C

IUCT
)UCT

DIME
DAVID ll. FlDTl!"ll\|JhH
HDTHIIAH
The Orange County connection to

Hometowning for "Local Lawyers"

2002- LAW LESSON - AFTER TELLING CLIENTS THEY ARE IMAGINING OR MISUNDERSTANDING THE LAW
WHEN A jUDGE CANDIDATE/jUDGE PROTEM GETS EX-PARTE SUPPORT ABATEMENTS AGAINST PRO SE'
6MO PREGNANT MOTHERS WHOSE WAGES ARE BEING GARNISHED BY THE IRS FOR THE 100K EMPLOYED
SUPPORT DODGER IN CONTEMPT AND ARREARS WITHOUT NOTICE...

THIILIJ EDIHDH
E|Il1'I'I'UI!'i'
I'ElIE|.IJ

JEFF STARK... ENTERED O/C JUDICIAL CHAMBER'S LIKE A PROUD TORRANCE ATTORNEY AND LAW
EXPERT BUT LEFT LIKE "LAW EUNUCH" ..... PUT HIS TAIL BETWEEN HIS LEGS LIKE A PUPPY SCOLDED
BY HIS MASTER O/C JUDGE CANDIDATE... THEN BLAMED HIS PREGNANT CLIENT OWED $10K IN ARREARS
AND MARITAL JUDGEMENT SINCE 1999 AND FINANCIALLY FORCED OUT OF RN SCHOOL SHE WAS IN
WITH 86% CUSTODY AND WORKING 3X12(36)HR/WK FOR NOT WORKING FULL TIME. HE HAD BEEN
"HOMETOWNED"..... AND IF YOU CANT BEAT THEM .... BE THEM

:|::l.n".-I-nu
lhundltaiun
J||I::l.lli|:|1
Jhililliin

On 2/21/2002 in a "un-reported" Orange County Family Court Chamber... Judge

Pro-Tem/ 2002 Judge Candidate Grainne Ward and Judge Daniel T. Brice
baptized this highly respected, but apparently regionally sheltered attorney Jeff
Stark in the Orange County two track system and

"Home-towning "
The "Societal Danger" this betrayal of "Public Interest" represents is enourmous,
I confess I really liked Jeff Stark and was quite hopeful he would get past being
rendered "legally impotent" in O/C Family Court court and show the same
character and confidance thathe displayed before entering the "Burmuda
Triangle of law and Rights" show this mastery of the law I had heard about to
collect the already finalized MARITAL JUDGMENT and correct the obvious.

-T;

'r|

-I
1

-.|

A native of California, l\/lr. Stark earned a ioint B.A. in

Economics and Political Science in l972 and graduated Phi
Beta Kappa. For two years, l\/\r. Stark was president of Beta
Theta Pi, which is recognized at the best fraternity in the
country. He won the outstanding senior award out of a
graduating class of 9,000. l\/lr. Stark was the commencement
speaker at his graduation ceremony. He was a Chancellors
l\/larshall at graduation, which was, and is, a very coveted
honor, amongst many other prestigious awards. l\/\r. Stark went
on to earn his ].D. from Loyola Law School in 1975, graduating
in the top one-third of his class. Thereafter, he became an
associate at Cadoo, Tretheway, l\/\cGinn & l\/lorgan, wherein he
worked in their family law section. ln l980, l\/lr. Stark was the
founder and senior partner of Stark & Rasak, which eventually
oecame Stark, Rasak & Clarke. In Z0lZ, when lV\r. Clarke
oecame a Superior Court judge, l\/lr. Stark established his own
'aw firm, The Law Office of leffrey R. Stark.

I
J

-.14

-1
-1-

Fr

./,1
Jeffrey R. Stark

The commission found that the judges actions constituted

l\/lr. Stark is a member of the Los Angeles County and South
willful misconduct, the most serious type of judicial
Bay Bar Associations. He was a former chairman of the family
misconduct, noting that The use of the power of judicial
'aw section of the South Bay Bar Association. He has served as
a family law mediator and arbitrator for the Los Angeles
office to benefit a friend is the casebook example of willful
Superior Court, judge Pro Tem in both Torrance Superior
misconduct. (Concerning Wasilenko (2005) 49 Cal.4th CJP
Court and Los Angeles Superior Court (Central District). l\/lr.
Supp. 26, 46 quoting from McCullough v. Commission on
Stark has been listed in \/\/hos Who and American Lawyer for
Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 186, 194.)
many years. He enjoys reading history and non-fiction books.
A/lr. Stark has been involved in both sides of divorces involving
business executives, entrepreneurs, professional sport stars
(including the l\lHL, l\/lajor League Baseball, and lndy 500 race
car drivers), famous actors, famous comedians, and religious
Teaders. lV\r. Stark was scheduled to appear on the CBS highrated show, Good l\/lorning America about a case he handled.
Good l\/lorning America provided a limousine for l\/lr. Stark to
appear at the taping, however, due to an intervening highinterest breaking news story, his appearance was cancelled.
l\/lr. Stark has met many of his best clients, who have become
close personal friends, by representing the adverse party in
their cases, which is the highest compliment an attorney may

In deciding that the judges conduct warranted removal

from office, the commission stated that the Judges pattern
of willful misconduct involving the abuse of judicial
authority to benefit family and friends was one of the most
egregious types of judicial misconduct, one which affronts
the very essence of a fair and impartial judiciary.....

