I received and responded with the following from Patricia Funke/Deal’s attorney who now claims not to be her attorney. He associated in as counsel on December 26, 2003 and has been involved ever since.  The Bar Association prohibits attorneys from having direct contact with represented parties, but that didn’t stop him from sending the following.
 
I had word that Mr. and Mrs. Funke/Deal were seeking a neighbor to say that they had seen me in the “restricted zone”. That would eliminate any chance of my ever seeing my children again. I response I told every neighbor in the 100 yard zone where they could find my web page, photographs of what my car and I look like, and advised that I would respond to false accusations.
 
Her attorney hasn’t filed any charges because then I would get a chance to rebut the accusations, but I am filing for restraining orders to prevent a recurrence of the following.
 
***************
 
From: Steven C. Dimick
To: t deal
Sent: Sat, 8 May 2010 02:28:54 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Your blog

 
Thomas, Thomas, Thomas.

I'm disappointed in you.  Are you not checking your blog regularly or
are you ignoring a challenge to post my comment?  I posted yours and
I'll post (pretty much) any comment you want to make on mine.

                    Steven C. Dimick
            Law Offices of Steven C. Dimick
                    20880 Redwood Rd.
                 Castro Valley, CA 94546
                   Phone:  510-537-6200
                    Fax:  510-537-6213
                    law@dimicklaw.net
 
 
***************

t.deal@comcast.net wrote:

Mr. Dimick:

I'll just have to learn to live with your disappointment.  I'll check my blog to see if you asked to post anything, but I haven't seen anything lately.  More if I do.

Tom
 
(and later that night)
 
I found this (note: following message) among the reconstructed "anon." postings that I delete out of courtesy to my readers and in the interests of accuracy.  Is this your posting?

Tom Deal

 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven C. Dimick
To: t deal
Sent: Mon, 10 May 2010 18:46:40 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Request for authentication

Guilty as charged.  

 
(unsigned)

***************

(The earlier, deleted message that he wanted to post on my blog!)
 
Tom, what in blazes do you think you're doing?  Do you really think a threatening letter (yours of 4/20/10) to Kim's neighbors is going to get your kids back?  Or to make them even WANT to see you? How is graffiti on their car (no matter how "endearing" the message) going to advance your cause?

 
Geez, guy. As I've said before, you're a highly intelligent person.(see note 1) But haven't you gone off the deep end with this vendetta? You advise the neighbors to "think before you act," but how much have you actually thought this out.

Most divorced fathers have frequent and continuing contact with their children. But then, most divorced fathers don't engage in this maniacal crap and most divorced fathers actually help support their children.

 
How strange it is that every single judge you've been in front of is crooked, incompetent and prejudiced against you. How curious it is that your appeals are given short shrift.

 
Why not try being a real father instead of an avenging angel? You might be surprised at the difference in how you are received. Will you post this? I doubt it. Will you post your cute letter to the neighbors? Will you allow me to post it in a comment on your site? I doubt it. How about a photo of the etched graffiti on the kids' car? I doubt it.

 
Steve
 
(note 1: His actual quote on his blog for all to see is “the Brilliant, but Ruthless and Disturbed Fellow Who Made Monkeys Out Of the Alameda County Judiciary While Putting His Ex-wife Through a Reign of Terror”)
 
 
 
 
***************

 
 
Well put.  Another way would have been to say that you, an attorney for a party in this case, contacted me, a represented party directly and without permission from counsel, and accused me of misconduct and inappropriate behavior, but haven't brought charges to that effect.  You should because, in Alameda County, you can't lose if you just don't argue facts or relevant law.  Just accuse me and harass me until I actually do something for which I can be charged.

But what would that be?

Your information is as accurate now as it has always been.  

You opine:  "How strange it is that every single judge you've been in front of is crooked, incompetent and prejudiced against you."

The record shows that in the past 9 years, I have appeared in front of Grimmer, Oleon, Murphy, Hendrickson, Suhr, Rolefson, Spain, Northridge, Lee, Fairwell, Preville, Alexander, Jefferies, Rodirquez, Dimura, a criminal arraignment judge, and five appellate judges three times, totaling 9 different jurists.   My complaints are limited to five of these 25 jurists:  Grimmer, Oleon, Hendrickson, and Northridge, and Murphy to a limited extent.  And of course now there is Pulido.  Nice going, smart guy.  

