angiEmedia

Long-time former NSA (National Security Agency) employee William Binney was recently interviewed about the NSA’s massive electronic surveillance and collection of what he says is essentially all email sent and received in the US.

Binney reveals that the NSA has developed electronic eavesdropping systems such as the “Narus device” that can continuously capture and store all the email transmitted over a 10 gigabit per second Ethernet feed at line rate (full bandwidth). By deploying these devices inside of Internet Service Providers around the nation, sites such as such as the AT&T building in San Francisco, the NSA can capture very nearly every email sent or received in the US each day.

They store these emails for later use when the government finds it wants to investigate or attack a person, such as they recently did to General David Petreus and General John Allen who had become, by some reports, on the outs with the Obama Administration. This may have to do with how News Corp. reportedly encouraged Petreus to run for US President against Obama.

Although neither were accused of any crime, the government accessed their emails, including email drafts, and other electronic communications to snoop on them and the people with whom they were communicating.

There might be some justification to do this to them because they have Top Secret security clearances. Dishonest personal conduct, such as that of a sexual affair while married, is considered one of the “red flags” warranting investigating and even pulling a security clearance. However, most people do not have a security clearance and thus the wholesale capture of more or less the entire population’s email traffic is not reasonable even if they were engaging in the same scandalous behaviors as Petreus and Allen.

FBI Raid On Binney To Intimidate Whistleblowers

Binney has personal experience with government intimidation. In 2007, as he was speaking out against the US government’s illegal surveillance state, the government decided to retaliate against him. On July 26, 2007, the FBI raided his home with 10 to 12 agents with guns drawn as he was in the shower.
Read more…

Kids benefit from having two healthy parents who can focus on the children’s developmental needs and a healthy family life. Too often, the courts and government set up situations in which parents are encouraged to pursue sole custody and cut the other parent out of the children’s life. That parent is then forced into traumatic battles over just being able to see the children.

Sometimes one or both parents in such a battle degenerate into horrible monsters because of how their child custody disputes are being mishandled. Courts and government agencies fan the flames and encourage bad behaviors which often lead to years of continuing or even escalating conflict.

Often parents who refuse to share their kids with the other parent abduct or even kill the children when they do not get their way. Sometimes, they enrage the other parent with abuse causing him or her to eventually crack and to start using the kids as weapons of revenge just like the originally selfish parent.

Father Murdered Child To Get Revenge On Mother For Child Access Blocking

As an example of parental custody disputes leading to child murders, here’s a story about Ramazon Acar of Australia.

Acar was often prevented from seeing his daughter by her mother. After some time, he was fortunate enough to occasionally get to see his 2 year old daughter Yazmina Acar. Reportedly this was an unusual occurrence. He said he was going to take the child to what has been variously described as a nearby “candy shop” or “milk bar”.

Instead, he kept the child with him as he proceeded to taunt her mother, Rachelle D’Argent, over Facebook about how he was going to kill the girl. This wasn’t just an unfortunate choice of words or even an evil joke. He stabbed the child to death and then continued to write on Facebook about what he had just done.

Why would he do this? He says it was to get revenge on D’Argent, with the intention of making her feel like she had made him feel when she blocked him from seeing their child.

Like so many parents who murder their kids, he says he also wanted to kill himself but could not do it.

This man didn’t just kill a baby and break a mother’s heart. He hurt a lot of other people in the process.

He stabbed in the back the many fathers who merely want to have reasonable time with their kids and would never do anything remotely like his crime.

He slashed at the hopes of the many children who are suffering from being deprived of time with one parent or who are forced to endure an abusive childhood because of an irate parent who has sole or primary custody and refuses to treat the kids and the ex reasonably.

