In this monologue, the speaker recounts a series of personal legal challenges and broader critiques of the family law system. They describe filing a motion for increased child support after 13 years, being unable to afford the $2,500 attorney fee that Judge Brown recommended, and encountering unhelpful experiences with Family Law Services, including a failure to conduct a property search and the use of one‑sided psychological testing in custody disputes. The speaker proposes reforms such as allowing parties to switch family‑law judges and attorneys without prejudice, mandating greater pro‑bono work from attorneys, and ensuring psychological evaluations are applied equally to both parents. They also criticize the religious right’s hypocrisy on abortion, arguing that anti‑abortion rhetoric often aligns with wealthy corporate interests that undermine women and children financially. The narrative then shifts to a detailed account of an ongoing appellate case in Santa Cruz, where the speaker alleges attorney tampering with a settlement agreement, faces a motion to dismiss, and is constrained by a contract that limits discussion of the case, raising free‑speech and contract‑law questions. The speaker seeks input from contract or constitutional attorneys, reflects on the difficulty of proving a negative, and contemplates further appeals. Finally, they offer advice to fathers who unexpectedly become parents, emphasizing financial responsibility toward the mother, and outline future plans to bring guests (including a constitutional attorney) onto the show, while acknowledging gaps in their blog and long‑term goals such as publishing a book.
Chapters
So, where am I? So in my current situation, I filed a motion for increased child support after not having an increase for almost 13 years, and Judge Brown told me to hire an attorney because I had an error in my paperwork. I did have an error. However, I did not have $2,500 for an attorney, and when I was requesting financial relief, My paperwork was fairly complete. It was complete enough. It was reasonably complete. And I could not afford an attorney. So my experience— also my experience with Family Law Services is not positive. In 2001, as I mentioned, Eric did not disclose he owned a 5-unit apartment complex, and they never executed even a property search. So psychological tests. Right now they're applied one-sided. If you want to challenge a parent for custody, you would ask the court to do a psychological test of the parent who had the child. However, if you're going to do a psychological test, you got to do it to both parents at the same time in the same way. You can't give one person a test and say, "Oh, well, you're crazy," and then not even test the other. Maybe he's even crazier. So that always seemed a little out of whack. So a party may request to switch family law judges at least once during the time their child is a minor. Also, a party should be able to switch attorneys without the premise that the child is— that you are unstable. And that's propagated. For me, if I'm paying an attorney thousands of dollars without any guarantee for success, then I better be able to fire them. So, um, so those are my family law reform, um, things. Um, part of my general court reform propositions is that attorneys should have to do a lot more pro bono work. My pro bono work would be for women who find themselves in situations similar as I did. And, and one of my girlfriends said, "Well, why are you speaking out? It's not really an issue. People don't really care about your situation." you know, women having children on their own. However, I speak out because I think that it is important. I think we need to shine a light on the hypocrisy of the religious right, where they get people to vote against their own interests because they claim a moral superiority because of the abortion issue. And we need to shine a light on that hypocrisy. You can't at one level say that you're for abort— you're against abortion, while putting women down at who— to choose not to abort. You can't say that you're for abortion and then pull the financial rug out from under children and women after those children are born. The— seems like the political groups that are so against abortion seem like they're in the corner of big banks, big corporations, and the wealthy people the most. And so what they say they're for and against does not match how they vote. So finally, my little spiel, which is what this is for. I have one more thing and then we bring Ryan on. So I wanted to talk just about— bring everybody up to date on my Santa Cruz court case, which is really quite amazing. I've been in the appellate court for a year and a half, or no, over a year, not quite a year and a half, but, and I've put in like 5 judicial notices where I've actually proven the attorneys tampered with the settlement agreement. So, but they lost the property up in Santa Cruz, and so Bosso, the attorney, whose partner is married to a judge, has filed a motion to dismiss. And the appellate court— uh, Basso makes his motion stating that evidence exists, certain evidence. I won't get into what that is. So instead of the court making him prove evidence that exists in order to support his motion, which has a high standard, they sent me a letter asking me to prove that it does not exist. So I have to prove a negative. So, I mean, that's a really bad sign that this court is not— even applying the standards properly. But also, I have free speech. It's— the contract says I can't talk about the case. I put a book out there, so I'm talking about it. So be interesting how the court says I have no standing when the settlement agreement keeps me from doing something I normally could do. Also, I'd love to hear from some contract attorneys on this, because out of the settlement agreement, they got a recordable deed. You can record this deed, and there's It lives throughout— through time. It lives. And so I don't know how you can take the consideration out of a contract, totally out the intent, not even care what it says, but still allow that contract to live in the future and in time. So that will be a legal issue I'll be addressing if I have to appeal again, which I'm hoping not to. And maybe I need to learn to just let go with this one. But anyways, that's for another discussion. And thank you for listening. I know not a lot of you are interested in family law reform, but I would have loved to have had more of an open discussion about it because I just see that system as really broken and being more about the money for the attorneys rather than for the families. So if you're a guy and you find yourself in a situation of being a dad when you don't expect In fact, instead of paying the attorney, give more to the woman than you want to, because every woman needs help. And it'll eventually, I would think, if she's a reasonable person, give you the trust and other things that comes with a friendship and raising a child versus, you know, what I have in my situation. So anyways, that's my advice to guys. So I'm going to, with that, on a lighter note, I'm going to bring Ryan and Oscar on. So come my show, hopefully I'll have a constitutional attorney on next week, and if not, hopefully I'll have another guest. I'm sorry I haven't been keeping up with my blog at all, but I do plan to do that at some point. And my book and other things might be a long-term goal. But so do you guys want to bring— thank you for watching. And do you guys want to bring up a video so you and Oscar Campaign prepares an amazing table, but multiplayer is your meal. I could eat it every goddamn day.
