The group that follows the "behind the scenes" drama of this case know that I filed for a restraining order against Hank Funke for his drunken, violent, threatening behavior and despite his admissions of the truthfulness of my allegations, I was denied the RO by Judge Jon Rolefson, who is now the presiding judge of all courts in Alameda County.  That's not the bad news.
 

Since I last wrote, I have been quoted in an article stating that Judge Pulido, while attorney in my case, regularly lied to the Court.  Now he is required by statute to recuse himself from participating in this case in his role as Presiding Judge of Family law, but he hasn't done it.  No surprise that I will have to force the issue.
 

How "crooked" is the local divorce court?  The following suggests that they are in bed with each other for the benefits that they can give each other while pretending to serve justice.
 

Two weeks ago, I called the Hayward Police Department (HPD) to make an appointment with Officer D. Allen (Badge # 479), to ask him why he had put several entirely false statements into his report to the District Attorney's office.  His report led to the D.A. charging me with a crime, causing me to spend thousands of dollars and 6 months in fear, before the D.A. dropped the charges for "Problems with Proof."  That is code for "we don't have a case, and we were just f*cking with him, but it didn't work."
 

This simple, and recently popular phrase seems to apply to Comm. Elizabeth Hendrickson, Dept. 507 in this case.  My process server has twice sworn that she was served with a Judicial Challenge on May 4, 2009, and she failed to respond within the required 10 days.  By statute (CCP 170.6), she must now step down, and her decisions are open to interpretation by the judge that replaces her.  This is the law.
 

I filed an Appeal (Writ of Mandate) requesting that the higher court direct (mandate) the lower court to obey the law, specifically, to recuse itself and stop saying that it wasn't served with the Judicial Challenge, when the record shows that it was.  The law is very clear that, when the record is clear about such a thing, the Court cannot ignore the record, and must act accordingly.
 

I am entitled by law and all orders in this case, to subpoena the secruity videos form the Courthouse.  I asked that the Court issue a blank subpoena, which is proper, and they refused for no good reason.  I then asked for permission, had to pay $40, wait a five days, and was told that it would be ready at noon on Wednesday, Sept.

On Friday, I called the Hayward Family Law Division, and told them to inform Comm. Hendrickson (Dept. 507) that I needed her phone number to file with my Writ of Mandate, challenging her statements that I did not have her properly served with a Judicial Challenge on May 4, 2009.  By law, since she didn't respond, she is removed from the case.
 
On Sunday, this web site went live, and I notified a bus load of people.