The Players: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.
***NOTE AND DISCLAIMER: THIS PAGE, WHILE PUBLISHED, IS NOT READY FOR PUBLIC RELIANCE, AND I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR INACCURACYS AND LACK OF DOCUMENTATION IN THIS DRAFT. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED ON UNTIL THIS DISCLAIMER IS REMOVED.***
THIS JUST IN -- YOU CAN CHECK THE HISTORY OF YOUR JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AND/OR DISMISSAL AT http://cjp.ca.gov/index.php?id=10#g SHINE A SPOTLIGHT ON DISHONESTY AND EMBARASS THOSE WHO EARN THEIR LIVINGS BY HURTING FAMILIES!
When your children are being abused, what to you do? When you know where the people live and work that are abusing your children, what would you do? When the people who are abusing your children are earning good money, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars,year after year, doing it to other children too, what are you doing?
I have been terrorized by the Court system for over 8 years, facing false accusations of violence, mental illness, and contempt of Court, as I try to legally protect my children. The problem is that the Court has taken advantage of each of my efforts to say that I am an unfit father. I am responding that the judges and commissioners, expert witnesses, and Court support people named here are dishonest, incompetent, and child abusers in the conduct of their public trusts.
What would you do? Hollywood suggests violent responses: Mel Gibson does a wonderful job of killing his child's kidnapper in "Ransom" and Harrison Ford gets to take down the whole gang that causes his family pain and suffering for profit. If you try this, the enitre weight of the legal and police system will hound you until you die.
On the other hand, since we rely on the police and court system to protect us according to laws that California Legislature has made, and we expect that the U.S. COnstitution is inviolate, when a judge makes up laws or cites facts that are not in evidence, they must be removed from their positions of authority, just as urely as you would be if you stole from your company.
And I suggest that we do it very publically and with lots of attention to the trials of these child molesters.
My concern, as an upstanding citizen, falsely accused and convicted time after time, is that these people have gotten so used to lying unopposed, that they don't give it a second thought. Please read the histories below, add your own, and think twice before dealing with anyone who has a history that you wouldn't want controlling your family life.
And feel free to add your own information, with the understanding that you are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of any reporting. Sign your work, and whenever possible, for the public's ability to research your statements, give your case number, and authorization for the public to access those public records.
And keep your language clean. Remember to use the "*#*^%)@#E*$&" when you really want to express yourself.
When you feel like you are being stomped on by officials who have power, remember that their power and position make them vulnerable. The bigger they are, the harder they fall, and America LOVES a scandle. Judges, for example, are elected officials. Lawyers are subject to punishment by the California State Bar Association, and doctors who testify as expert witnesses, while protected even from lying on the witness stand, can have their license revoked by the State Licensing Board ***
Therefore, This page not only gives the opportunity to either complain or compliment specific individuals in Alameda County, but also to have supporting information from other people when reporting these people to the appropriate agency when your children have been harmed by their actions.
Judge Dan C. Grimmer, Presiding Judge of Family Law, AlamedaCounty, presided over dissolution from 2001 until 2005.
I recommend that anybody avoid Grimmer like the plague. On his own authority, he postponed hearing my contempt charges against my former wife, filed in 2002, for approximately 50 incidents of failing and openly refusing to let me see my children when the Court ordered that she do so. He is required by law to resolve the contempt charge before issuing his custody order, but instead, he never calendared it for hearing until, in 2005, I filed an order demanding that it be heard. That contempt still has not been resolved, 7 years later. The relevance of the contempt is that the Legislature has enacted a law, Family Code 3040(a)(1), which stated that the Court must consider which parent is more willing to allow the children to maintain relationships with the other parent, but Grimmer failed to hear the contempt charges before cutting me out of my childrens’ lives completely.
Further, is issuing the custody decisions, he relied on his own understanding that I had caused three years of “problematic supervised visits” when the 13 supervisors uniformly made statements like “**********” and “**********, “and ‘I know you’re not the one causing the problem. It’s Kim.” (Stacy Rodriguiz)”
During the year long trial, only one supervisor, Naomi Gottlieb, owner of Watchful Eyes Supervised Visits, came to my house when the children were not there and improperly demanded that I comply with her orders. After listening to her, and wit the knowledge that she had not authority or right to be in my face, I closed the door. This so angered her that she both refused to do any more visits, and falsely reported to the Court that I had violated court provisions. I then used Mr. Andre Russell of Super Visits for a year and a half, and he testified that I am a superior parent who had done nothing wrong in his 19 months of visitations. Grimmer created facts not in evidence to prevent my parenting of my children.