Acar also has encouraged the paranoid fears of many mentally ill mothers who are already acting horribly in regards to their children and ex, encouraging them to act even worse than they already do. You see these people often spouting off about how “all fathers” are bad evil people who should never see their children again. What Acar did pushes even more people into supporting these abusive nutcases.
Read more…

Over the past couple of years, Gordon Smith has been accused of domestic violence more than a dozen times and arrested at least eight times by Delaware law enforcement. The exact number of allegations and arrests is difficult to track because it keeps growing in many recent months. The man must report to a probation officer and wear a GPS tracking device at all times. From this, you might surmise that he was convicted of one or more crimes. But in fact, Gordon Smith has not been convicted of a crime.

Tiffany Marie Smith, Serial False Accuser

Tiffany Marie Smith

Evidence points to repeated lying by his ex-wife Tiffany Marie Smith to block Gordon’s contact with their children and to harm him. When she filed a report that he made “terroristic threats” over the phone to her, he was in fact in a courthouse where cell phones are not allowed and court video surveillance did not show him using a phone. When she filed a report that he left a note threatening to kill her and the kids, witnesses and other evidence placed him several hundred miles away in Georgia. When she claimed he was violating a restraining order by being at her home, video surveillance at a Taco Bell shows he was eating there at the time. When she made another allegation of a threatening note, GPS tracking showed he was nowhere near where she claims a new threatening note was left on her car.

The GPS tracking of Gordon Smith is being done by the government that has forced him to report to a probation officer and submit to restrictions on his freedoms deemed suitable for convicted domestic violence offenders when in fact he has not been convicted of any such crime.

The evidence suggests that he is the victim of crime. But instead of helping Gordon escape harassment by a malicious lying ex-wife, the government is helping encourage and reward what appears to be ongoing criminal filing of false police reports and perjury by Tiffany Smith.

While it is not possible to prove that Tiffany lied about every allegation, none of her allegations to date have been substantiated. For at least four of her allegations, there is solid evidence that she lied including filing false police reports. There is also a consistent pattern of what appear to be false and unsubstantiated reports going back more than two years that have been repeatedly used as basis to falsely arrest Gordon Smith and to engage in systematic violation of his civil and Constitutional rights.

The police seem to be suggesting that Tiffany Smith might have just been “wrong” without malice in some of her allegations and that nobody can prove who actually left the notes. However, the sheer quantity of the allegations and the number of times it is clear she was lying makes it evident she is a serial false accuser, liar, and perjurer who has the unlawful aid of the police and courts in her reign of terror over her ex-husband.

Gordon Smith’s Civil Rights Suit Against Police

Smith has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the police. It has merit in part because the police have acted against him completely without any legal authority to do so whatsoever. They arrested him for trying to call his kids, who were 3 and 4 years old, by calling his ex-wife’s cell phone. There was no basis for them to arrest him for this, and in fact it is fairly ordinary for child custody orders to require that parents are to permit the children to talk with the other parent.

In Delaware, a complaint such as “I told him not to call” or a false accusation “he threatened to kill me on the phone” by the ex is all that is needed for you to be arrested, forced into a probation program, and even to have a GPS tracking device attached to your body by the government.

Quoted from Injustice in Delaware:

There are a few things already quite clear. This is a nightmare turned real for Mr. Smith, who, among other things, was arrested by the Delaware State Police for calling his ex-wife’s cell phone to make contact with his children, who were not old enough at the time to initiate contact with him (3 and 4 years old respectively), when there was no restraining order preventing him from doing so. He was arrested simply on the word of his former wife, who told police that she had asked him not to call.

Gordon Smith is being harassed, persecuted, and harmed in violation of the US Constitution to reward his ex-wife’s baseless complaints and continued lying. The Delaware State Police are co-conspirators in these crimes as they arrested him without checking readily available evidence and then, when evidence show Tiffany lied, they failed to file charges and arrest her for filing false police reports.
Read more…

Why is it that government seems so resistant to punishing sociopaths in family law disputes? These people frequently use false allegations, lies, distortion and vilification campaigns, perjury, false reports to law enforcement and child protection agencies, and other tactics to badly harm an ex-spouse and his or her family and friends. Many of their abusive and illegal actions are crimes that trigger significant unwarranted expenses on the part of government including law enforcement, child protection, and courts. Given the adverse financial impact on taxpayers that is tantamount to committing fraud, society should have a strong incentive to punish these people and to make them pay restitution for their crimes. Yet this virtually never happens, even when there is clear proof of criminal conduct by these people.

