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.
 
I also requested permission to file for a restraining order agains my former wife, Patricia Kim Funke/Deal (yeah, that's her real name now!) and got the right to ask for protection of law by the COurt.  However, not only was the RO denied, this time by Comm. Elizabeth Hendrickson, a proveably dishonest and incompetent jurist who has been excused from competence and honesty Rolefson, but she did so without my ever filing the request.  That means, in simple language, that she never had "jurisdiction" to make any decision whatsoever, and to cover her tracks, appears to have ordered that the request for a restraining order be "filed for Mr. Deal" three days later.  She knew that she'd done me wrong, but that doesn't matter to her. 
 
Since then, Hank has chased a stranger who also had her little girl in the car, because he thought it was me (what?), and that person just happened to go to the house of a friend of mine.  What are the chances of that happening?  How many "chases" haven't gone to someone who would let me know about his latest insane behavior.  This is the guy that gets to be around my children while I have been deemed to be too dangerous to raise my children.  This is the guy who my daughter described as "OK as long as mom's around."
 
It's the methodology of this Cluster f**k that should disturb people, although it's very amusing to lawyers at $300 an hour.  First, the laws require a sworn statement of "impending danger or harm" before civil liberties are suspended.  This isn't the case in divorce court where any person, although usually a cowardly woman, can get a restraining order without ever notifying the man that he's about to be slammed with an insulting, damaging, and often permanent change to his life. 
 
So, without any evidence or witnesses whatsoever, my former wife claimed that I had been at a supermarket where I have shopped for over 7 years, on the afternoon before Thanksgiving, and that she needed a restraining order because she couldn't think of any reason why I would be there except to stalk my children with the intent of doing them harm.  I'm not kidding!  That's what she said!  Let's remember that she's been diagnosed as obsessive, dishonest, and hysterical, but that probably doesn't matter.  It certainly doesnt' amtter to Hendrickson, Grimmer, Oleon, Murphy, or Rolefson because the facts, once introduced into evidence, were discarded by Grimmer.
 
That string of events brought about the the "insulting, damaging, and often permanent change" I was talking about.  That order is now permanent for the next three years, with an automatic renewal for five more in the absence of any cause whatsoever.
 
Now the really sick part.  I just came from Trader Joe's (Sunday morning, May 2, 2010, about !0:30 a.m.) where I found that Hank was stalking me, parking so close to my car that we almost shared paint, and watching me from the shadows while I shopped, paid for my purchases, and loaded them into my car.  He couldn't have been there for any reason except to kill me if he got the chance, because, God knows, nobody goes to a grocery store to shop for groceries. 
 
I will now submit for another restraining order, and will let you know the results.  What's that you say?  A complete waste of time?  What makes you say that?