October 20, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors
Just last month I wrote a couple of pieces here and here about a particularly scurrilous article by one Natalie Patillo, that appeared, to its everlasting shame, in the New York Review of Books. Readers may recall that, among the many low points of the article, perhaps the very lowest were the author’s references to one-time New Jersey lawyer Barry Goldstein and psychologist and fellow traveler Joyanna Silberg.
Goldstein actually managed to lose his law license due in large part to his outrageous conduct representing Yevgenia Shockome against her ex-husband Tim Shockome. And, among other things, Silberg offered her generally worthless opinions in the same case.
Now, what the illustrious Glenn Sacks found in researching the case was that Genia’s claims of abuse by Tim were entirely made up as part of her ongoing effort at parental alienation and, more generally, to deny their children any relationship with their father. Goldstein and Silberg put their respective shoulders to the wheel along with Genia, but all three of them failed miserably. As Sacks pointed out, the judge, mental health professionals and custody evaluators all found Tim to be a good and loving father and Genia to be an alienator. Their children refused to corroborate Genia’s allegations against their father. Custody was changed from her to Tim, the kids have been with him ever since and are doing quite well, thank you.
But it’s worth learning just what type of person Genia Shockome is. That’s true, because, when we do so, we inevitably also learn something about the Barry Goldsteins and Joyanna Silbergs of the world. Put simply, they’re the type of people who go to bat for the likes of Genia Shockome. And, in the same process, we learn more about the utter lack of balance or professionalism of Natalie Patillo and the NY Review of Books. When you make common cause with a liar and abuser like Genia Shockome, you can’t help but get dirty, if you weren’t already.
And that’s exactly what a Texas court has decided should never happen again. On July 22nd of this year, Judge Catherine A. Mauzy of the 459th District Court of Travis County (Austin) ruled Yevgenia Shockome to be a “vexatious litigant” under applicable Texas law. That means that she has been enjoined by the court from ever again bringing a civil suit of any sort, pro se (without a lawyer), without the prior approval of a senior judge.
The reason? She seems to have made a career out of filing frivolous lawsuits against people she doesn’t like, including but not limited to, her ex-husband. Those entirely innocent people are then required to hire lawyers and spend their time defending themselves against a malicious litigant. Now, everyone agrees that the courts should be open to people attempting to obtain justice for legal wrongs. And everyone understands that genuinely held convictions about injustice don’t always result in judicial determinations in one’s favor. Sometimes people lose their lawsuits, but the courts should and do remain open to them.
But Genia Shockome is anything but a litigant who’s concerned about another’s behavior she genuinely believes to constitute a legal wrong. Far from it.
So, for example, Judge Mauzy cited nine cases filed by Genia over a seven year period, all of which were decided against her. That strongly suggests an abusive litigant. But, in order to be found to be a “vexatious litigant” under Texas law, it’s not nearly enough to simply file suits that the litigant doesn’t win. No, to be determined to be vexatious, a litigant must have filed at least five unmeritorious cases within a seven-year period that have been,
(A) finally determined adversely to the plaintiff; (B) permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing; or (C) determined by a trial or appellate court to be frivolous or groundless under state or federal laws or rules of procedure; (2) after a litigation has been finally determined against the plaintiff, the plaintiff repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, pro se, either: (A) the validity of the determination against the same defendant as to whom the litigation was finally determined; or (B) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant as to whom the litigation was finally determined;
That is who Genia Shockome is and it is who Barry Goldstein and Joyanna Silberg supported in their efforts to deny a father to Tim Shockome’s children. And in turn that is who Natalie Patillo stooped to cite in her NYRB article.
Judge Mauzy went on to require Genia to provide Tim monetary security against the attorney’s fees and costs he’s incurred in defending against her groundless claims. She’s also prohibited from ever again filing a pro se lawsuit in any district or county court in the state without the prior approval of the administrative judge for the county in which she seeks to file.
In short, at long last, in at least one state, Yevgenia Shockome is persona non grata. Will Natalie Patillo, Barry Goldstein or Joyanna Silberg take notice? Don’t bet on it.