There must be a reason for why these people are not being held accountable for their crimes. Often judges and lawyers say perjury is not punished because it is “too expensive” to prosecute perjury and false reports to law enforcement agencies. The few cases of perjury you do see prosecuted are usually pursued for political reasons even when there is little to no identifiable harm done by the particular lies made under oath.

When you consider other examples of crimes the government does prosecute people for doing, that “too expensive” argument rings false. The government routinely prosecutes people for minor drug crimes that have created nowhere near the damage caused by sociopathic attacks in family law disputes, and they often spend many tens of thousands of dollars pursuing these minor offenders even when there are no identifiable victims besides the drug abuser himself or herself.

Who does more damage to society, the casual drug addict or the sociopath in a family law dispute? The drug addict who gets high in his or her home a few times per week for years but doesn’t drive under the influence and doesn’t sell drugs might do some damage to others, but often it is hard to even identify what that damage is.

On the other hand, the sociopathic liar who files false child abuse reports, lies about domestic violence or rape, and triggers many years of law enforcement investigations, court hearings, CPS actions, and causes the victims of the lies (the children and the falsely accused parent) to be deprived of their rights and financial security. Sometimes people are even incarcerated on the basis of the lies.

The damage often continues for many years, sometimes even decades. Not infrequently, it leads to severe damage to the children and even death by stress or suicide of the falsely accused. Such a sociopath also causes financial damage to taxpayers running into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars over the years.

But judging by the almost zero prosecutions for perjury and malicious false reports to law enforcement agencies in obvious cases of malicious lying in family law disputes, it is evidently public policy to not prosecute such a sociopath’s crimes, even when there are multiple identifiable victims and the damages are often extreme.

Why is it that the government may be willing to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute and imprison a drug user who has hurt possibly nobody but himself or herself but is not willing to prosecute and imprison a perjurer or false reporter who has hurt many others?

One commonly cited reason is that it is against the government’s financial interests to stop extorting the life savings from people stuck in family court. They would much rather keep these conflicts going for years and even decades, lining the pockets of many involved in the courts.

However, there is certainly job security and money to be made that could be found prosecuting sociopathic liars as there are so many of them to be found in family law disputes. Thus there must be another reason for why perjurers and false reporters are not being prosecuted.

A second and possibly more important reason why government does not prosecute perjurers and false reporters is that prosecuting these people would also call unwanted attention to the tactics they use. The government does not want these tactics to be seen for what they are because the abusive and illegal tactics used by a sociopath in a family law dispute are similar to tactics frequently used by government employees including politicians, law enforcement officers, child protection social workers, and court employees such as judges. Character assassination using lies, making false allegations, and harassment including vilification campaigns are the common tools of sociopaths in family law disputes and sociopaths in government.

The government does not want to punish sociopaths in family law disputes because government itself is filled with sociopaths who use the same abusive and illegal strategies to get their way. If they prosecute sociopaths in family law disputes, they increase their own risk for prosecution, too. Much better for them to protect the sociopaths and protect themselves, too.

As a result, I strongly believe that anybody who is seriously interested in advocating for family law reform must also join up with and support groups fighting against other forms of abuse and corruption in the government. Government will consistently oppose necessary reform of family law not just because of greed, but also because such reforms might pave the way to action against the liars, cheats, crooks, and fraudsters that fill the ranks of the political class. Without cleaning up the government and replacing the sociopaths in it with people who will follow the law, there is no real hope of family law reform ever succeeding.

