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.
 
I was directed to a local attorney's web page, DimickLaw.com, belonging to Steve Dimick who represented my former wife in having me declared to be abusing the court (vexatious litigant per CCP 391).  This was heard by Comm. Glenn Oleon who has since been removed from the case in response to my allegations (Judicial Challenge per CCP 170.3).  Oleon decided to impose the restrictin that I must have the permission of the Court before I can raise any issue whatsoever in any court in California.  Comm. Hendrickson then added the condition that I have to post a bond if permission is given, to cover costs of pursuign my claim.  She then set $2,500 case before she would correct the errors in the Court record regarding the past judgments, even though the Court is solely and legally responsible for the accuracy of the records. 
 
Dimick's latest entry, well written and thoughtful, was reporting stories that Presiding Judge of Family Law, Dan Grimmer, told him about "the good ol' days" when crooked and incopetent bench officers were regarded as "characters."  I hope that you never appear before such a judge.
 
The stories were about one who presided over people's lives while drunk, another that couldn't hear well enough to hear what was being said in his court, etc., and presented as humor.
 
The following is verbatum, the exchange between myself and attorney Dimick:
4 Comments

·                                 #1 by Tom Deal on October 25th, 2009

Quote
 
Thanks, Steve. These stories are going to be really helpful. Keep them coming!

·                                 by Steve on October 25th, 2009

Quote
 
Ah, but Tom, I haven’t gotten to YOUR story yet. But never fear; I’m working on it. I think I shall call it “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, or How I Learned To Stop Worrying Because Most Judges Are Such Pussies That An Unscrupulous Litigant Can Get Away With Anything.”
Tom, have you never stopped to consider what you’re doing to your children? You can only fool them for so long, but you can damage them forever.
Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

·                                 #3 by Tom Deal on October 26th, 2009

ReplyQuote
 
Isn’t that slanderous? Calling me “ruthless, and disturbed” when there isn’t a bit of evidence to support the claim? Probably legal training kicking in there.
My scientific training, and teaching at San Jose State University and many of the community colleges keeps me focused on facts, like the “deals” that Judge Grimmer admits, and subversion of law that results.
Don’t you have an obligation to clean up the local legal establishment when you have knowledge of the dirty dealings? I know that I do.

·                                 #4 by Tom Deal on October 26th, 2009

Quote
 
A follow up here: as I read the rest of your biography (Oklahoma, Dubya, etc.) , I find that we agree on so much, that I have to wonder whether, as the opposing attorney, you aren’t posturing, instead of opineing. In any case, if anyone else would like to understand our differences, they can go to DaddyDeal.info for accurate and verifiable information abut my “sense of decency.” Always been a great father, even under these circumstances.

 
 
My mistake:  slander is a spoken comment, while the written word is libel.  His mistake was saying "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, or How I Learned To Stop Worrying Because Most Judges Are Such Pussies That An Unscrupulous Litigant Can Get Away With Anything.” 
 
I have never, to my knowledge, been called any of these things.  Brilliant, I don't know.  Ruthless?  Never.  And Disturbed?  There's the malicious libel, since all psych tests by both the Court's experts and my own doctors have shown that I am a normal person under enormous stress.  I haven't alleged that the judiciary are "monkeys", but some are more interested in helping each other than in pursuing justice.  The "reign of terror" would have to have "terror" to be true (note:  there has been a complete absence of violence, stalking, threats, etc. in this case), and the same psych tests showed that she is "extremely hysterical, highly obsessive, and tends to lie" but she hired an attorney for $275 an hour, and he spent dozens of hours painting the picture that she wanted. 
 
But for an attorney to say '...Most Judges Are Such Pussies That An Unscrupulous Litigant Can Get Away With Anything”  would normally hurt a law career.  However, when you have drinks with the judges before you appear in their court, laugh over miscarriages of justice, and changing the charges to suit the whims of the court officers, the chances of one friend holding another friend accountable are slim.
 
Do you really want people like this to decide what is best for your children?  I don't, and I'm not shy about saying so.  My children deserve better.