California is in the state of emergency now.

The only logical conclusion is that the State of California is in the state of emergency. Unless the adequate funds are received from the US Government and unless the judges recognize and actively try to offset their implicit bias against self-represented people, the anarchy in California will lead to tyranny to maintain stability and order. Torture is the first and necessary element of tyranny.

I certainly don’t know whether you, as the highest rulers of the State of California, favor tyranny over anarchy. I don’t know what you would like for your children and the future generations of Californians. The only thing I know for sure is that neither fairness nor conscience can exist during anarchy or tyranny or slavery. That’s why I pray for your fairness and conscience: you have the power to steer California toward democracy.

Recognizing the implicit bias helped physicians to offset it. “People who report a strong personal motivation to be non-prejudiced tend to harbor less implicit bias. And some studies indicate that people who are good at using logic and willpower to control their more primitive urges, such as trained mediators, exhibit less implicit bias. Brain research suggests that the people who are best at inhibiting implicit stereotypes are those who are especially skilled at detecting mismatches between their intentions and their actions”.[1] (bold added).

It is much easier to review a couple of cases involving self-represented litigants than to review tens of thousands of them. It is good to maintain public delusion of justice and fairness and make public statements such as:

“Rigid rule following is not always consistent with a court’s function to see that justice is done. Cognizant of the strong policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits [citations], judges usually consider whether to exercise their discretion in applying local court rules and frequently consider documents which have been untimely filed”.[2] (bold added).

“When the two policies collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency”. [3] (bold added)

“That a procedure is efficient and moves cases through the system is admirable, but even more important is for the courts to provide fair and accessible justice. … What we observed three decades ago remains true today: “While the speedy disposition of cases is desirable, speed is not always compatible with justice. … Domestic relations litigation, one of the most important and sensitive tasks a judge faces, too often is given the low-man-on-the-totem-pole treatment”.[4] (bold added).

The Supreme Court is concerned that “[Citation] Members [of the State Bar] uniformly report that their clients [family law litigants] are stunned to be told that they will not get to tell their story to the judge [citation], and express [citation] shock, anxiety and outrage [citation] along with the belief that [citation] they had been denied their right to have their case heard by a judicial officer [citation]. Overwhelmingly, practitioners criticized the rule and order [of the Contra Costa Superior Court] for creating what their clients understood to be a lesser standard of justice for family law litigants.”[5] (bold added).

The Supreme Court affirms that “… family law litigants should not be subjected to second-class status or deprived of access to justice.”[6] (bold added).

The problem is that such statements are delusions or shams because in the current legal system for over 90% of Californians justice is physically impossible. The current legal system in California is detrimentally damaged and completely dysfunctional. It needs a paradigm shift to become functional and to support democracy.

The following conditions should not exist in California because they contradict with the meaning of democracy and justice or make democracy and justice impossible:

1. Slavery and torture because they are immoral and inhumane.

2. Unregulated monopoly on the legal representation because it immediately deprives the vast majority of Californians of any representation. Californians should have a freedom of choice and should be represented by any people they trust.

3. Trial judges chosen only from former practicing attorneys because it inevitably creates a bias in favor of litigants represented by attorneys. Trial judges should be scholars and thinkers concerned about social justice.

4. Judicial terms of more than 6 years because of the addiction to power and, consequently, development of stereotyped thinking and antisocial behavior. There should be continuous education, testing of cognitive abilities, and psychological evaluation of the judges.

5. Unreasonable deadlines and time limits for filing appeals and related briefs and correcting the errors that resulted in a miscarriage of justice because it allows injustice for self-represented litigants, especially women, to flourish and promotes domestic violence against women.

6. Imprisonment of children and juveniles because it detrimentally damages their brains and leads to continuous antisocial behavior.

7. Imprisonment of sick people who are addicted to any drugs because there is absolutely no scientific or medical basis for distinguishing between an addiction to power or sweets and an addiction to cocaine[7] or any other drugs, legal or illegal. Any addiction is a biological brain disease and not a failure of character or willpower.

8. Death penalty because it creates impossible financial burden on the society and depletes resources of the court system.

I pray for your fairness and conscience: Please use your power and the trust invested in you by the people of California, turn your best intensions into actions, and initiate the necessary paradigm shift. Please reconsider your denial of my request for an extension of time to file Appellant’s Opening Briefs and review my filed statutory Petitions for Writ.

Respectfully Yours,

Natalia A. Sidiakina