Further Reading

Abusive Conduct and Failure To Follow Law by Judge William Watkins Requires His Removal From Bench

Los Angeles DA Must Prosecute Wanetta Gibson for False Rape Allegation Against Brian Banks

Former Gov. Jesse Ventura Rightly Labels United States the “Fascist States of America”

San Diego Custody Evaluators Generate Cash Flow by Victimizing Families Using Restraining Orders

How Sociopathic Parents Use Police Reports for Defamation

Prosecuting Civil Perjury Is Unusual, but It Can Mean Prison

On April 3, 2012, Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Alan Friendthal was publicly admonished by a 9 to 1 vote of the California Commission on Judicial Performance for abusive conduct in violation of judicial canons of the California Code of Judicial Ethics in five family law cases in June 2007 to January 2009. CJP found that he engaged in improper conduct including verbal abuse of litigants, engaging in ex-parte communications, conducting independent investigations which is clearly not part of his job duties, complaining to litigants about formal legal complaints they had filed against him, and demonstrating that he was personally embroiled in the cases before him.

Laura Lynn is a California mother who has been abused by the family courts of Los Angeles. Commissioner Alan Friendenthal presided over many hearings in her family law case and her case is one of those cited as evidence of Friedenthal’s misconduct in the form of creating apparent bias and clearly showing his personal embroilment in the case before him. In her case and others, Friedenthal improperly acted as an investigator, contacted third parties involved on his own behalf, and outside of hearings reviewed web postings written by litigants and then complained about those postings during hearings. CJP found that he was improperly conducted investigations and engaging in ex-parte communications.

In a stunning example of how the courts value money over children and the law, Friedenthal threatened to remove custody from a father who was to have the child with him because of alleged abuse by the child’s stepfather. When the father pointed out he could not afford to pay for a custody evaluation all at once and asked for a payment plan, Friedenthal threatened to place the child with other relatives:

At a hearing on July 3,2007, arrangements were made for the minor child to return by airplane to his father’s residence from his mother’s residence in another state pending a custody hearing set for August 3,2007. A supplementary custody evaluation had been ordered. Commissioner Friedenthal ordered the father to pay over $4,000 in fees for minor’s counsel and the supplemental custody evaluation. When the father raised his hand to address the issue of payment, Commissioner Friedenthal responded by threatening to place the child with grandparents, as follows:

[FATHER]: I’m not refusing to pay. I owe a lot of people money –

THE COURT: Okay. This needs to be grandparentplacement because he can’t afford to pay the rates for the child. f^J Where do the [grand]parents live?

[FATHER’S COUNSEL]: Mexico.

THE COURT: [Mother]?

[10-fl]

[MOTHER]: My parents are in Mexico.

THE COURT: You have brothers?

[MOTHER]: I have a brother in Moorpark.

111… [11

THE COURT: I want [minor’s counsel] to talk to the brother in Moorpark. [f] Will you provide that information?

[FATHER’S COUNSEL]: My client is simply saying he’d like to have a payment arrangement. On that basis, you are going to order –

THE COURT: Marsha Wiley is going to do this evaluation. If I have to stand on my head and walk on my hands all the way down McKay –

[FATHER]: I’m asking for three payments, sir.

[FATHER’S COUNSEL]: Rather than-

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: Miss Wiley does not accept that. Most evaluators request –

THE COURT: She wanted 2,500?

[MINOR’S COUNSEL]: No; 3,500 which is very modest.

THE COURT: Follow my order. That’s it. No more discussion. [Tf] What is your brother’s name in Moorpark?

[10 [Mother’s counsel] is to provide his name and number to [minor’s counsel] for appropriateness of some shared custody.

(R.T. 15:5-16:10.)