Commissioner Glenn Philip Oleon, presiding over dissolution from March *** 2005 until recusal by default in ***, 2007.
I recommend not using any commissioner for dissolution. Nobody is required to use one of these contract lawyers, and either an oral or written objection before the proceedings begin will prevent these inexperienced and sometimes unqualified people from making decisions about your life and your children. Request that your case be heard by a judge, and they must transfer your case to a judge.
Oleon was biased and incompetent from his first appearance, as detailed in my Judicial Challenge, filed ***. The first indication was his statement that my concerns were “ridiculous.” I asked that the latest step-father, with his history of drugs and alcohol abuse, gambling, violence, and car wrecks, not be allowed to take my children to Panama without supervision, and that to prevent what was anticipated to be a drug buying and using spree, that he and my former wife be required to take drug tests when they returned. Not “ridiculuous” at all.
The last straw, in a series of Oleon’s FUBAR’s was his statement on the record that I had “waved my arms and made faces” in open court, an attempt to embed contemptive behavior, for later charges. My paralegal happened to be in the audience, and has sworn that I did not behave in such a fashion.
Oleon appears to have exerted influence to have my objection removed from the written transcript (Oct. 12, 200***) because he failed to rule on it although required to do so. Altering the record is a violation of judicial ethics, and if I was allowed access to the unaltered records, I could prove that someone did so. Nobody but him stands to benefit from altering the record.
At about the same time, Oleon held a hearing in front of a packed courtroom where I was self-represented, and at the end, when he thought I had left the Courtroom, made a disrespectful gesture, looked up saw that I was looking him right in the eyes, and we both recognized his misconduct.
jkfdls;afdksa;dfjksjfdksjafd;jskfaldsjkfakldsjk
Presiding Judge of Family Law, Yolanda Northridge,
When I filed the Judicial Challenge (***) he has 10 days to respond or he “is deemed ***” (CCP 1170.***. When he did not respond, I filed the appropriate “Notice that Comm. Is Deemed Recused”. Then Presiding Judge of Family Law, Yolanda Northridge, (now Presiding Judge of California Superior Court, Alameda County) issued an order that he was not recused THAT SAME DAY, although she lacks the authority to do so.
I filed the appropriate Motion for Reconsideration and was summoned into her Courtroom in Dept. ***, Oakland, where, despite the absence of opposing counsel, I was questioned. My case cited relevant statutory and case law saying that the authority to decide Oleons status lay exclusively with the Judicial Council’s appointment of a judge to hear the complaint, and Northridge reversed her improper order. This only took 3 months and approximately 100 hours of my time.
Judge Kevin Murphy
California Statute *** requires that a judge “must hear *****. When Oleon was recused on ***, the case was transferred to Judge Kevin Murphy, Dept. 507, to be heard on January 10, 2007. On calendar were approximately 13 motions and 5 Orders to Show Cause re: Contempt, all against my former wife, some postponed for as much as 4 years.
I took the three days prior to the hearing off from work to prepare, given the need to be up to speed on each motion, in the event that it was called. If I wasn’t prepared, the case can be decided based only on the written pleadings without argument.
However, when the session convened, Judge Murphy rambled for about ½ hour before stating that he was only going to become familiar with the case, and that nothing would be decided. I insisted at two separate time, that we were in Court for hearings, and he finally and quite angrily said “I am not prepared to hear those today.” Not prepared. I was, and I don’t get paid what he does.
He is a distasteful, angry military type who might be at home in criminal court, but certainly not in Family Law where sensitivity is needed to separate two people with intertwined lives and living children at stake. On the other hand, none of the Alameda County bench that I have seen are worth a damn in that capacity.
Comm. Elizabeth Aileen Hendrickson
shows that my take on Hendrickson is shared by many others. She received a rating of "F" for her judicial and all other skills, and many said that, as I believe, she is incompetent, dishonest, lacks skill in the law, and should be immediately removed form the bench before she hurts more children and families. Check it out, and add your own comments.
