Linda Boblitt defeats Statute of Limitations; and attorney Marc Hughes

At one time Linda Boblitt was the black and blue face of “domestic violence” in family court – where crime victims languish after paying taxes for police “services.”

The owner of a trucking firm has a collection of hideous pictures, emergency room visits,  a broken jaw and missing teeth, courtesy Boblitt says, of her former husband, Steven B. Boblitt.

No police action.

Yet Boblitt continued her search for justice.

Last week finally yielded a little light in the shadow of what routinely passes for “justice” in family court.  Years too late, given Family Court Judge James Mize’s amazing “not credible” comments. But it’s a start.

Naturally Linda Boblitt’s win wasn’t in Family Court.  Boblitt prevailed in the Law & Motion Department of Civil Court against Steven B. Boblitt’s Motion To Dismiss.  Linda defeated Steven Boblitt, and his on-again, off-again, “Special appearance” attorney, Marc Hughes.

Boblitt - Beats Statute of Limitations 1

Sidebar:  Professional Tip

Most reporters are unaware of the so-called “in pro per” litigant con, run by monied litigants in conjunction with their attorneys.  That would be those on-again, off-again attorneys who make “Special Appearances” for years on end.  The practice is helpfully encouraged by the State Bar to enable the attorney to duck out of the case at any time.  This practice continues because Judges play along, never questioning the finances of the long-time in pro-per litigant who manages to gin up a “Special Appearance” attorney time after time.  Thus the true “pro-per” is seldom afforded an equitable playing field.  In this case, Steven B. Boblitt enjoyed a long history with the special appearance of Marc Hughes, and was never seriously questioned by any family court judge for the purpose of ordering payment for attorneys fees for Linda Boblitt, who was truely, self-represented.  Ergo, the basis of an “level playing field” remains a myth that has been successfully used by monied litigants for decades, all devoid of media exposure.  The practice is likely to continue as reporters interviewing attorneys for family law coverage, aren’t likely to blow the whistle on a good thing.  However, even a mildly curious reporter could ask, “So how many special appearances have you made?”

But, I digress.  Key word below is the last word in the second paragraph:  GRANTED.

Statute of Limitations

Boblitt decision, Sacramento Civil Court

Marc Hughes made a rote defense.

Marc Hughes, family law

Marc Hughes loses in Law & Motion, Sacramento, CA

But it would appear David Brown, the judicial officer hearing the case, applied the “man on the street standard,” the common sense standard largely absent in these type of cases.

Women continue trudging for justice largely devoid of media exposure.  Reporters and talking heads still have not really gotten the message.  Including after the defeat of Eric Cantor, (which came as no surprise to the women working to defeat him).  Perhaps the talking heads might tilt their heads in the direction of voters.  Women voters.  Women voters who vote more than men.  Perhaps they might consider how many worked so hard, (full disclosure:  I was one of them) to defeat long-time LA Family Court Commissioner, Debra Losnick.

Best for last – “The Court affirmed the tentative ruling.”

domestic violence scores a win

Linda Boblitt prevails against Steven Boblitt and on-again, off-again attorney, Marc Hughes


About bonnie russell

It's not about’s always about people.
This entry was posted in Law, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.