Thursday, February 05, 2009

Dixon v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. - Feb. 4, 2009)

There was something that just didn't look right about this case. I was surprised, for example, that a "reporter" filed a California Public Records Act case seeking autopsy results and yet prosecuted the petition pro per. Not something you usually see. Plus, I noticed that the petitioner was granted in forma pauperis status. Sure, real reporters don't make a ton, but IFP? Seems like you could at least afford the filing fee (if you told the truth, anyway).

So I did a little digging. Then it all made sense.

You wouldn't get this from reading the opinion, but it turns out that the petitioner, Kathryn Dixon, is a former attorney. I say former because she's been disbarred. And the "book" that she's allegedly planning to write will probably look a little like this.

So I don't think the world's missing much as a result of Justice Davis' ruling that she doesn't get a looksie.

P.S. - I didn't realize it when I originally wrote this, but apparently this is not Ms. Dixon's first foray into the litigation world. Or even the California Appellate Report. This is what I wrote about Ms. Dixon's work as an attorney a couple of years ago. Boy, I was really mean back in the old days.

In Ms. Dixon's defense, I thought the current petition was actually plausible. I nonetheless somehow got a "vibe" from the thing that just didn't feel right. Guess now I know why.