I'm moving this incident up front, because it is representative of Hendrickson's level of honesty. On May 4, 2009, I had her served with a Judicial Challenge that would have had her removed from the case. She had 10 days to respond (per CCP 170.3), and she waited 23 days. After 10, she is "deemed to have agreed to recusal." (CCP 170.3) Instead of being honest, she claims that I didn't have her served. That forces me into the Court of Appeal, and probably the Supreme Court, at huge expense and waste of time, but getting her off the bench is worth it.
And, this just in: The Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeal, P.J. "Jones" (if that is his or her real name) has ruled that, under Code of Civil Procedure 170.3, my filing is not timely, because 170.3 has a 10 day time limit.
Here's the problem: I filed under CCP 170.6, and THERE IS NO STATUTORY TIME LIMIT as decided in both the statute itself, and the decision People v. Superior Court [Lopez] 125 Cal.App 4th, 1558, 1562) Look it up. I did.
But, did you notice, that just like Hendrickson, Jones simply made stuff up in order to avoid upholding the law? Pretty weird, isn't it?
I consider Hendrickson to be an incompetent and repeatedly dishonest bench officer, who knows her weaknesses and refuses to get treatment or to step down. She has engaged in a program to deprive me of any meaningful contact with my children, to strip me of all equity from construction, remodeling, and sale of my Hayward house, deprive me of my savings and retirement, and block all efforts at equal legal representation, hearing of controversial issues, and letting my expert witness examine my children. Further, she has refused to testify even after I knocked the shit out of her attorneys argument about not her being required to testify in “subsequent cases” (this is not a subsequent case) and her being “a high ranking public official” the equivalent of the Attorney General of California.
I have reached the conclusion that appearing in her courtroom is not an exercise in justice but in her abusing judicial authority. The outcome of any motion either I my favor or against it, is never in question – she will screw me to the fullest extent possible, even if it involves lying, fabricating evidence, and/or misquoting the law.
Her first action in this case, March 1, 2007, was to absolve the former attorney for my former wife of wrongdoing when he altered Court orders, always in his clients favor, fabricated evidence and mislead the Court, always in his clients favor, and circumvented due process, always in his clients favor. The day after Hendrickson held the long delayed hearing of my Order to Show Cause re; Contempt against attorney Stephen Pulido, he became Judge Stephen Pulido, and was thereafter moved into Hendricksons same courthouse, Hayward Hall of Justice (Dept. ***). How uncomfortable would it have been for her to find him guilty after he had been sworn in as her superior?
But her lack of concern for the law was best expressed when, at her next appearance, she attempted to record that I had violated a Court Order, when in fact, I had obeyed the court order to the letter. She admitted that she was wrong. She then claimed that her predecessor, Comm. Oleon, had addressed a violation of my right to due process (Oct. 12, 2007) by holding a hearing without notice. The record shows that he did not, and even when I was forced to hire counsel to fight the 13 contempt charges filed against me and fast-tracked by Hendrickson. All of the counts were based on the “order” that was installed without notice and without following due process when notice is avoided.
Nonetheless, when my attorney showed her clearly that she had not only never ruled on the motion to address the problem with due process, he also showed conclusively that she had improperly signed an order saying that she had. In short, I was never given the hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order that I allegedly violated, when the law deprives the Court of jurisdiction to make such an order if I was not properly notified.
Her most recent example of her inability and unwillingness to obey and enforce the law is damning. On ***, I had her served with a Judicial challenge, starting the 10 day clock per CCP 170.***. On ***, she responded that I claimed to have had her served but I was “in error.” The error is hers, in that she didn’t respond and is “deemed to ****.
To prove my position, that I have not “errored”, my process server has twice rrecounted the exact events of the service, including her thanking him for serving her with the document, has signed both a Proof of Service and a Declaration regarding the event, and has agreed to both hypnosis and a lie detector test regarding the service. Hendrickson has seen to it that I cannot subpoena the Courthouse videos showing the servers actions in the Courthouse on that day.
In that same “order”, she strikes the Judicial Challenge, even though she lost jurisdiction 11 days earlier, and opened the door to having each and every one of her decisions reviewed “for cause (CCP 170.***). Given that I filed detailed Motions for Reconsideration regarding those decisions, each based on false citations of law, and/or citing facts not in evidence, and/or dishonest interpretations of the facts in evidence, she wants to avoid review by an honest Court.
