Postmodern Justice

Alex Baker discusses how corruption in Los Angeles Superior Court forces him to file a Motion for a New Trial.   A new trial is needed because Judge Emily T. Spear simply stopped the trial for no reason. The trial was for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order, on the grounds of Impersonation. California law explicitly states that Impersonation is Domestic Violence Abuse    Here is Alex's Declaration with Exhibits proving up the case. And here are the Reports of 2 independent handwriting experts , each of whom find that Alex's signature was forged. 

According to this Yahoo story , a new bill in California says that "sex workers" may not be arrested for prostitution or drug possession if they were the victim of or witness to a crime such as sexual assault, domestic violence, etc. Let me see if I got this right. A bust is about to go down. The cops are there. The "sex worker" has been turning tricks in her hotel room all weekend. She's got crystal meth, and a prior record. She could be in some serious trouble. Now, all she has to do is make a false allegation, and they can't even arrest her? Is there any hooker that would NOT make a false allegation to save her own ass? Don't get me wrong, I'm very libertarian, I think sex, drugs and rock'n'roll should all be legal. If they want to make life easier on "sex works", then legalize it. But nothing good will come of this law. They might as well call it the "False Allegation Encouragement Act".

California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act ("DVPA") has a residual clause definition of "abuse" that is unconstitutionally vague, and impermissibly grants unbridled discretion to issue a prior restraint. DV "abuse" can be found in any conduct that "destroys the mental or emotional calm" of the other person. In Alex Baker's case, domestic violence was found in his pending litigation against his ex-wife (and ex-business partner), "irrespective of whether the cases have any merit". Moreover, the DV restraining order has gagged Alex, disallowing him from publishing court documents, and from contacting necessary trial witnesses, on the basis that doing so would emotionally upset his legal adversary. The California Court of Appeal found that these prior restraints of free speech and of the right to petition did not need to be narrowly tailored, and were not subject to a strict scrutiny analysis, simply because they were issue...