being believed or not. It has nothing to do with that. Instead, it is about money, power, and exchanging favors between members of the ruling class in San Diego. Parents being able to remove the children and themselves from the extortionary family law system supporting judges, attorneys, and their friends is a very serious threat to these people. Dumas would likely have had a better chance of fair treatment if she had angrily murdered Eric Moelter as that would not have been perceived as such a serious direct threat to the powers-that-be and their financial interests. She would also have gotten the benefit of a jury trial that helps to reduce the impact of judicial misconduct and bias as well as the somewhat dampening the influence of power-brokers like Bonnie Dumanis.
Dumas is unlikely to ever get fair and impartial treatment in San Diego so long as Bonnie Dumanis is in office. If Dumas ever realizes this, perhaps she will steer her mass of supporters to work for obtaining the recall of Bonnie Dumanis. So far, it doesn’t appear they have figured this out.
Joyce Murphy “Vindicated” While DA and Courts Try to Save Face
What is happening in the Dumas case and others is similar to how other parents who abducted their children with claims of protecting them from abuse. This includes another San Diego mother, Joyce Murphy, who was prosecuted in criminal court and plead no contact to felony kidnapping after running off to Florida with her daughter. Inconveniently for the family court system and DA, Murphy’s ex-husband, Henry “Bud” Parson, was later convicted of child sexual abuse against three children in a criminal court and sentenced to six years in prison. Possibly to save face for the courts and DA, he was never charged with abusing his own daughter.
The criminal complaint charges Parson with hurting three girls, two of them younger than 14 years old. The charges include oral sex with a child, molestation, possessing child porn and using a child to make porn.
A report from the District Attorney’s Office said, “The defendant’s computers and camera were seized … revealed numerous photographs of young girls.”
Using those photographs, an Oceanside police officer was able to identify and speak with one of the girls, which led to more charges against Parson.
Joyce Murphy feels vindicated, but it’s bittersweet.
“I blame the entire family court system,” she said, “because they are not held accountable.”
I-Team reporter Lauren Reynolds posed the question to the supervising judge of the San Diego County Family Court, Lorna Alksne.
“Is family court doing a good job?”
“Family court is doing an excellent job,” Alksne said.
What the courts and DA are doing protects nobody but themselves. They fail to protect parents who are falsely accused of child abuse and fail to protect children who really are being abused. In the meantime, they financially victimize families and destroy the lives of innocent children and parents, turning many of them into criminals for such “offenses” as calling their children on the phone to say hello. Then they declare themselves to be doing an “excellent job” as Alksne does with her dishonest self-serving spin.
In the absence of the parents agreeing voluntarily to some other plan, family law courts should not be able to strip any parent of such fundamental rights as joint legal and physical custody with approximately 50/50 timeshare without a criminal conviction or an impartial jury decision. There is simply too much room for bias and illegal governmental abuse by a bad judge if there is not a jury. This is exactly the kind of abuse often committed by Lorna Alksne and many other family law judges. They want control and power and to pick winners and losers, not caring that by doing so they nearly always make losers out of the children. Dumas and Murphy both threatened that control and power. If they got away with running off with the children without severe punishment, other parents might do the same and deprive the family law monster and its supporters of money they believe belongs to them. In the disturbed minds of the tyrants ruling San Diego, being a threat to the interests of the ruling class is a far worse crime than child abuse ever could be.
Picking Sides Without Understanding Family Law Bias And Corruption
The casual observer not versed in the pathological behaviors of the courts, government, and abusive parents would tend to take either the government’s side or the mother’s side. This is a serious mistake and is a primary reason for the ongoing damage being done to Damon and many other children. People should instead be taking the children’s side and realizing that kids need both their parents. The courts should work very hard to stop the zero-sum game of one parent is a winner and the other is a loser as such thinking simply ensures the children will be losers themselves.
Children of Damon’s age can be coached to lie or even worse against a parent. Dumas had plenty of time to do this during the more than two years on the run with the children having no contact with their father and his family. If you doubt this, consider the case of Dr. Rick Lohstroh whose ten year old son was trained to kill his father and shot him in the back with a handgun owned and supplied to him by his malicious mother, Deborah Geisler.
Being familiar with exactly how these courts work, how alienating and personality disordered parents think and behave, and the many far from rational witch hunts that result from somebody uttering the words “child sexual abuse”, I’ve come to the conclusion that often there is really no way to know what happened several years ago when the alleged abuse was first described.