She especially wants to avoid review of the latest “Order” granting as much as $75,000 in attorney fees for those Motions for Reconsideration, to avoid an honest Court ruling that I had received permission to file those motions from her superior, thereby establishing that they had “merit and were not for the purpose of harassment *****” (CCP 391.***). Under the concept of res judicata (“respect the earlier judgment”), she cannot overturn an earlier permanent order of a higher authority, the presiding judge of Family Law or higher.
But her understanding of res judicata is either conveniently “flexible” or “incoherently inconsistent.” On May **, 2007, she claimed that she could not review the earlier temporary orders by Oleon under the established law, which she said “applies here ***. She was and still is wrong. Oleons temporary orders can be changed, Grimmers permanent orders must be respected. This is first year law school curriculum, and she has ruled incorrectly both times.
Nor has she allowed the dissolution to proceed in “a timely fashion”. During her 2 ½ unhappy years, she has cancelled hearings when I got to the courtroom, and mysteriously when everybody else involved has been notified. She scheduled only four hearing per year, and on the last two occasions, used only one hour of the 2 ½ that are available.
Further, she has taken issues that were not on calendar, and contrary to law, changed the custody agreement without letting me prepare for the hearing. In this instance, she created an order that will cost me approximately $1,000 for one hour with my children in a psychologists office. Fortunately, this is so blatantly illegal that I have refused to acknowledge the order.
Further, research into the “list” that Grimmer gave as the only therapists I could choose from showed that four of the five people don’t even do therapeutic supervised visits, and the “list” that Hendrickson gave, not one has malpractice insurance for therapeutic supervised visits, putting myself and my children at risk. What kind of circus is Divorce Court? One being run for the sole profit of friends and colleagues?
When I was asked, again without the issue being on calendar, why I would not “avail myself of the method to see my children” I replyed that I had answered the question adequately at least three times in the past, and my concern is that the only therapist that the Court would allow has lied to me twice during our short and unhappy relationship. Given that the Court has itself fabricated facts that are not in evidence (see “Grimmer”) to restrict my parenting to, essentially nothing, I would not see a dishonest psychologist, hand-picked by the Court, to seal my doom. Who would be that stupid, I ask Hendrickson?
On Dec. 4, 2007, Hendrickson stated that she would not honor res judicata regarding then attorney Pulidos failure to retain jurisdiction over such issues as child custody, child support, property, and spousal support ***, and knowing the extent of her refusal to honor due process, I requested that I be given a continuance to obtain counsel. This is both required by the provisions of *** and of ***, but she refused, and in my absence, stated “the petitioner can have whatever she requests. Such an “involuntary non-suit” requires, as does other law, that I be granted the opportunity to be represented, but she refused to point out, for the record or otherwise, whatever oversights and defects in my proof, or to rule that I can amend my complaint. “While the fact that a layman elects to represent himself does not relieve him of the duty of observing legal rules, and certainly does not excuse him from a failure of proof … (it) is well settled that one of the chief objects subserved by a motion for non-suit is to point out the oversights and defects in plaintiff’s proof, so he can supply if possible the specific deficiencies.” (Pete v. Henderson 124 C.A. 2d, Apr. 1954 p. 491)
I had indicated and the Court read into the record that I requested representation. The documentation is impeccable, and when Hendrickson refused to accept that she lacked jurisdiction, I felt that my safety in her courtroom was not assured. In short, she is and was looking for ways to screw me.
She has a very “unique” version of jurisdiction. When the evidence of lack of jurisdiction was presented relative to the restraining order, she ignored both case law and settled statutes. When she *******************
She claims to have declared a mistrial in my Orders to Show Cause re: Contempt against my former wife for failing to produce the children for scheduled visits and phone calls, but she cannot and will not produce any transcript, Minutes, witnesses, or testimony to support her position. This is critical to justice because, if she actually had declared a mistrial, double jeopardy attaches, and my former wife could not be tried a second time without certain safeguards being in place when the mistrial is declared. Again, how stupid does she think the public is, and how corrupt has she made this case when I have to wait years (as opposed to the fast track of any contempt charges against me) and then she dismisses my complaints on her own misconduct?
Family Code *** requires that both parties be given the same level of representation. Hendrickson refused to give me that right, saying, with 7 years left before my children are out of the Court system, “this case is almost over.” *** She ignored the Appeals that she has made necessary, and appears to want to avoid giving me the ability to restore my parental rights.
