Even the Court of Last Resort Has to Reject Some Cases

All rise.

The Court of Last Resort is now in session.

The Court does not solicit, nor does it discourage the cases that come to its attention. The Court is not able to schedule a trial on each and every matter. However, the Court turns no one away without at least a preliminary hearing.

But the Court would have petitioners kindly remember: With only approximately 800 words at its disposal twice a week, the Court may not be the appropriate forum for all complaints. The Court is not your mother, nor is the Court your psychiatrist. As you may know, the Court has a demanding life outside this space and does not wish to be disturbed at home. Also, the Court is subject to mood swings.

Bear in mind as you prepare your petition that complexity, not ideology, is the enemy of this courtroom.

The more succinct and clear the evidence, the easier it will be for the petitioner to convince the higher, more important court--the Court of Public Opinion, which bases its decisions on information provided by the Court of Last Resort--that a complaint is valid.

What follows is a compendium of cases that the Court has refused to try. It is provided in hopes of clarifying the kinds of cases that are generally outside the scope of this Court’s power.

Please note, however, that had the docket been empty enough or had the Court consumed fewer cups of coffee, these cases might have had their day here. It’s hard to be certain.

You may be seated.

*

* Ms. X first approached the Court two years ago. She is the mother of a troubled adolescent daughter. After a court battle that was waged in three states, she began receiving a minimum amount of child support from the father of her child, a successful musician whose rock group affiliations would be instantly recognizable to most. She has pursued the father in court, using a little known law that is supposed to encourage cooperation between jurisdictions in child support matters. Ms. X has flooded the Court with legal documents. Her case remains unsettled. Recently, her daughter was raped by two young acquaintances. She has put the child support issue on hold while dealing with the trauma of the rape. The Court wishes it could embarrass the father into a generous settlement, and does not understand why other courts have allowed the matter to drag on so long. If this Court could, it would also knock together the heads of all the prosecutors who have feigned commitment to the issue of child support while allowing the lives of people like Ms. X and her daughter to unravel.

* Ms. Y called the Court last year from another state, after being sexually assaulted by a colleague at a hotel during a business trip to Southern California. She had several drinks in a bar and believes her colleague slipped some sort of drug in one of them before the assault took place. She returned to California to meet with the district attorney of the county where she was assaulted. He declined to prosecute the case for lack of evidence. Back at work, Ms. Y was dismissed from her job for what the company deemed her “excessive use of alcohol” while on the business trip. She suffered a nervous breakdown, underwent electroshock therapy and a halfhearted suicide attempt. She is the mother of three young children, and until the assault, considered herself happily married. The strain of the experience is now threatening her marriage. Although the Court spent several hours interviewing Ms. Y and believed her story, it cannot do police work, nor can it say--in the absence of official criminal charges--whether a crime actually occurred. Ms. Y is suing the company that fired her and this Court, naturally, is rooting for her.

* Ms. Z was stalked for months by a woman with whom she had had a brief sexual relationship. Eventually, the stalker took up residence under Ms. Z’s home. Ms. Z thought she had rodents, and the stalker’s living arrangements were discovered when exterminators were called in. The episode culminated one day when the stalker burst in on Ms. Z and held her at gunpoint. Ms. Z got away and, after a standoff with police, the stalker was arrested, convicted and incarcerated. The stalker was about to be released at the time Ms. Z contacted the Court, even though she had sent threatening letters to her victim, to the victim’s family, and to the prosecutor and other professionals involved in the case. The Court refused to try this case, because the Court does not wish to join the list of those being stalked.

* In general, the Court eschews cases turning on unprovable accusations of sexual abuse of children in the course of custody battles, property settlements in hostile divorces and the sexual indiscretions of married persons regardless of professional station.

Is that clear? Good. Court is adjourned until Wednesday.

* Robin Abcarian’s column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Readers may write to her at the Los Angeles Times, Life & Style, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053.