[W]e have determined that removal is is necessary

to assure the public that a two-track system of justice
and the dispensation of special favors by judges
have no place in this state.

l'Cl\/.

Back
Lo Top
This
emasculation

of a "good lawyer", turned him on his own clients with rants how 3x12hr shifts (=42hr pay) is avoiding
work and abusing the person making 4x more income and while she is in RN school with 80% custody anbd IRS seisures of
his debt and yet he allowed a $5K add-on to income not earned. Only "Cognitive Dissonance" escapes the reality that this is
Court officers conspiring to deny "honest service" in a protected" two track system" or it's the use of "The Force" to
Law Office of Ieffrey R. Stark
control weak lawyer minds by a 3828
Sith Carson
Lord inStreet,
a Plad
Green Kilt singing "Danny Boy" .
Suite 100
Torrance, C,-\ 90505

California

Judges

Association

J U DIC I A L E T H IC S U PDAT E
November 2012
This is the thirty-first Judicial Ethics Update from the Judicial Ethics
Committee of the California Judges Association. This 2011/12 Update
highlights areas of current interest from the 420 informal responses to
judges questions concerning the Code of Judicial Ethics provided by the
Ethics Committee during the period September 2011 to September 2012.
Judges may direct questions on the Code of Judicial Ethics to the Ethics
Committee by contacting the CJA office or any current 2012/13 Ethics
Committee member. As a matter of policy, the Ethics Committee does
not answer questions which are moot or raise issues of law. Nor does the
Committee respond to questions that involve matters pending before the
Commission on Judicial Performance. Opinions of the Committee are
advisory only and are based on the Canons in place during 2011/12.
Special thanks to Ethics Committee member Mary E. Fuller, San Bernardino
Superior Court, for preparing this Update.

II. CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM

A. Generally
1. A temporary judge may not include the fact of serving as a temporary
judge in any law firm or business advertisement including a biography on a
law firm web site. Canons 1, 2, 6D(9)(a)
d

ffi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2013

CALIFORNIA CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS

Amended by the Supreme Court of California effective January 1, 2013; previously

amended March 4, 1999, December 13, 2000, December 30, 2002, June 18, 2003,
December 22, 2003, January 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, July 1, 2006, January 1, 2007,
January 1, 2008, and April 29, 2009.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

CANON 1
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY* AND
INDEPENDENCE* OF THE JUDICIARY
An independent, impartial,* and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in
our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing
high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the
integrity* and independence* of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of
this code are to be construed and applied to further that objective. A judicial
decision or administrative act later determined to be incorrect legally is not itself a
violation of this code.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY
Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public
confidence in the integrity* and independence* of judges. The integrity* and
independence* of judges depend in turn upon their acting without fear or favor.
Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law* and the
provisions of this code. Public confidence in the impartiality* of the judiciary is
maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely,
violations of this code diminish public confidence in the judiciary and thereby do
injury to the system of government under law.
The basic function of an independent, impartial,* and honorable judiciary
is to maintain the utmost integrity* in decision making, and this code should be
read and interpreted with that function in mind.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

CANON 2
A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY* AND THE
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY* IN ALL OF THE
JUDGES ACTIVITIES
A. Promoting Public Confidence
A judge shall respect and comply with the law* and shall act at all times in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity* and impartiality* of the
judiciary. A judge shall not make statements, whether public or nonpublic, that
commit the judge with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to
come before the courts or that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of
the adjudicative duties of judicial office.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY
Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper
conduct by judges.
A judge must avoid all impropriety* and appearance of impropriety.* A
judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must
therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as
burdensome by other members of the community and should do so freely and
willingly.
The prohibition against behaving with impropriety* or the appearance of
impropriety* applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.
The test for the appearance of impropriety* is whether a person aware of
the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act
with integrity,* impartiality,* and competence.
As to membership in organizations that practice invidious discrimination,
see also Commentary under Canon 2C.
As to judges making statements that commit the judge with respect to cases,
controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the courts, see also Canon
3B(9) and its commentary concerning comments about pending proceedings,*
Canon 3E(3)(a) concerning disqualification of judges who make statements that
commit the judge to a particular result, and Canon 5B(1)(a) concerning
statements made during an election campaign that commit the candidate to a
particular result. In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 170.2, subdivision
(b), provides that, with certain exceptions, a judge is not disqualified on the
ground that the judge has, in any capacity, expressed a view on a legal or factual
issue presented in the proceeding before the judge.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

B. Use of the Prestige of Judicial Office

(1) A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to
influence the judges judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a judge convey or
permit others to convey the impression that any individual is in a special position
to influence the judge.
(2) A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in
any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the
pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others. This canon does not
prohibit the following:
(a) A judge may testify as a character witness, provided the judge does so only
when subpoenaed.
(b) A judge may, without a subpoena, provide the Commission on Judicial
Performance with a written communication containing (i) factual information
regarding a matter pending before the commission, or (ii) information related to
the character of a judge who has a matter pending before the commission,
provided that any such factual or character information is based on personal
knowledge.* In commission proceedings, a judge shall provide information
responsive to a subpoena or when officially requested to do so by the commission.
(c) A judge may provide factual information in State Bar disciplinary proceedings
and shall provide information responsive to a subpoena or when officially
requested to do so by the State Bar.
(d) A judge may respond to judicial selection inquiries, provide recommendations
(including a general character reference, relating to the evaluation of persons being
considered for a judgeship), and otherwise participate in the process of judicial
selection.
(e) A judge may serve as a reference or provide a letter of recommendation only if
based on the judges personal knowledge* of the individual. These written
communications may include the judges title and may be written on stationery
that uses the judicial title.
(3) Except as permitted in subdivision (c) or otherwise authorized by law* or these
canons:

