I just reread the judge's order. CM's motion is weak, I think, at best. The judge is citing another case and says, when the defendant invites you into their home, did not say KC did specifically, and throughout he mentions a defendant, or they (meaning the family) invites you into their home. The judge never mentioned KC by name but in a general context. CM appears to be wrong there.
The second thing I read was about going to Universal. Judge said the interview took place in a conference room because that is where she led police officers claiming it to be her office. Then goes on to say she led them to the building on her own. The judge is not saying she claimed the conference room was her office (and clearly the judge knows this) but that she lead them there, down the hallway and claimed that this is where she worked and they took her into a conference room to talk to her. So it is a matter of how you care to interpret it but it seems pretty clear what the judge had written and what he meant. Only someone easily confused might not understand. But, really, with this complaint it is splitting hairs because the remainder of what the judge had to say is very clear and that had to do with caselaw.
For those two incidents CM is citing I'd be asking him if he has had a brain scan lately because these are a waste of time and nonsense. Grabbing at straws. It is just a public reminder of how badly off they really are and maybe, just maybe, they want to get a negative reaction from the judge. I think HHJP is above that. jmo
