They say the courtroom is where truth meets justice, but what happens when the truth is gagged and justice wears a blindfold—backwards?
On May 15, 2025, I walked into the Hayward Hall of Justice Family Court in Alameda County, not just as a concerned parent, but as a witness to a system that’s supposed to protect families yet often fails them. My daughter was by my side that day, a silent observer to a process that revealed more about power than protection, more about control than care. And what I witnessed from the judge on that bench wasn’t just disappointing—it was disturbing.
This isn’t about revenge; it’s about revelation. It’s about calling out unethical behavior where robes and gavels don’t equal godliness. Judges are supposed to uphold the law, not abuse it. And when they do? We talk about it. Loudly.
I am a certified life coach with 20 years of experience and a well-known content creator on social media. In this case, I was the respondent. I appeared in court to respond to a restraining order that I believe was filed in bad faith. Despite submitting a comprehensive packet of evidence—including my own written statement and three letters from credible witnesses—my documentation was not thoroughly reviewed or acknowledged during the hearing.
The temporary restraining order was initially granted by Judge Thomas Weathers. However, when the matter came before Judge Terry Wiley, the evidence I submitted, detailing a long pattern of harassment I endured beginning in 2017, was largely ignored. For years, I was publicly targeted, insulted, and provoked through repeated electronic communication. I remained silent as long as I could, but eventually, I had to defend myself excessively for years at a time.
During a past intimate relationship, I experienced significant emotional distress and humiliation. Following the dissolution of this relationship, a pattern of conduct aimed at damaging my reputation and undermining my wellbeing caused me to go into a deep depression. Such actions have caused ongoing emotional harm and interference with my life in general.
I brought everything to court: emails, screenshots, witnesses, receipts. Still, the judge appeared more interested in fast-tracking the process than in reviewing the facts. This experience made one thing painfully clear: not all courtrooms are built for justice, and not all judges are committed to fairness.
Upon entering the courtroom on May 15, 2025, at 9 a.m., accompanied by my adult daughter Dominique, who also served as my witness, it was immediately apparent that there was a high level of disorganization and visible frustration among the judge and court staff. After several hours of observing the handling of other cases, I began to recognize a troubling pattern in how proceedings were being managed. I quietly told my witness to begin gathering our things so we could leave, assuming my case would not be heard that day. Just as we began to prepare to exit, the judge unexpectedly called my case.
During my testimony, I explained that I am a certified life coach with over 20 years of experience and that my online content centers around personal development, wellness, and empowering others—particularly women—to make healthier life choices. I’ve authored eight books on financial wellness and have published thousands of videos and posts that promote celibacy, prayer, meditation, and self-improvement.
Rather than engage with the evidence or allow me to explain my work in full, the judge dismissed my professional background outright, stating that he did not believe that’s who I am. This personal remark, delivered without reviewing my submitted materials or hearing my full statement, was not only unprofessional but deeply disheartening. I saw a disturbing pattern early on. My intent has always been to uplift and support others through my lived experiences, including my journey as a single mother of a neurodivergent child navigating significant life challenges alone. It’s all over my content.
As I attempted to respond to a series of inquiries, the judge interrupted me multiple times, often before I could complete a sentence. He appeared to have already formed an opinion about me and my case, rendering the hearing a mere formality rather than a fair evaluation. This lack of impartiality was evident not only in his words but also in his demeanor and body language.
The restraining order in question was based on allegations that I had harassed the petitioner through my online content. However, the posts cited were general discussions about my experiences as a single mother and did not mention the petitioner by name. Moreover, the petitioner had a history of engaging with my content, often leaving comments and sending messages, which I had documented and presented as evidence.
Despite this, the judge chose to overlook these details, focusing instead on the volume of my online activity as indicative of harassment. This interpretation not only misrepresented the nature of my content but also infringed upon my right to free speech. It set a dangerous precedent where sharing one’s personal journey and advocating for others could be construed as malicious behavior.
The most disheartening aspect of this experience was the realization that the courtroom, a place I had believed to be a bastion of fairness and justice, could be so dismissive of the truth. The judge’s actions did not reflect a commitment to uncovering the facts or ensuring a fair hearing. Instead, they revealed a system more concerned with expedience than equity.
This ordeal has left me questioning the integrity of our legal system and the safeguards in place to protect individuals from judicial overreach. It has underscored the importance of holding those in positions of authority accountable and advocating for reforms that ensure fairness and impartiality in our courts.
In sharing my story, I hope to shed light on the challenges faced by those who seek justice and to encourage others to speak out against injustices they encounter. Silence only perpetuates the problem. It’s time we demand better from our judicial system and those who serve within it.
Justice should not be a privilege afforded to the few but a right guaranteed to all. It’s time we ensure that our courts reflect this principle in both word and deed.
“but what happens when . . . justice wears a blindfold—backwards?”
As a blindfold is a piece of cloth, and the nature of cloth, about the same as wearing it ‘forwards’.
This piece is someone gives one side of a story, no examples of the actual content that was claimed, and this is supposed to be an example of the problems with the legal system. She may be in the right, she may be lying — but what end does any story giving one side and no evidence serve?