Commissioner Friedenthal’s threat to award custody of the child to other family members in response to the father’s statements that he was not refusing to pay fees but wanted a payment plan constituted a threatened abuse of authority and violated canons 1, 2A and 3B(4). At his appearance before the commission, the commissioner maintained that his statement concerning a grandparent placement was based on his concerns about the father’s parenting abilities. This assertion is refuted by the fact that the commissioner had already ordered a supplemental custody evaluation report and scheduled a custody hearing for the following month, as well as by the commissioner’s own words: “This needs to be a grandparent placement because he can’t afford to pay the rates for the child” (Italicsadded.)

Commissioner Friedenthal’s conduct in the matters described above was, at a minimum, improper action.

Other cases cited as evidence of misconduct by Friedenthal include those of Tonja Jarrett and Maria Chiarello.

Many other allegations of violations of judicial ethics codes and laws have been leveled against Friedenthal that appear to go beyond the scope of the CJP investigation. See a Topix discussion thread on Alan Friedenthal for more examples such as allegations he was practicing as an attorney while servicing as a court commissioner and alleged failure to file Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) as required for court judicial officers.

Laura Lynn contends that the misconduct of Friedenthal extends far beyond the contents of the CJP report:

Quoted from Who complained about Commissioner Alan Friedenthal?:

The story is much bigger than the simple little order written. It is my contention that Commissioner Friedenthal was a conspirator to commit fraud and aided and abetted convicted child abductor Crystel Lynn Strellioff to conceal the children she abducted. He and his wife Commissioner Steff Padilla also adopted two children whose mother’s parental rights were completely severed with no apparent reason. The biological mother has a tidy home, does not seem to be using illegal drugs and is a practicing Mormon, married to a substitute school teacher.

Friendenthal was removed from hearing family law cases, but is still a judicial officer in Los Angeles County. LA Times reports that he was reassigned to small claims, civil, and unlawful detainer cases in February 2009.

Friedenthal should be removed from the bench entirely. But as is typical of CJP’s usual glacial paced disciplinary actions that take years to result in a report, the “severe public admonishment” doesn’t go far enough to repair the damage Friedenthal has done to the public and his victims and to prevent his abuses of law from recurring.

CJP’s severe public admonishment means so little that he was elected to be secretary-treasurer of the executive board of the California Judges Association two months after his severe public admonishment. California judges want abusers and criminals among them and regard such people as important leaders of their corrupt racketeering influenced organization.

The full text of the severe public admonishment of Alan Friedenthal is available on the CJP website.

Judge Elizabeth Feffer reportedly replaced Friedenthal on a number of contentious family law cases. But there are many concerns being expressed about problems with Feffer’s judicial conduct and integrity, also. One anonymous litigant reports that Feffer cited as reason to change custody of children the fact that the litigant had filed complaints against Friedenthal:

Judge Feffer crossed the line – in her statment of decision to transfer custody to the abusive father, she cited, for 14 pages in her statement of decision, our “harassing complaints of the prior Commissioner”.

Too bad that her Statement of Decision, done in December, 2011, was just a few months ahead of the Public Admonishment of that poor Commissioner.

If that is true, then Feffer should be subjected to the even more severe punishment than Friedenthal has received for his comments about complaints against him. Punishing a litigant for filing a complaint against the court that when investigated turns out to be valid is a ridiculous abuse of justice.

Further Reading

California judicial panel admonishes L.A. County commissioner

CJP Admonishes Commissioner Alan Friedenthal

Musings about the late admonishment of Commissioner Alan H. Friedenthal

CJP Investigation of Judge Lisa Schall Heats Up, Citizen Input Sought

San Diego Judge DeAnn Salcido Resigns Under Fire, Yet Shows CJP Is Corrupt

San Diego Judge DeAnn Salcido Demeans Litigants and Justice to Create Demo Videos for Her Proposed TV Show

Sacramento Judge Peter James McBrien Dismembers Park Trees and Families In Contempt for Law

Two of the most basic premises in Western jurisprudence are impartiality of the judge and that the judge must follow the law and rulings of higher courts. Family Law Judge William Watkins of Putnam County, West Virginia, has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unable to perform either of these basic job duties. West Virginia has a legal obligation to remove this abusive man from the family law bench and to document his abusive conduct publicly to help ensure that no litigant in any court will ever be treated as unjustly and irresponsibly by him again.