The uncertainty is especially severe when the allegations never lead to charges and a trial. While of course it would be best to never charge an innocent person with a crime, doing so does tend to help produce more evidence that might be useful for determining innocence or guilt. Short of this, such cases lack the more rigorous “proof beyond reasonable doubt” evidentiary standards and a jury that are used in criminal court. These measures help to protect the accused more effectively from collusion between judges and their friends in law enforcement and the prosecutor’s office. Instead, it is common for the family law courts to be used to “prosecute” the accused. These courts lack a jury and feature very weak evidentiary standards, routine and extensive perjury, plentiful altered and fabricated evidence, and a “majority wins” judicial mentality which assures that almost any sociopath will be perceived as truthful simply by duping several gullible friends and family and manipulating them to repeat false statements.
With nobody but some power-crazed influence-peddling judge deciding guilt and innocence, people stuck in this system are effectively presumed guilty unless it is not in the interests of the divorce industry for them to be guilty. This is particularly alarming because the family law industry is filled with bottom of the bucket practitioners of law who went to third-rate or worse law schools and often didn’t even do well in them and seem to be motivated more by money than by any real sense of justice. Except for the few real professionals who are truly interested in family law for some higher purpose, such as helping children rather than making a quick buck, the divorce industry from judges to lawyers to psychologists is populated with opportunistic parasites who don’t care about children except as a means to profit and power.
There are usually possible and practical ways to ensure kids have substantial contact with both parents while protecting them from potential harm when there are allegations of child abuse. Often these ways are used minimally, if at all, and a judge will instead decide that children will seldom get to see a capable and loving parent simply because a malicious parent often flings about serious false allegations.
Conversely, it may also mean that when it becomes reasonably clear that a parent is a malicious false accuser, the children may be blocked from contact with that parent even though the parent may actually have something worthwhile to offer the kids. If the family were to get the support it needs to help the children get the best parts of what a mentally ill malicious parent has to offer, the kids would probably benefit from this more than not seeing the parent at all. Most of these parents actually do love their kids in some way, but they may be so damaged from their own abusive childhoods that they do not know how to behave appropriately. Some of them can be healed, some can be handled with support systems to neutralize the damage they tend to do. Either approach tends to be better than simply banning a child from contact with a parent suffering from these problems.
Many Child Sexual Abuse Allegations Are Products of Brainwashing
Even when somebody is charged with a crime and put on trial, sometimes it turns out the entire thing is an abusive sham in which either the wrong person is accused or there was never any abuse against the children. More accurately, there was no abuse up until the time which the government got involved and psychologically tormented the children in the name of “investigating” baseless accusations. This has happened in San Diego repeatedly. One of the most notable cases is that of James Wade who was falsely accused of raping his daughter when a serial child rapist already being prosecuted for crimes against children in the same neighborhood was the actual perpetrator.
Adam Lee’s documentary on the persecution of Dale Akiki
Shortly thereafter, the San Diego government helped solidify its reputation as an abuser of law and persecutor of innocents via the Dale Akiki “Sunday school satanism” witch hunt. This deeply disturbing story features a community crusade to destroy an innocent man’s life, this time with claims about how Dale Akiki, a disabled and disfigured man who volunteered at Faith Chapel Church, sexually molested the children in his care and somehow murdered an elephant and giraffe in front of Sunday school children, made them drink the blood, and then mysteriously disposed of the carcasses so nobody could find them. As public defender Kate Coyne revealed, the DA prosecutor in charge of the case hand-picked therapists who then proceeded to brainwash the children to get the answers the government wanted. The County of San Diego government and its agents of persecution, including Rady Children’s Hospital and its associated Chadwick Center crowd of biased brainwashing therapists, were eventually held responsible for their misconduct via a confidential settlement estimated at around $2 million.
Governments learned from the many satanic abuse and sexual abuse frauds they pulled on the public in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Or so they claimed. Yet even this year, there was yet another of these massive sex abuse fraud stories in the news. This time, kindergarten teacher Tonya Craft was found innocent of all 22 charges of sexually molesting three children including her own daughter. She spent two years being investigated, prosecuted, and having her own children banned from seeing her due to false allegations made by parents who didn’t like her, including her ex-husband Joel Henke who appears to have been engaging in parental alienation child abuse by teaching their daughter to falsely accuse her mother of sexual abuse.