10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

(a) A judge shall not advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or
others by initiating communications with a sentencing judge or a representative of
a probation department about a proceeding pending* before the sentencing judge,
but may provide information in response to an official request. Sentencing
judge includes a judge who makes a disposition pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 725.
(b) A judge, other than the judge who presided over the trial of or sentenced the
person seeking parole, pardon, or commutation of sentence, shall not initiate
communications with the Board of Parole Hearings regarding parole, or the Office
of the Governor regarding parole, pardon, or commutation of sentence, but may
provide these entities with information for the record in response to an official
request.
(c) A judge may initiate communications concerning a member of the judges
family* with a representative of a probation department regarding sentencing, the
Board of Parole Hearings regarding parole, or the Office of the Governor
regarding parole, pardon, or commutation of sentence, provided the judge is not
identified as a judge in the communication.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY
A strong judicial branch, based on the prestige that comes from effective
and ethical performance, is essential to a system of government in which the
judiciary functions independently of the executive and legislative branches.
Judges should distinguish between proper and improper use of the prestige of
office in all of their activities.
As to those communications that are permitted under this canon, a judge
must keep in mind the general obligations to maintain high standards of conduct,
as set forth in Canon 1, and to avoid any impropriety* or the appearance of
impropriety* as set forth in Canon 2. A judge must also be mindful of Canon 2A,
which requires a judge to act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity* and impartiality* of the courts.
A judge must avoid lending the prestige of judicial office for the
advancement of the private interests of the judge or others. For example, a judge
must not use the judicial position to gain advantage in a civil suit involving a
member of the judges family;* or use his or her position to gain deferential
treatment when stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense.
As to the use of a judges title to identify a judges role in the presentation
and creation of legal education programs and materials, see Commentary to
Canon 4B. In contracts for publication of a judges writings, a judge should
retain control over the advertising, to the extent feasible, to avoid exploitation of
the judges office. As to the acceptance of awards, see Canon 4D(6).

11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

This canon does not afford judges a privilege against testifying in response
to any official summons.
See also Canons 3D(1) and 3D(2) concerning a judges obligation to take
appropriate corrective action regarding other judges who violate any provision of
the Code of Judicial Ethics and attorneys who violate any provision of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Except as set forth in Canon 2B(3)(a), this canon does not preclude
consultations among judges. Additional limitations on such consultations among
judges are set forth in Canon 3B(7)(a).
C. Membership in Organizations
A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity,
or sexual orientation.
This canon does not apply to membership in a religious organization or an official
military organization of the United States. So long as membership does not
violate Canon 4A, this canon does not bar membership in a nonprofit youth
organization.*
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY
Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious
discrimination gives rise to a perception that the judge's impartiality* is impaired.
This canon exempts membership in religious and military organizations and,
subject to Canon 4A, does not bar membership in nonprofit youth organizations.*
These exemptions are necessary because membership in United States military
organizations is subject to current valid military regulations, and religious beliefs
are constitutionally protected. Membership in nonprofit youth organizations* is
not barred to accommodate individual rights of intimate association and free
expression. See also Canon 3E and its Commentary concerning disqualification
and disclosure.
Canon 2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an
organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to
which judges should be sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere
examination of an organizations current membership rolls but rather depends on
how the organization selects members and other relevant factors, such as whether
the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic, or cultural
values of legitimate common interest to its members, or whether it is in fact and
effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations
could not be constitutionally prohibited. Absent such factors, an organization is
generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from
membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, gender, national origin, ethnicity,
or sexual orientation persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.
12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Although Canon 2C relates only to membership in organizations that

invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, or sexual orientation, a judges membership in an organization that
engages in any discriminatory membership practices prohibited by law* also
violates Canon 2 and Canon 2A and gives the appearance of impropriety.* In
addition, it would be a violation of Canon 2 and Canon 2A for a judge to arrange
a meeting at a club that the judge knows* practices such invidious discrimination
or for the judge to use such a club regularly. Moreover, public manifestation by a
judge of the judges knowing* approval of invidious discrimination on any basis
gives the appearance of impropriety* under Canon 2 and diminishes public
confidence in the integrity* and impartiality* of the judiciary in violation of
Canon 2A.