Watkins first came to my attention based upon the video below that features him yelling, screaming, and threatening a quiet elderly man named Revered Arthur Hage in a family law hearing over sale of the family home in a divorce. From the very start of the tirade, Watkins makes it clear that he will not allow Hage to speak on threat of imprisonment. He then launches in a verbal tirade making accusations against Hage. The screaming is so loud that it causes the microphone and recording system to distort and clip the audio.

Whether the accusations are true or not, I don’t claim to know. More importantly, the truth or falseness of the accusations is actually besides the point because the judge’s accusations are not about the case being heard but rather about a newspaper article featuring a photograph of Hage’s home and his wife and alleged vandalism of the home that he claims is somehow Hage’s fault. Can there be any kind of conflict of interest more obvious than this?

Watkins has attacked many people in the community over their questioning his impartiality, his lateness on HOA (homeowner’s association) payments, and other problems involving him. His verbal rage at Hage exposes how he thinks he can use his position as a judge to retaliate against people in his courtroom simply because he believes they have something to do with his personal problems.

Watkins had a duty to immediately recuse himself from this case because of his personal feelings and strong conflict of interest. He should have done so by a proper written judicial recusal communicated to both parties, and this would have precluded his ridiculously abusive outburst in court. But Watkins failed to do so, instead holding a hearing to berate a litigant over personal matters and then proceeding to hear the matter thereby showing a complete inability to behave appropriately for a judge.

Even if Hage had personally spray painted, smashed windows, and littered trash at Watkins’ home and there was absolute proof of this such as by a video recording (to be clear, nobody claims there is such proof), Watkins still would have had no business behaving this way. The correct course of action would be to recuse from the case and let the police and prosecutor deal with Hage.
Read more…

Brian Banks was a 16 year old high school football star in Long Beach, California, when a lying girl and the government collaborated to ruin his life. He was falsely accused of rape by classmate Wanetta Gibson after the two had kissed in a stairwell. Gibson concocted an elaborate story claiming that Banks dragged her across campus and raped her. Even though Banks did not commit the crime and in fact there had been no rape at all, his attorney advised him to seek a plea bargain to get a lighter sentence as the government was threatening him with 41 years to life in prison. Choosing what he saw as the lesser of two bad options after his lawyer suggested he would be convicted because he is black, Banks plead “no contest” and was imprisoned for over five years was then put on probation. Upon release, he was forced to wear a GPS monitor, register as a violent sex offender, and was restricted from living near or going near schools.

False accuser Wanetta Gibson is the real rapist (as in financial rape) in this story. She and her family got a large settlement (variously reported as either being $750,000 or $1.5 million) from the Long Beach School District on the basis of her lies and claims that lax school security contributed to causing her “rape”.

Gibson this year admitted Banks did not rape her, but was worried she might have to repay the fraudulently obtained settlement. Students, investigators, and attorneys associated with the California Innocence Project helped to obtain evidence that Gibson had falsely accused Banks which resulted in the overturning of his conviction on May 24, 2012.

As the California Innocence Project web page on the Banks case explains:

Banks was faced with an impossible decision at the time – either fight the charges and risk spending 41 years-to-life in prison, or take a plea deal and spend a little over 5 years of actual prison confinement. Although it would mean destroying his chance to go to college and play football, a lengthy probationary period, and a lifetime of registration as a sex offender, Banks chose the lesser of two evils when he pleaded no contest to the charges.

Teri Stoddard of SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) is calling for the prosecution of Wanetta Gibson as part of their effort to quash the epidemic of false allegations of crime and violence that are ruining the lives of many innocent people. She reports that roughly ten percent of Americans have been falsely accused of child abuse, domestic violence, or sexual assault and there are very few protections for such people.

