White v. White
Stephen P. White (Stephen),[1] in pro per, appeals from a restraining order issued against him protecting his sister-in-law, Karen White (Karen), in pro per, her husband (Stephen's brother) John White (John), and Karen's adult son and four-year-old grandson. Stephen contends the trial court: (1) erred in denying him the opportunity to cross-examine John and Karen; (2) erred in denying his request for a continuance; (3) â€
Comments on White v. White
The Appeals Court apparently knew web pages such as this one make decisions, even "Unpublished" decisions available to the public and so they flat out lied, extensively, in this "Opinion" to misrepresent the case.
The judge in this case is the daughter in law of Leon Panetta, and she had a bias against me, I think because she'd been identified in my Nepotism web page as someone in the local (Alameda County, where Oakland is) courts who could have gotten her position because of her father in law's influence. (since then Jerry Brown appointed to her a judgeship in Monterey County because that is where the Panetta family's power base is, and her husband wanted to go back there, probably partly to prepare for his future campaign for Congress - though that is just a rumor so far. Being appointed judge in another county, ahead of all the party apparatchiks is very rare but Leon told them how it was apparently)
Anyway, Panetta jumped through some hoops and denied me a continuance (required by Family Code, sorry can't remember section right now) and denied me cross examination (of course required by Evidence Code but also by US and California Constitutions) to make sure she had an OK "record" to screw me over. I know that sounds a bit paranoid, again, she was sensitive about the Nepotism thing - and she was later proven to be nasty, sending a local attorney to jail for contempt for not being ready for trial (rare enough that it made the news big time out here) and did not dot her "I"s or cross her "T"s when she did it - thus being overruled by an emergency appeal.
All my appeals points were valid - I did my research, I did not make things up, and had case citation for all - and the appeals court knew that - but they apparently did not want Panetta to look bad -- so, they distorted their account of the record - and I love this web page but it would be great if you put all the Appellant's submissions on here so people could see just how much they lied, in this case and others - to make it look like the "Opinion" - sorry, I know that is the term of art, but it's damn unlikely Judge McGuiness believed anything he wrote -was justified. It was not, it was a pack of lies.