What ensued is the sort of kangaroo court disaster we have previously seen repeatedly in San Diego. Investigators repeatedly broke the protocols on how to interview children to get accurate answers. The judge in the case, Brian House, was Craft’s ex-husband’s former divorce attorney. House let a tainted jury be seated that included Craft’s former brother-in-law. The prosecution team lead by Chris Arnt and Len McGregor arranged for improper questioning of the children and brainwashing of Craft’s own daughter to testify against her. They also hid exculpatory evidence. These are the kinds of things happening in San Diego and many other places, too, not just in Georgia where this case occurred. Obviously, despite debacles such as the Wade and Akiki cases in San Diego, the McMartin Pre-School case in Los Angeles, and the Fells Acres Day Care Center case in Massachusetts , governments have learned nothing and continue to abuse parents even when the accusers have a vested interest in seeing them ruined and their accusations should be viewed with great suspicion.
Craft was saved by one of the features of the criminal law system that is far superior to the family law system. That feature is the jury. The jury on her trial could clearly see the collusion between the judge and prosecution. They could also see the witnesses for the prosecution were lacking in credibility and some had much to gain personally by destroying Tonya Craft. By contrast, victims of the family law system often suffer severely precisely because there is no jury to counteract the collusion of corruption of the parasites comprising the majority of divorce industry practitioners.
Tonya Craft has filed a $25 million federal lawsuit against the county government, the therapists, and the parents of the children who were coached to falsely accuse her. The prosecutors wrongfully enjoy immunity for their alleged violations of the law, so they cannot be named in the lawsuit.
Dumas Behaviors Suggest Parental Alienation and Personality Disorders
Dumas’s behaviors are consistent with the sorts of distortion campaigns practiced by parents with personality disorders. Her extreme positions are dogmatic and irrational. In particular, her positions of blanket denial of parental alienation and portrayal of child abuse as being exclusively the fault of males show a total disconnect with reality. Such positions only serve to discredit her and those associated with her.
In her case, it is particularly ironic that her sons are suffering from court-imposed parental alienation against her yet she does not believe parental alienation exists. Fortunately for the kids, it appear that their father is likely not an alienator himself even though it would be quite understandable that he would have hostility and resentment towards their mother who kidnapped them and has spent years trying to convince the world that he is a monster. Judge Alksne is enough of an alienator, however, to multiply the damage to the children all by herself.
Parental alienation truly does occur and is of harm to children. Almost any child who has been through a divorce with warring parents knows this from personal experience, even if they did not believe the alienation to which they were exposed. Alienating parents can be mothers or fathers. This is well-established by reputable researchers of both genders involving both children still enmeshed in parental alienation abuse and adult children who have more distance from it.
The blanket categorization of fathers as abusers and mothers as victims is nonsense that does not sync up with the consistent findings and facts that abuse is a problem regardless of gender. The many reported abuse cases involving mothers and the experiences of both researchers and even female domestic violence advocates (read more about Erin Pizzey to see why) have revealed that violence in families is usually mutual and denying this simply causes continuation of the violence and abuse. Abused children tend to become abusers at significantly elevated rates. For example, an abused daughter is far more likely to become an abusive against her own future partner and children than a son who was never abused.
“Playing It Safe” Is Likely Child Abuse
A naive person may think courts should “play it safe” by placing a child with the accusing parent. Yet the risk of placing a child with an alienating parent is significant. Alienators tend to engage in more types of abuse than simply badmouthing the other parent and preventing the children from seeing him or her. There are elevated rates of emotional manipulation, physical abuse, and sexual abuse associated with alienators. Alienators also often have one or more personality disorders, frequently closely intertwined with their abusive personalities. Experience and research shows not only that children who are abused tend to become abusers themselves but also that children who have parents with personality disorders are more likely to develop them, too.
Today about half of marriages end in divorce. Estimates by researchers are that more than half of divorces involving children include false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, often intentionally made to gain an advantage in a custody battle. That means a large number of children, perhaps a quarter or more (consider that some families endure multiple divorces), may be subjected to circumstances in which warring parents are making allegations of abuse or domestic violence which are not true or are significantly exaggerated.
“Playing it safe” by placing the kids with the accuser may be more likely to harm than protect them. This may even be the case if the children really did endure some small amount of abuse by the accused parent. Being struck across the face by the open hand of an angry parent may be physical child abuse, but if it is infrequent it is likely to be less damaging to the child than daily emotional abuse such as children who are forced to live primarily or solely with an alienating or emotionally abusive parent who teaches them to hate their other parent and themselves.