1
2
3
4

CANON 6
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

D. Temporary Judge,* Referee, or Court-Appointed Arbitrator1

A temporary judge,* a person serving as a referee pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 638 or 639, or a court-appointed arbitrator shall comply only
with the following code provisions:

31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

(9)(a) A temporary judge* appointed under rule 2.810 of the California Rules of
Court, from the time of appointment and continuing indefinitely after the
termination of the appointment, shall not use his or her title or service as a
temporary judge* (1) as a description of the lawyers current or former principal
profession, vocation, or occupation on a ballot designation for judicial or other
elected office, (2) in an advertisement about the lawyers law firm or business, or
(3) on a letterhead, business card, or other document that is distributed to the
public identifying the lawyer or the lawyers law firm.
(b) Thi

hibit t

j d *

i t d

l 2 810 f

To: Jeff Stark, Attorney at Law

20355 Hawthorne Blvd.
Torrance Ca. 90503

Fr: Dianne Romo & Kevin Powell

02/26.2002
Re: Letter Dated February 21, 2002
Dear Jeff :

We would like to first express our gratitude for representing us on our court day. We would like
to also like to say that we enjoyed meeting your wife and your adorable kids. They were very
personable and we had a great time talking to them. Also what I talked to you about helping you
with computers stills stands as discussed. If you need any help at home or at the office I will gladly
help.
We would like to also address the letter that you sent. Please take some time to understand
where we are coming from. We know that you say for us to let the past go and we have accepted
that the money that she lost she will never recover. We came to you because you were described
as being a very aggressive lawyer. After what we have observed about Grainne Ward and the way
Dianne has been treated by the court we felt that she would continue to get screwed by the system
without representation. She patronizes Dianne when she talks to her and she is able to talk to
the judge without Dianne being able to represent herself. We tried to explain what an
manipulative lawyer Ms. Ward is and that she does anything to manipulate the system. We
never had any idea that she would stoop so low as to say Dianne was calling her to threaten her.

I tried to prepare you with documentation showing how Perry has used anything to change the
calculator including stating that he pays from $768/mo to about $150/mo for insurance, yet we
have never seen documentation. He now states it is $250/mo yet his employment letter says they
cover his insurance and he has yet to submit anything to show this figure. His lawyer submitted
paperwork to the court saying that Perry makes +/- $70,000/ year for his income yet he
admitted his base salary was $77,000. This does not include any bonuses. We have sent
them her paystubs and her social security statements and have asked for a fair Dissomaster
and have told them that she would agree to this whatever figure it was as long as it was
verified by paperwork. We have received nothing. Dianne has one child and Perry has the other.
We agreed to pay for Elle's child care and were already paying for Wendy to watch Elle before
Granny decided to send a dissomaster that showed the amount of support to be within $10 of our
figure and changed it by adding childcare to only Perry's side. This is why we delivered the
letter from Wendy regarding childcare to you before we went to court. We knew she was
going to manipulate the figures before we went to court.
We had no idea that she would be able to have our own lawyer question us and obviously
wonder if this has been done. We told you and this we swear we have never called her and
threatened her. That is not Dianne's personality and is not mine either.

Domestic Violence and Bullying

Press to hear what abuse created through Family Law Judge/

Pro-Tem Attorneys relationships destroying any trust in the system
and encouraging this as the desired (self-feeding) behavior

You made a statement that that day when you returned that has us concerned. You
stated that The Court isnt going to Tar & Feather Perry like you two want it to indicating
that YOU believe that we asked for Perry to be " Tarred and Feathered " in front of the
court house. What we asked for was for Perry to be made responsible for what the law says and
for once in his life to pay only what he is supposed to. This is called the justice system yet
there has been no Justice
Please remember that Dianne was emotionally abused in that relationship. She finally had the
courage to leave. She does the right thing hires a lawyer. The Lawyer charges her about
$10,000. Her share of retirement settlement is about $14,000. She then has to pay income tax
on the money because the lawyer wants to get paid out of it immediately. Her net is almost
nothing. Perry's cost=$1200 CONTRIBUTIVE SHARE and earning 3 times The Money.
He doesn't pay his ordered support she has to pay the attorney to get it garnished. he pay's
nothing and the arrears are given to her at $78/ mo over 10 mo. He leaves his job arrears stop
after 5 mo. She has never gotten the rest. She paid her lawyer about $300 for 1/2 of the $780
in small monthly payments. Perry has not met his responsibility to the I.R.S. Dianne has
paid off $4100 to the State Board of Equalization for their debt. Because he has not been
made responsible for what they agreed to and she cannot file for the last two years her
taxes. She has $6000 in refunds she is entitled to that she can't get because of Perry.
Please understand we are talking about someone who only makes about $24,000/ year. If
someone was holding you up for two years 1/4 of your yearly income I believe it would upset you
also. The only reason they ended up in court was because Perry refused to give her any
information after changing jobs. There has never been any offer or request from Dianne
that was either unfair or not in the best interest of the children. She has only asked for
guidelines. She has been flexible with the custody arrangements and has made adjustments based
on the current needs of the children. She has been evaluated by the court and custody was ordered
to remain unchanged by the people that evaluated the situation. She agreed to change custody
only when she believed it was in the best interest of the Blair.
We have no intention of "Tar and feathering " Perry however we would like to make
sure that our attorney and us are on the same page and have a full understanding of what is really
going on and will aggressively pursue fair compensation and punitive actions to prevent this from
reoccurring. We need to believe in our attorney and we need him to believe in us. We believe
you are a good attorney, however we also believe that you were not properly prepared to deal
with her and she was able to walk all over you in the beginning.