Gibson should be prosecuted for perjury. But that doesn’t go far enough. She should also be prosecuted for criminal fraud that cost taxpayers and insurers an enormous settlement plus legal fees in this case featuring a lying girl and an irresponsible government that encourages more liars to level false allegations by failing to prosecute such crimes.

Significant financial restitution and assistance to Brian Banks and his family is also warranted. It should be paid by the LA County District Attorney, the State of California, and Gibson to Banks and his family.

This boy was placed into prison at the age of 16 years old for 5 years for a rape that did not occur simply because a girl lied against him and the government failed to do its job to determine the truth, instead preferring to bully an innocent child into letting himself be steamrolled by the government because he was male and black and therefore was assumed to be guilty based merely upon a disputed accusation and his race and gender.

Brian Banks is a poster case for the injustices against men and African-American men in particular. If his accuser had been of some other racial group (she is African-American, too), you can get her crime would be the fuse in a powder keg of a potential racial uprising in Los Angeles. There is no doubt that racial bias played a part in the success of the State of California coercing Banks into pleading no contest.
Read more…

Soner Yasa is a cab driver in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, who experienced a horrific ordeal that presented a dire threat to his personal freedom. Yasa was falsely accused of a crime against women. As so many men experience, the police are ready and willing to abuse the actual victim of a crime and encourage future criminal conduct when the criminal is a dishonest woman and the victim is a man.

In Yasa’s case, four drunk women reported to police that he had sexually assaulted them as a ploy to refuse to pay a $13 cab fare. It was only thanks to his cab’s audio and video surveillance equipment that he was spared jail.

Yasa had picked up the four women outside a bar on Whyte Avenue. He says they hopped into his cab “uninvited” and then demanded to be driven to a residential neighborhood. At least one of the intoxicated women tried smoking in his cab. He told them they could not do this because it is illegal and could trigger a $500 fine. They demanded he stop the cab and refused to pay the $13 fare. The women then proceeded to falsely report their allegation of sexual assault to the police and to their friends and onlookers, allegedly triggering a mob of people to acting threateningly towards Yasa until police arrived and could investigate.
Read more…

In the heavily contested election race for San Diego mayor, there’s one candidate whom you should clearly not support: Bonnie Dumanis, the District Attorney of San Diego County. It’s probably impossible to create a full list of all the nefarious actions and inactions she has committed during her career, but the following are a few highlights to give you a flavor of what Dumanis represents. You can also find additional concerning reports regarding Dumanis on Maura Larkins’ summary of coverage on the suspicious actions of Bonnie Dumanis.

Dumanis Ignores Crimes By Lawyers and Government Employees

As the San Diego Union Tribune reported, the San Diego DA office frequently fails to prosecute lawyers and other current or former government employees for serious crimes. DA Bonnie Dumanis is well known for her pattern of irresponsible failure to prosecute people who have connections to the courts and government.

Quoted from Critics: DA should prosecute problem lawyers:

After a trial late last year, the State Bar Court of California concluded that Carlsbad lawyer Patricia Gregory improperly withdrew more than $112,000 from client trust funds.

A judge recommended Gregory for disbarment in March, and the attorney is fighting the decision. She is not eligible to practice law while the review process runs its course.

Gregory has not been prosecuted, nor have several other attorneys who faced such findings from the bar. Critics say the District Attorney’s Office should act in such cases, but the staff says there are many complicating factors, such as different standards of proof and the need to set priorities.

In San Diego County, you can expect that short of mainstream media raising a crime by one of these people to the public’s attention, there will be no prosecution even when it is warranted. A lawyer stealing funds from a client such as former DA employee Patricia Gregory (who was eventually prosecuted for taking over $100,000 in client funds), government employees and contractors perjuring in court and causing millions of dollars in damage to their victims, and engaging in malicious false prosecutions are all among the types of crimes the San Diego DA would like to ignore. Failing to prosecute such crimes in presence of compelling evidence they did occur thereby encourages such criminal conduct to continue.