This is the same level of lawyering that you used to get me declared a vexatious litigant: lie through your teeth to earn a living.  Despite your statement that my motions were denied "nearly every time", and my citing the record that showed that 12 of the 20 submitted up to that time had been granted, the Appellate court simply repeated your lie.  

What “vendetta”?  I’m engaged in a divorce with a documented insane woman (obsessive, lying, and hysterical) who has the support of a corrupting Court and you courtesans.  Anyone can see that you are just being foolish when you  want to publish your "version" on MY web page.  Crap on your own living room floor.

How much sake does it take before you can see yourself as a real man?  (see note 2)
 
Sincerely,
Tom Deal, father of Keara and Nathan, 14 years old twins.
 
(note 2: a reference to his sending a carafe of sake to my dinner table at a local Japanese Restaurant, after winning a judgment of $17,786 against me as “a vexatious litigant.” I didn’t drink it.)

***************
 
From: Steven C. Dimick
To: t deal
Sent: Tue, 11 May 2010 05:51:28 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: I "love" my kids

Ah, Tom, I'm just shaking my head sadly.  It was mostly a waste of my time, of course, but I was hoping that some way, someone just might be able to get through to you.  But your reply indicates that your grasp of logic is as tenuous as your grasp on reality.

Is there a difference between what *I* voluntarily allowed *you* to post on my blog and what you are afraid to let me post on yours?  Except, of course, that you are pure as the driven snow and everybody else is out to get you?

Am I Kim's attorney?  Are you represented?  The records don't indicate such.  But, then, facts are such pesky things, aren't they?

One enlightening thing has come out of this exchange, but you'll never face it:  you don't care about your kids.  It's all about TOM.  Tom has to win.  Tom has to show everybody who is stronger, more ruthless, more ungiving.  Tom will gnaw off his own arm before he'll pay a dime to support his children or before he'll knock off the obsessively self-destructive behavior that prevents him from seeing his kids.  The kids are only an excuse.  A "real man" (your phrase) would have been reunited with his kids years ago.  But you lost them long ago, Tom.  Damned careless of you, but there it is.

I don't expect you to stop this nonsense.  You're getting too much fun and too much masturbatory self-congratulations out of it.  But don't kid a kidder.  Don't give me "daddy dearest loves his 14-year-old twins and this is all for them."  But you can't stop giving me that, can you, Tom?  You do actually believe it, despite all outward manifestations to the contrary.  Explain how a threatening letter to all of Kim's neighbors advances your cause?  Nah, you can't do that, either.  Not "won't," but "can't."  It makes perfect sense to you.  (Here's a hint for next time, however:  Tom can't "charge" anybody with perjury.)

You won't believe this either, but you also lost the war a long time ago.  Sure, you're a nuisance;  sure, you're a joke to the court, but that's it.  Your tactics cost Kim some money here and there, but that's it.  You're a "geographer;"  think of it in military terms:  you haven't gained any ground at all, the "enemy" shows no sign of weakening and it never will.  Explain to anybody -- honestly -- just what your objective is?  Nah, you can't do that either.

This will all be over eventually and you won't have gained an inch.  It's only four years until the kids are emancipated.  What will you do for a cause then?  How are you going to claim that this is all for the kids when they won't have anything to do with you?  Will your life have any purpose then if you don't start looking for one now?

Steven C. Dimick

***************
 
Thanks for your perspective, but I don't agree with you.  That's to be expected -- we're entirely different people     You're a lawyer and I'm honest.  

I hope that you don't hurt any more children in the pursuit of your self-agrandizing.  I know that I haven't.  Your rant is pathetic, but you earn more money than I do, so I guess that you must be right and I must be wrong.  Wait until this plays out.  It's not even half time.  

No I won't allow you to crap in my living room just because you crap in yours, but that logic escapes you.  Thank you for your perspective, but I'll keep a safe distance from your advice.  The facts seem to be irrelevant to you.

Why would a geographer see things in military terms?  A military mind would, among other perspectives, see things in geographical setting, but I think I've given you enough of my time to make your point and you haven't made good use of that time.

Sincerely,
Mr. Deal to you.