She told you and the Judge some bullshit and even had you questioning us. You came out
with an offer that was over $60 less that she offered us two days earlier and told us we
should take it and not upset the judge. She came out before you did and gave us the dirtiest grin
I have ever seen because she had pulled the wool over the judge's and your eyes. You even looked
at the Dissomaster and allowed her to present that with all incorrect figures .
Dianne was put down as having 4 dependants when there is only 3 that is at least a $600
/ year credit. She used child care for Blair and not for Elle, which I had told you she would
do. she used $250 for health insurance which we don't believe as we have never seen it and
he presented a letter stating his benefits are paid for by the company and I doubt that
adding on two kids is costing $250 when his last insurance for him and the kids was
$150/mo. You told us when we initially consulted with you that this is cut and dry and we were
making it into more than it is. You said he would pay a contributive share of your attorney fees
based on his income and he makes three times what she does.

We were informed at court that he would only pay $600. Her pay was set at $29,000/ yr when
her income is $24,500/ yr. We attempted to address this issue with you and you became angry
and said Dianne would be accused of perjury. She filled that paperwork out to the best of her
knowledge. We used a paystub for 1 week and submitted that. However Dianne works for a
Registry. She does not get two weeks paid vacation. when she goes to court she misses 1/3
of her weekly income, she does not have guaranteed work. she averages between 21,000
and 24,500/ yr for the last 3 years.
We have had to borrow money to hire you and based on our conversation we will not address
the I.R.S. situation until June. That means the earliest that she will get her return is in August. The
arrears are being paid @ $100/ mo and that means 15 mo to recoup that money meanwhile
Dianne is going to be forced to return to work earlier than planned and I have to pay back
money I borrowed that I promised to be paid in 2 months. So if it seems as though we were
emotional please understand why. I understand that people cannot predict what is in the
future however we would like to eliminate as many surprises as possible.
The last two lawyers she trusted to make her decisions and went along with what they
said. The first one got her nothing out of the divorce and had her pay income taxes on
money she paid to him. He also made calculations on her bill totaling almost $2000 that I found
before she paid him that was corrected. When going over the paperwork to prepare for you I
found an additional $1150 that he made a calculation error that shorted her from the equalization.
When we called him he said we were right but we would have to attempt to get it from Perry. His
error yet he takes no responsibility.

Milo charged her $62.50 every time he changed the court date due to his schedule, He
yelled at her and he refused to look at documentation proving that Perry had been
compensated for the guns that he is still trying to make an issue of and therefore she is still
paying for them. Your lawyer works for you.. and owes you some level of respect and
professionalism This is why she stopped dealing with Milo and Milo has said something to the
judge about her not returning his calls.

We trust you to do your job and this is an emotional case and situation and you are the buffer
between the court and us. However after everything that has happened in the past and what
happened at our last date, all decisions must be discussed and final decisions must lie with us.
After all if I had not demanded to see the dissomaster we would have gotten $473 and even
the $655 given is under what she is entitled to if the true and correct figures were being
used. I know that this can and will be addressed in the future. All she has ever asked for is a
fair Dissomaster and all Perry and his lawyer have done is twist the system and cost Dianne
more money.
At this point we would like to know what our existing bill is so we can figure so far how much
money it is costing to get less than she is supposed to get. Please do not feel as though we are
trying to be unfair to Perry. He makes more money than she does and this is the second time that
he has changed jobs and she has had to chase child support.

He is not the victim, he is the wolf in sheep's clothing. This proceeding and the current issues are
about money, the child custody issue will need to be addressed in June and it is important that the
judge gets a fair view of both sides and understands Perry's true motivation is money and what his
history of custody truly is. Elle is well taken care of here and her education is taken seriously. We
don't believe that changing the custody will be in anybody's best interest.
In closing we would like you look over the enclosed correspondence so you can understand
why that lying b.... went to court and lied to you and the judge. Maybe this needs to be addressed
to the judge. Also, please review our situation and let us know where you think the right
direction is for us to proceed together and what you believe is going to be the way for us to
prepare properly for this conniving lawyer, as she will do anything to win. Also we need a feel for
what our cost are and what they going to be.
Dianne Romo & Kevin Powell

Full Biography for Grainne Hardiman-Ward

This is an archive of a past election.
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/or/ for current information.
League of Women Voters of California