A truly much safer strategy that would be far more likely to work in cases with domestic violence and child abuse allegations would entail treating nobody as guilty without a confession or a finding of guilt via a proper trial featuring a jury and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” evidentiary standards. Absent such conditions or a voluntary agreement between the parents, child custody should be approximately equal contact between the children and both parents. Therapists would be assigned for the parents and the children and would see all the accusations being made to help them understand the risks and the help the family needs. The therapists would be required to communicate in writing about concerns and progress. These memos and reports would be subject to court review to aid in understanding what help the family needs. Safety measures would be put into place to look for evidence of child abuse including professionally supervised exchanges with a “detox” period for the children to discuss any concerns and calm down when being handed off from one parent to the other.
There would be some kids who might be hurt from such a plan, but there would be far fewer hurt from this than what is currently happening. Real abuse would be detected more rapidly and with higher certainty. The children would be less prone to the extreme parental alienation outcomes that occur especially in cases when children are blocked from contact from a loving and capable parent for years while being indoctrinated with messages of hate by the alienating parent. The cost of all of this may be lower, too, as employing a few therapists and supervised exchange services is likely far lower than the cost of the four or five attorneys you see in cases like Dumas v. Moelter. Think about it — will a child be healthier from the parent spending the family fortune on destroying each other in court or if they spend a fraction of that fortune on cooperative multiple therapists to head off problems at the pass and stay out of court? The answer should be obvious to anybody who has been through the San Diego family destruction system or family law courts like it.
Damon’s Video Clips
I watched 13 year old Damon’s video clips blaming his father for sexually abusing him and threatening to kill him and found them to be distinctly lacking in credibility. The lack of appropriate emotional intensity and expressions and the rehearsed style contribute to this. That he is making claims about events that occurred more than half a decade earlier, from an age when most children cannot remember their personal experiences well if at all, also raises serious questions of credibility. He’s been rehashing the alleged abuse with attorneys, therapists, his mother, and others for several years so whatever he thinks he remembers may be based more upon discussions with other people than any real experiences. Frankly I think it looks like he has been coached or trained to present himself in this manner.
One of Damon Moelter’s Self-Made Videos
There is likely no way to know for sure what happened. It is entirely possible that Damon could be cursed with both an abusive mother and an abusive father, each executing different forms of intimidation, brainwashing, and harm against him.
The only part which seems to me to be likely to be accurate is Damon’s professed dislike of what the courts have done to him and how they block his contact with his mother. He probably truly does want to spend time with his mother. Whether that is as a result of her parental alienation brainwashing, normal feelings for a child, or some mix of the two isn’t clear, however.
Damon Moelter deserves significant time with two loving parents. He also deserves help to keep from being played as an ally by either parent or their friends and family.
Dumas and Damon both talk about Eric Moelter like he is about to murder Damon at any moment, presumably to keep him quiet about the abuse allegations. This is ludicrous. The abuse allegations are already widespread public knowlege, nothing Eric Moelter can say or do can ever put those back into the bottle. By murdering Damon, he would just be proving his guilt while everybody is watching him carefully. The argument that Eric Moelter is a lethal threat to Damon is nonsense, even if the alleged child abuse really did happen, something which we will never know beyond a reasonable doubt.
While a better argument can be made that child sexual abusers can’t control themselves, even this is specious at this point. Damon is almost 14 years old and everybody is intently watching him and his brothers. There is little likelihood that anybody could get away with sexually abusing Damon at this point, regardless of whom it was.
Even if you believe that both Eric and Cindy could be or are in fact child abusers, there is no evidence of lethal danger from either of them.
Damon’s Abusers and Their Motives
What we do know with a high degree of certainty is that Damon Moelter is being abused by the government jerking his life around and playing their own parental alienation games when there are likely better options that could be tried if a more competent and fair judge was on the case. There are likely ways to ensure there is more contact between Damon and his mother while significantly reducing the risk of further parental alienation from her. But Alksne will not consider anything other than Dumas changing her behaviors, something that is obviously not going to happen as it strongly appears this woman is seriously mentally ill based upon her actions and words to date.
Yet simply because Dumas appears severely mentally ill doesn’t mean that she can’t have a role to play in Damon’s life. Children need to learn how to identify mentally ill and emotionally abusive people (his mother appears to be a prime example), set boundaries, and understand how to detect and manage relationships in which emotional manipulation is a factor. This is not happening now because of the incompetent and biased decisions made by Judge Alksne. When Damon turns 18, it is likely that he still will not have needed psychological and relationship skills and therefore he, like most abused children, will be at much greater risk of being further emotionally abused whether it is by his mother or other women in his life. While even a competent judge may not be able to ensure he gets those skills, it appears that the present incompetent judge is intent on seeing that he does not.