In the case of Patricia Gregory, Dumanis was forced by public pressure to prosecute her and a conviction was obtained. But how many other cases were brushed under the carpet and stayed there because the public didn’t press the DA to prosecute obvious criminal behaviors for which credible evidence was available?

San Diego family court critic Eileen Lasher has also criticized District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis for failing to protect the community from lawyers committing crimes. One of her examples is how San Diego attorney Theresa Erickson engaged in “baby selling crimes” violating California adoption and surrogacy laws for years as DA Dumanis and the San Diego courts looked the other way. Seemingly because of the severe corruption throughout government and courts in the San Diego region, it took US federal government intervention to put a stop to the baby selling ring.

Dumanis Prosecutes Based Upon Political Agenda

If you are a decision-maker working for the government who is friendly to her or are a wealthy friend of somebody in such a role in San Diego County, Bonnie Dumanis will tend to ignore your violations of the law. That is unless you are running for office against her or one of her friends. Then she is ready to abuse the powers of her office to wrongly harass you for daring to oppose her, even when no crime has been committed. She organized a “Public Integrity Unit” run by Patrick O’Toole which was obviously used to implement this policy.
Read more…

Eileen Lasher of the California Coalition for Families and Children was interviewed twice in 2011 by Walter Davis on his show Progress in San Diego. Dr. Emad Tadros, an outspoken critic of the San Diego family courts, joined them in the first interview. The second interview was shown in two segments.

In the interview segment below, Lasher discussed her experiences with the misconduct of minor’s counsel attorneys and how taxpayers and parents are paying for what is in her view an organized criminal enterprise. She says children and parents are being abused by the courts and points out the taxpayers and the abused parents are paying the financial costs for this misconduct.

San Diego Family Courts: Organized Crime Ring Targeting Middle and Upper Classes

Lasher contends the San Diego family law courts are operated as a criminal business that siphons the wealth from families and places it in the hands of the attorneys and experts such as custody evaluators. She views judges who appoint custody evaluators and minor’s counsel attorneys and many of those attorneys as particularly culpable. A minor’s counsel attorney is to participate in a custody case by representing the children. However, such attorneys often have conflicts of interest. They also typically run their own family law attorney business and are also in some cases are attorneys who are involved in probate cases and serve as “pro tem” judges in family law court.

Discussion focused on how low income families seldom have minor’s counsel attorneys and psychological evaluators ordered by the courts. These families have little money, so it is not lucrative to put them through the family court extortion process reserved for people who have some money. Middle income or higher income families often suffer from these expensive costs because they have significant assets and income that can be exploited by the divorce industry.

You have a house, so the attorneys and court want your house to be forced into sale so they can keep the proceeds and ensure their own wealth and job security at the expense of you and your children. You have retirement savings, the attorneys want those, too. There are college savings for the kids? Those can be raided, too.

How better to extort all or nearly all of a family’s wealth than to threaten their children? The attorneys and judges know how lucrative this extortion is and are eager to bring it into play when they see income and assets that can be pillaged.

If the parents don’t have substantial assets, the grandparents might. The court and its allies know that threatening their grandchildren is often an equally effective means to “financially gang rape” the family.

Generally speaking, San Diego family law courts operate by finanically raping the parents and deep-sixing their children’s futures. While there are probably some judges in the system who do not approve of the corruption and criminal conduct of other judges, it is evident that many do. It is in the judge’s own self-serving interests to increase the amount of litigation in the system. Busy inefficient courts mean more judges are “needed.” It is also in their interests to line the pockets of their attorney and custody evaluator friends, many of whom contribute to judicial re-election campaign funds or who may support them in future runs for political offices. And if they decide not to run for re-election, having funneled millions into the hands of their friends makes it easier for them to secure other employment in the same corrupt divorce industry.
Read more…