Orange County, CA

March 5, 2002 Election

Full Biography for Grainne

Hardiman-Ward
Candidate for
Superior Court Judge; County of Orange; Office 3

This information is provided by the candidate

GRAINNE HARDIMAN WARD is a Certified Family Law Specialist with a tough, no

nonsense reputation.
GRAINNE HARDIMAN WARD has frequently volunteered as a Judge Pro Tem in the
Family Law Court of Orange County in the last ten years.
GRAINNE HARDIMAN WARD as Superior Court Judge will focus on protecting our
community, particularly our children.
GRAINNE HARDIMAN WARD will be a tough Judge in cases involving drunk drivers,
drug dealers and gang violence.
"I SUPPORT ORDER AND JUSTICE. I SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY WHERE
WARRANTED. I WILL BE A JUDGE WHO IS FAIR, FOLLOWS THE LAW AND
PROTECTS THE PUBLIC. I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE AND SUPPORT ON MARCH 5,
2002."
Grainne's primary focus is the children. She is the mother of three adult children, who
were raised and educated in Orange County and graduated from UCLA, UCSB and USD.
Having always put children first in both her personal and professional life. Grainne was a
schoolteacher in Ireland. Grainne volunteered with the Santa Ana Stay in School Program
through the Orange County Bar interacting with the students to motivate them towards a
brighter future. She has been appointed to represent and protect the rights of children by
the Family Law Courts. Grainne has attended the Orange County Family Violence Council
meetings. She has served as an Adjunct Professor at Western State College of Law.
Grainne has been a mediator on many Family Law cases. In sixteen years of practice
Grainne has successfully handled many cases involving dissolution of marriage, domestic
violence, spousal and child support, property division, paternity, juvenile and grandparents
rights. She represents a cross section of clients from all economic and ethnic groups.
Grainne Hardiman Ward is supported and endorsed in her candidacy by Judges, District
Attorneys, elected officials, law enforcement, attorneys, and ordinary citizens. "I welcome
the opportunity and challenge to serve the people of Orange County as Judge of the
Superior Court."

http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/03/05/ca/or/vote/hardiman-ward_g/bio.html

6/17/2014

-..

2
3

LA W OFFICES OF MILO F. DE ARMEY

Wellington Square
950 West Seventeenth Street Suite A
Santa Ana, CA 92706
(714) 558-7744
(714) 558-0925

4
5

Attorney for PETITIONER

DIANNE M. KING

6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

15

I, Dianne M. King, declare as follows:

16

I have been advised by Attorney Milo F. DeArmey that an Ex Parte is being brought against

17

me on September 5, 2000 in Department L64 of this Court.

18

I have had primary physical custody of the children by Court Order since mid 1999, however,

19

I have had primary physical custody of the minor children since Mr. King and I separated with the

20

exception of a period of approximately six months when we tried to share the children on a 50/50

21

basis.

22
23

24

Mr. King never really got into the 50/50 arrangement and finally in 1998 he demanded that
~e have an 80/20 arrangemen~
The two children that we share are Blair, age 9, and Elle, age 5.
---7

25

26
27

28

My address is].~.Ll West Sunflower #A5, Santa An~:..California 92704. I have continued to
live there since I have been divorced.
My mother was kind enough to move in and assist me with babysitting and she sometimes hac-

..

[;\f.!~/YJ~

c.0'/_'~'

the children With her and takes them With her to CRIoR(). The reason she goes to C1imo is bec3'

DECLARATION

OF DIANNE M. KING IN OPPOSITION TO EX PART1-

Q,'--1../Yv(~

lifelong friend lives in ~

and she goes there to assist him sometimes,

ecause

' f hi

IS

d
nee s.

The children consider him a grandfather a~d they enjoy going there and visiting with him.

My job is as an LVN with the registry, as such I try to work three 12 hour shifts for week and

5
6

I can have the balance of the time with the children. J

In addition to that, in order to improve my situation, to improve my standard ofliving for the

children, I am going to school one night a week studying to be a registered nurs>,

The children are always at my home under my care or the care of my mother and ifmy mother

()(JY~~

happens to go out for the day to ~

I go to Los Angeles and the children go with me.

10
11

7.

the children go with her. On the other hand, occasionally,

My attorney has also told me that allegations are going to be made that my friend, Kevin, has
a felony record.

;V1iIYe:. .'

12

First off, he is a long time friend of myself and my former husband, Mr. King. Second, Kevin

13

is godfather to our son. He has been a friend of mine for a very long time and I enjoy being with hi:n

14

and he has assisted me in various ways in this case.

15

There has never been any animosity between Kevin and Mr. King prior to the divorce.

16

However, now that the divorce is over and several years have passed, apparently, there has been some
.,.

17

animosity since I continued to see Kevin. Kevin has never been raised as an issue on any prior

18

pleadings.

19

shocked by that and I would ask the Court to consider that it is coming from a man who has not pa

20

child support for a period of several months and doesn't want to pay.an increase in child support)

21

The Court should know that recently, Mr. King moved from Orange ,County to San Diego

22

County and refused to tell me his home and work address and phone number and I was unable to

23

collect child support for a period of several months.

This is the first time that my relationship with him has ever been questioned.

-.0
I am

24

This, of course, was upsetting to our entire family including our son. In fact, our son was so

25

upset over the fact that he didn't know where his father was and couldn't call him on the phone that

26

he brought it to the attention of one of his teachers.

27

anything about it because I could not locate him at the time.

28

The teacher called me, but I could not do

Finally, I hired the Law Offices of Milo F. DeAnney and paid him the sum 0[$1 ,sao, and with
DECLARATION

OF DIANNE M. KING IN OPPOSITION

TO EX PARTE

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102

Contact:

Victoria B. Henley
Director-Chief Counsel
(415) 557-1200

FOR RELEASE
April 14, 2011

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE ANNOUNCES THE ELECTION OF

JUSTICE JUDITH D. MCCONNELL AS CHAIRPERSON AND
JUDGE FREDERICK P. HORN AS VICE-CHAIRPERSON

The Commission announces the election of Justice Judith D. McConnell as Chairperson

of the Commission and Judge Frederick P. Horn as Vice-Chairperson, at its meeting on March

22,2011.
Justice Judith D. McConnell has served as the Administrative Presiding Justice of the
Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District since 2003, and as Associate Justice from 2001 to