I have asked for a Change of Venue from her and all Alameda County Family Law Courtrooms, and the Judicial Challenge that she didn’t answer within the 10 days grants me the right to that change of venue (CCP 170.**** and ****), but she runs the risk that an honest judge will not agree with her rulings, and that fear is justified.
Sala Ajaniku
Heather Green
Kevin Flynn
Thomas Knutsen
Judge Ronni MacLaren
Dean Feldman
Dr. JoEllen Hilmo
Dr. Hilmo was chosen by Patricia Funke/Deal without my knowledge or consent, during the perior when we had joint legal and physical custody, an indication of things to come. Dr. *** agreed to see me, but was so clearly uncomfortable and aggressive with me that I found the visits to be a waste of time and money. I lost faith in her integrity when she withheld the records of the childrens' therapy, even though I am entitled as the father. Further, when I obtained the records, I found the comments that are noted in ATTACHMENT HERE***
Dr. Hilmo falsely reported to the court that my daughter was depressed and withdrawn, as shown by her drawings, specifically "**********." When I asked and then demanded to see these drawings, Hilmo said the only one that she had was ATTACHED HERE.*** When I produced the ATTACHED HERE *** drawing that ws done in the presence of a trusted neighbor and friend, Ms. Blanche Gracy, the judge dismissed my evidence that Hilmo was lying, saying "How do I konw that you didn't have the children use those colors?"
Further, close and impartial examination of the records Hilmo was finally forced to release show that there are two sections that clearly appear to have been forged, a violation of the provisions of Penal Code ***, which states: *****
Calling my son by the wrong name, after 8 months of therapy, and getting the date wrong by year, 6 months into that year, are not questions that can be overlooked. Further, both of those discrepancies are on pages that are not completely filled, nor do they contain the records of consecutive sessions, as all other pages do. In my opinion, these pages are forgeries, created after the records were subpoenaed and ordered produced by Judge Dan Grimmer on ***.
Terra Firma
Stacey Rodriquiz
Mr. Andre Russell – SUPER VISITS
Mr. Russell was viciously attacked by Stephen Pulido as having accepted cases without proper certification, and having been disciplined by the County of Contra Costa for his conduct of cases. Neither is true, and I found Mr. Russell to be professional, courteous, respectful, knowledgeable, non-intrusive, and accurate in his reporting of the excellence of my parenting during the 19 months *** of his supervision. My children called him “Uncle Andre”, played with him during rocket launches and hikes, and greeted him as a friend of the family. It is no wonder that Judge Grimmer ignored everything that Mr. Russell said, and along with other instances of similar treatment, caused Mr. Russell to change careers.
Watchful Eye -- Naomi Gottlieb
The California State Bar Association
Attorney (now Judge) Stephen Pulido told the Court that I had been banned from my childrens elementary school by the Hayward Unified School District, a damning condemnation by an independent agency. This was entirely false, and after spending 6 months interviewing everybody from the teachers up to the District Superintendent, and finding that no such action had been taken, I reported Pulido for violation of Business and Professions Code 6068 “misleading the court.” The Bar Association added an element – ‘willfully misleading’ – that the Legislature did not feel was necessary nor a part of law, and refused to discipline Pulido. Grimmer referred to the false allegation as part of his rulings and/or consideration, with full knowledge that Pulido wasn’t under oath and that his rantings cannot be considered as evidence. It appears that Pulido and Grimmer are friends and that Grimmer helped elevate Pulido to the Bench.
The Council on Judicial Performance
According to their web site, this agency is charged by the State of California with ****.
Unfortunately, every complaint has resulted in a short response saying that they don’t find any evidence of wrong doing. Fabricating evidence is not wrong doing, misstating law is not wrong doing, and bias is not wrong doing. Don’t waste your time complaining to this waste of public money watch dog agency.
When a commissioner is reported, the complaint must first be lodged with the Presiding Judge of the Division who has 90 days to respond. On ***, I reported Grimmer in a detailed .....
The F.B.I.
According to their web site (***), the Federal Bureau of Investigation is responsible to investiage any allegations of Bench officer fabricating evidence.
There are three examples of such fabrication by judges and commissioners, but the report that I sent electronically has never been acknowledged in the 8 months since submission, and when I called, they say that they don't have any such report.
Recent comments
24 weeks 4 days ago