Judge Elizabeth Feffer’s Draconian Orders Reversed
Finally the Court of Appeals, Justice Woods and Perluss in particular, recognize the nature of Judge Elizabeth Feffer’s orders separating children from their mothers.
This reporter watched a hearing between Elizabeth G and her ex spouse Gregory G. The words on the transcript could not capture the callous and bitchy tone of voice Feffer used in addressing the beautiful young mother.
Apparently the words spoken in a different hearing, where Elizabeth G was represented by attorney Robert Canny did appeal to the justices’ sense of decency.
You can read the “unpublished” opinion by clicking here, but the online version is only available for 60 days from when it is posted. If the link no longer works, write to bohemian_books@yahoo.com and I’ll try to send a pdf. When I have more time, I’ll try to convert the entire pdf to a word doc and post it here.
My favorite line from the opinion was toward the conclusion. “Issuance of such a draconian restraining order was not proper unless failure to issue it might jeopardize [the child’s] safety.”
Something bothers me: the practice of taking out the identifying names in the opinion, supposedly to protect the innocent children. The stigma from having the school, church, friends and neighbors told that Elizabeth was such a despicable human being that she could have no contact with her son was irreversible and defamatory. If the Court did not grant itself absolute immunity from liability, it seems Elizabeth G would have a slam dunk, multi-million dollar lawsuit against Feffer and her employer. It is the least the Court could do to print and broadcast a retraction on the cover of the L.A. Times. There is more good than harm done if the names of the victims of court abuse are published.
(Elizabeth G did not give me permission to publish her full name. The opinion was emailed to me by a third party and I recognized the parties from my prior investigation.)
A Higher Law 
so remanded back to trial in Byrd’s court. Byrd wants to “try” everything that led up to those unlawful orders made by Feffer and reversed by the appellate court. shocker: mom still denied any custody when the schedule should revert back to what it was prior to feffer’s unlawful orders. No temp orders for reunification, no monitored visitation, nothing. this is so devastating to hear.
LikeLike
RATE THIS TERRIBLE JUDGE A ZERO!!!!
“Honorable” (cough,gag) Elizabeth Feffer will remain on the Bench until 2018 or until she faces an opponent for her seat. Voters DO NOT have the right to “vote her out” unless she has an opponent.
This is an appeal to attorneys who, unlike “Honorable” (cough,gag) Judge Feffer are professional, unbiased, literate & possessing of the interest to read & consider briefs, & having the judicial temperament necessary to warrant the respect of attorneys & litigants. Please consider running against this woman. Judge Feffer is, simply, the worst justice I have seen in my 60+ years on this earth.
Here is the relevant election code so that, come 2018, Feffer can be seen standing in a long line in her judicial robes at the unemployment office. [I hope they treat her “with the respect she deserves!”]
FROM BALLOTPEDIA:
“The 1535 judges of the California Superior Courts compete in nonpartisan races in even-numbered years. If a candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote in the June primary election, he or she is declared the winner; if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote, a runoff between the top two candidates is held during the November general election.
If an incumbent judge is running unopposed in an election, his or her name does not appear on the ballot. The judge is automatically re-elected following the general election.”
LikeLike