2003. From 1978 to 1980 she was a judge of the San Diego Municipal Court, and from 1980 to
2001 she was a judge of the San Diego Superior Court where she served two terms as presiding
judge. Prior to her appointment to the bench she was in private law practice in San Diego. She
also Worked for the California Department of Transportation. Justice McConnell received her

law degree from the University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law, in 1969 and graduated
from the University of California, Berkeley, Phi Beta Kappa. She served as a member and vicechair of the Judicial Council Task Force on Jury System Improvement from 1998 to 2003, and as

chair of the Task Force on Judicial Ethics Issues from 2003 to 2004. In 1999, she was the rst
recipient of the Benjamin Aranda III Access to Justice Award presented by the State Bar of
California, and in 2000 was named Jurist of the Year by the California Judicial Council. Justice

McConnell was appointed to the Commission in March 2005 and served as vice-chairperson
from March 2007 to March 2009 when she was elected chair.
Judge Frederick P. Horn has been a judge of the Orange County Superior Court since

1993 and was a judge of the Orange County Municipal Court, Harbor Judicial District, from
1991 to 1993. From 2002 to 2006, he served as presiding judge of the Orange County Superior

Court. He received his law degree from the University of West Los Angeles in 1974, where he
Wrote for and served as staff on the Law Review. Judge Horn was the chair of the Trial Court

Presiding Judges Advisory Committee of the California Judicial Council from 2002 to 2006. He
is also a member of the faculty of the Judicial College and the New Judge Orientation Program,
and is a member of the Advisory Committee for the Continuing Judicial Studies Program. He
was named Jurist of the Year by the California Judicial Council for 2004-2005. Judge Horn
served as the Commissions chairperson in 2007 and 2008 and as its vice-chairperson in 2005
and 2006.

A CALL FOR ETHICAL STANDARDS:

CORRUPTION IN ORANGE COUNTY
SUMMARY
The Blind Men and the Elephant is an ancient Indian parable that has
been retold in countless variations by cultures throughout the world as a means
to illustrate relativism and truth. In the story, six blind men touch different parts of
an elephant and find that they are in complete disagreement with each other as
to their belief in what the elephant was. The same is true when people are asked
to define ethics. Substitute the word Ethics for Elephant and the six men may
describe, Morality, Legality, Belief, Principles, Values, and Integrity.
Important to note is that this 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report on Ethics by its
nature is not intended to be all-inclusive. Rather, the goal is two-pronged: 1) to
provide an historical retrospective of ethical violations; and 2) to perhaps lay the
foundation for future Grand Jury studies on the subject of ethics and corruption in
Orange County government. Sadly, it is the Grand Jurys hypothesis that
untoward behavior continues and is actively festering in todays political
environment. In point of fact, this and several other studies conducted by the
2012-2013 Grand Jury address the fact that corruption has permeated all levels
of the organization, and does not apply only to elected officials positioned visibly
in the public eye.
Orange County has a long history of ethical violations by elected and
appointed officials; as well as by employees that serve its multitude of county,
city, school and special district agencies. Influence peddling played a major role
in local government scandal as we transformed from an agrarian economy into
the third largest populated county in California.
Trust in government is dependent upon officials that place the public
interest ahead of their own. Every level of local government has faced
allegations of conflict of interest, abuse of authority, patronage and lack of
transparency. Equally damaging is the appearance of impropriety.
It is the Grand Jurys hope that Orange County will commit to a positive
ethics environment and program that includes elements of training, advice and
enforcement as a model for other local governments to follow. The primary goal
of an effective ethics program is to increase public trust in government. The
secondary goal is to prevent unethical conduct.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to chronicle the history of corruption in
Orange County, research viable methods to reduce unethical behavior by public
officials and recommend change.
20122013 Orange County Grand Jury

Page 1 of 32

A CALL FOR ETHICAL STANDARDS:

CORRUPTION IN ORANGE COUNTY

Maybe a talk show host would have discussed at length an Orange

County Public Works sex scandal and the manner in which county leaders
handled the investigation. Public debate may have centered on misfeasance by
human resources personnel or the practice of protectionism, scapegoating and
abuse of power at the highest levels of county government.
The District Attorneys Office got it right when it wrote in an Agenda Staff
Report to the Board of Supervisors on September 25, 2012:
The citizens of Orange County have the right to expect their public
officials will carry out their duties in a lawful, ethical, and professional
manner. 8
Government Ethics vs. Personal Morality
The Grand Jury recognizes that misconduct is found in all manner of
human enterprise - not just in government. Corruption, scandal and unethical
behavior are found in businesses, financial brokerage houses, college athletics,
religious institutions and even the Olympics. Therefore, standards of ethical
conduct are well established in legal, medical, judicial, accounting, education,
journalism and many other professions. Adams and Balfour wrote in their book,
Unmasking Administrative Evil:
In the public sphere, ethics are meant to safeguard the integrity
of the organization by helping individuals conform to professional
norms, avoid mistakes and misdeeds that violate the public trust
(corruption, nepotism, etc.) and assure that public officials in a
constitutional republic are accountable through their elected
representatives to the people. 9
When examining ethics in government, it is important to make a distinction
between personal and public conduct. Personal ethics is to make people morally
better and to improve relationships. Government ethics is not interested in the
notion of being good, rather it is concerned with decision-making conflicts
between public and private obligations. Public officials and people who do
business with the government think more in terms of obligations and biases than
in terms of interests. A developer gives a gift to an official not to create an

