Purpose and Disclaimer
I am not an attorney, and nothing I say is legal advice. However, I am a man who holds a Juris Doctorate. I also have considerable personal experience as a litigant in civil and family law cases, in California State and Federal Courts, at the trial court and appellate levels. Since 2015, I have been fighting to reclaim some part of my money, my business, my real estate, my career, and my life's musical work that I "lost" (i.e. had taken from me).
Postmodern Justice, and the related YouTube channel of the same name, exist for the purpose of educating the public, and offering my opinions, suggestions and criticisms of the "justice" system in California, the United States, and the Western World in general.
Gradually, over the last half-century, the civil court and especially family court systems have followed the lead of academia by embracing a philosophy called "postmodernism". In a nutshell, postmodernism holds that there is no such thing as objective truth. Instead, there are only competing narratives.
The courts do not explicitly endorse postmodernism, of course. But the law has been crafted in such flexible fashion that everything is arguable. Everything. Judicial "discretion" permits any judge, at any stage, of any case, to decide any issue for or against any party. If I learned anything in law school, it was that under any set of facts, you can can create an argument for either side. "Argue both sides" was the mantra my professors drilled into my head.
The patently absurd legal outcomes that have become the norm cannot be explained anything other than an (at least tacit) acceptance of postmodern thinking. For example, I stood trial for a domestic violence restraining order. Never mind that there were no allegations of any sort of violence, as that term is understood. Case law has established that domestic violence "abuse" is found in any conduct that "destroys the mental or emotional calm" of the other person. (see the case of Nadkarni)
What does "destroy the mental or emotional calm" mean? Or, perhaps a better question is, "what doesn't it mean?" It could mean anything. In my case, my ex wife was upset because I won a copyright infringement lawsuit against her, and had the audacity to publish the court ruling on a blog. This upset her emotional calm. She filed a restraining order, and the Court not only restrained me against her, but also took my children away from me. And it gets more absurd.
In the course of the 11-month long trial that ensued, I filed motions in my own defense, according to the rules of civil procedure. The Court ruled that my acts of filing defense motions, for example trying to have the judge removed for creating the appearance of bias, were themselves acts of domestic violence against my ex-wife. I'm not making this up.
The Court explicitly ruled that my litigation constituted "abuse", whether my litigation had merit or not. All that matters is the effect that it has on her. Of course being sued is stressful, and will upset your peace of mind. My peace of mind was upset during the domestic violence trial. Does this mean that my ex wife was "abusing" me, and that I could bring a restraining order against her? And if I did, could she bring another one against me? Only postmodern thinkers could allow such an absurd outcome.
I am not and never will be an attorney because I have made a conscious decision not to become one. I know firsthand what attorneys actually must do for a living. For the most part, Postmodern Justice is unbelievably cruel and greedy. I simply couldn't live with myself.
I am not a lawyer and nothing that I say constitutes legal advice. Rather, my purpose is to serve the public interest by sharing factual information and my opinions based on my education, my experience, and my take on other cases, all in this very strange new world of Postmodern Justice.
-Alexander C. Baker, J.D.
Postmodern Justice, and the related YouTube channel of the same name, exist for the purpose of educating the public, and offering my opinions, suggestions and criticisms of the "justice" system in California, the United States, and the Western World in general.
Gradually, over the last half-century, the civil court and especially family court systems have followed the lead of academia by embracing a philosophy called "postmodernism". In a nutshell, postmodernism holds that there is no such thing as objective truth. Instead, there are only competing narratives.
The courts do not explicitly endorse postmodernism, of course. But the law has been crafted in such flexible fashion that everything is arguable. Everything. Judicial "discretion" permits any judge, at any stage, of any case, to decide any issue for or against any party. If I learned anything in law school, it was that under any set of facts, you can can create an argument for either side. "Argue both sides" was the mantra my professors drilled into my head.
The patently absurd legal outcomes that have become the norm cannot be explained anything other than an (at least tacit) acceptance of postmodern thinking. For example, I stood trial for a domestic violence restraining order. Never mind that there were no allegations of any sort of violence, as that term is understood. Case law has established that domestic violence "abuse" is found in any conduct that "destroys the mental or emotional calm" of the other person. (see the case of Nadkarni)
What does "destroy the mental or emotional calm" mean? Or, perhaps a better question is, "what doesn't it mean?" It could mean anything. In my case, my ex wife was upset because I won a copyright infringement lawsuit against her, and had the audacity to publish the court ruling on a blog. This upset her emotional calm. She filed a restraining order, and the Court not only restrained me against her, but also took my children away from me. And it gets more absurd.
In the course of the 11-month long trial that ensued, I filed motions in my own defense, according to the rules of civil procedure. The Court ruled that my acts of filing defense motions, for example trying to have the judge removed for creating the appearance of bias, were themselves acts of domestic violence against my ex-wife. I'm not making this up.
The Court explicitly ruled that my litigation constituted "abuse", whether my litigation had merit or not. All that matters is the effect that it has on her. Of course being sued is stressful, and will upset your peace of mind. My peace of mind was upset during the domestic violence trial. Does this mean that my ex wife was "abusing" me, and that I could bring a restraining order against her? And if I did, could she bring another one against me? Only postmodern thinkers could allow such an absurd outcome.
I am not and never will be an attorney because I have made a conscious decision not to become one. I know firsthand what attorneys actually must do for a living. For the most part, Postmodern Justice is unbelievably cruel and greedy. I simply couldn't live with myself.
I am not a lawyer and nothing that I say constitutes legal advice. Rather, my purpose is to serve the public interest by sharing factual information and my opinions based on my education, my experience, and my take on other cases, all in this very strange new world of Postmodern Justice.
-Alexander C. Baker, J.D.
Comments
Post a Comment