Today, Damon is also being abused by his mother continuing to push him to regard his father as a lethal danger to him when there is not only no evidence of that, it defies reason as mentioned above. It appears that Damon’s father is not actively abusing the children now and there is not sufficient evidence to conclude he was ever involved in any abuse.
Who is profiting from the ongoing child abuse against Damon? Mainly Lorna Alksne and several of her many divorce industry associates. There have been many minor’s counsel attorneys on this case as well as multiple highly paid psychologists. There is also an abusive Bonnie Dumanis sitting on the sidelines influencing events who is happy to see Dumas treated as guilty without even being prosecuted in accordance with law. Every one of these people is a potential or actual campaign supporter of Alksne. She makes money or builds power for them and they will likely reward her in kind. It’s the fundamental nature of the corrupt San Diego courts.
Alksne is an attention-seeker, too, much like Dumas. She shows this by putting herself in the limelight at every opportunity, be it speaking at family law seminars or pretending she actually cares about family law and children as a members of the Elkins Task Force as she’s being flown around and wined and dined by the government and other interested parties. The Dumas case has gained a lot of attention for Alksne. Unfortunately for San Diego families, the attention should have been much more focused on Alksne’s problematic behaviors in this case.
Dumas is profiting some, too. She is an attention-seeker who thrives on holding herself out as a victim to get many other mothers, some of whom have children who have been legitimately harmed by abusive fathers, to help fuel her crowd of vocal supporters.
Alksne Should Recuse and Resign
If Damon was abused by his father, that’s a tragedy. If he was or is being abused by his mother, that’s a tragedy, too. But frankly, several years after the alleged abuse, the tragedy that Damon is living now is more the result of destructive handling by biased court and government officials with a self-interested agend and no conscience to keep them from inflicting their own form of child abuse. Judge Alksne is the foremost example of the government abuse against Damon Moelter.
On January 15, 2010, Cindy Dumas filed a request to demand Alksne recuse herself from the case due to a lack of impartiality. Alksne ruled against it based upon technicalities, effectively refusing to consider it due to its form even though its substance has merit. She doesn’t want to let go of the case even though it is obvious to fair and impartial observer that there are many reasons for her to be biased and most of these reasons would not apply to a properly selected judge.
Given what has transpired, the claim that “a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial” seems obviously true. As previously discussed in our story Judge Lorna Alksne On The Way Out After Home Picketed, Alksne has been subjected to alleged death threats, very public adverse opinions about her family, repeated picketing of her courthouse, and reportedly a recent picketing of her home. It appears that many of these threats are related to this particular case or cases involving friends of Dumas. It is implausible that this does not create an appearance that Alksne would be unable to be impartial.
Given the apparent collusion between Alksne and other San Diego judges and government employees with interest in this case and others like it, it appears that the interests of justice would be best served by removing this entire case from the San Diego court system and placing in the jurisdiction of another court far removed from San Diego where nobody has any direct or indirect personal interest in the outcome.
That Alksne is not willing to acknowledge this shows that she is an irresponsible judge. If she has truly made the right decisions, another court would make similar decisions to those she has already made. By her own refusal to recuse, she reinforces the appearance of bias and prejudice.
Further, the claims there would be a Family Code 3118 child abuse investigation that never materialized and the hidden ties between Alksne and other judges and law enforcement officials with involvement in the case makes the inability to be impartial even more obvious. We’ve previously reported on how Alksne and her co-horts have engaged in illegal political persecution of another critic, attorney Cole Stuart, that is even more reprehensible and obviously politically motivated than what they have done in the Dumas case. That they have done this should on its face show Alksne and her cohorts are clearly unable to follow the law or remain impartial when their political interests are threatened.
Alksne should not just be recusing from the Dumas case, she should be resigning from the bench.
Instead, it appears Alksne is positioning herself to continue as a judge after moving out of the family law courts into some other courts by late 2011. Let’s hope that the court she corrupts next will feature a jury to protect the innocent from her bias and incompetence or that the citizens will vote her out of office before she can do much more damage.
|Child Abduction, Child Abuse, Child Custody, Children, Civil Rights, Courts, Crime, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Family, Government Abuse, Legal, Parental Alienation, Politics, Prosecutor|