Orange County District Attorney, Revised Agenda Staff Report (09/11/2012 #ASR 12-001244)
Adams, G. and Balfour, D. Unmasking Administrative Evil, 3ed, (2009) M.E. Sharpe (London) p.
167

20122013 Orange County Grand Jury

Page 4 of 32

1 Introduction
Equal treatment before the law is a pillar of democratic societies. When courts are
corrupted by greed or political expediency, the scales of justice are tipped, and ordinary
people suffer. Judicial corruption means the voice of the innocent goes unheard, while
the guilty act with impunity.
Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International (TI), 2007
Corruption damages judicial systems and thousands of people worldwide are denied access to
justice and protection of their individual rights. A well functioning government, with the
citizens best in mind, requires not only the rule of law, but also an independent judiciary that
enforce the law impartially and equally. When the judiciary is corrupt, it facilitates corruption
in other sectors of government and it transmits to the general public the message that
corruption is accepted.1 In such countries judicial corruption might even be socially accepted.
Why hire a lawyer when you can buy a judge? is a famous saying in Kenya.2
TIs Global Corruption Barometer of 2006 surveyed 59.661 persons in 62 states and 8 per
cent of respondents who had been in contact with the judiciary affirmed that they had paid a
bribe in order to receive a positive decision in a judicial case.3 In Africa and Latin America,
the percentages were as high as 21, respectively 18 per cent.4 Numbers are however irrelevant
from the victims viewpoint. Judicial corruption violates the right to fair trial, which is
essential for an effective implementation of all other human rights.
Judicial independence is a necessity for a non-corrupt judiciary, but it is not enough, since an
independent judiciary itself might be corrupt. Judges must also be impartial, honest and
competent.5 It is hard to exaggerate the negative consequences of judicial corruption, both
nationally and internationally: combating transnational crime and terrorism becomes
unfeasible; it diminishes economic and human development; and it denies citizens their long
recognized right to impartial dispute settlements.6

1.1 Purpose
An independent, impartial, fair and equitable legal system and a non-corrupt judiciary is the
core of the rule of law, human rights implementation, supervision of the executive, economic
development and recovery after war.7 Corruption in the judiciary is one of the biggest threats
against effective protection of rights, since people depend on independent and impartial courts
when claiming breaches of individual rights. Courts have an enormous responsibility with
their monopoly to resolve all conflicts of judicial nature and corrupt courts cannot take that
1

TI, Global Corruption Report 2007, p. XVI and XXI.

Ibid. p. 4.
3
TI, Report on the Global Corruption Barometer 2006, Figure 1.
4
TI, Global Corruption Report 2007, Table 1, p. 11.
5
Ibid. p. 16.
6
Ibid. p. XXI.
7
United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) General Assembly resolution 58/4 of 31 October
2003, Preamble, CoE, Criminal Law Convention against Corruption (CrLCC) CETS No. 173, Strasbourg 1999,
Preamble, CoE, Civil Law Convention (CiLCC) CETS No. 174, Strasbourg 1999, Preamble, OAS, InterAmerican Convention against Corruption of 1996, Preamble, Lima Declaration against Corruption of the 8th
International Anti-Corruption Conference on 7-11 September 1997, Preamble, CoE recommendation on the
Independence, Efficiency and Role of Judges, No. R (94) 12, 13 October 1994.
2

responsibility.8 The effective enforcement of law, including human rights regulations,

depends in large part on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. If the judiciary is
corrupt, then many other rights lose their significance; a corrupt judiciary leads to individual
rights becoming just rights on paper. The judiciary is the ultimate upholder of individual
rights and it is therefore supposed to fight corruption, not be a part of it.9
The seriousness of judicial corruption shows through the policies and methods adopted by
many international governmental organs and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to
name a few: the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, the Council of Europe (CoE), the
Organization of American States (OAS), TI and the Group of States Against Corruption
(GRECO).
Anti-corruption strategies must be implemented carefully, since they can be used against their
own purpose. Politicians may use them as a tool to penetrate the judiciary with their own
agenda. Therefore, even if corruption in the judiciary is so corrosive, the fight against it
cannot be carried out without bearing in mind the consequences; that it will collide with
fundamental rule of law principles. In order to rid the court system from corrupt behaviour,
one has to consider intrusion on principles such as judicial independence and judicial
immunity.
The purpose of this essay is to systematize the different norms, standards and strategies
regarding corruption in the judiciary in relation to judicial independence, and the response
from international actors. The purpose is moreover to consider accountability and to look into
the dilemma of strategies implemented towards the aim of strengthening judicial integrity, in
particular how anti-corruption norms, standards and strategies can be balanced against the
principle of judicial independence.
The questions that will be in focus include:
1. What are some of the most relevant international norms and standards concerning
corruption in the judiciary and judicial independence?
2. What are some of the mainly discussed factors of judicial corruption and what effect
can judicial corruption have on the rule of law and essential principles concerning a
fair and independent judiciary?
3. What are some of the most salient internationally supported strategies to eliminate
judicial corruption and how do they affect the principle of judicial independence?

1.2 Method and Demarcation

This essay will inventory some of the main international and regional norms and standards
regarding corruption in the judiciary, which will be systemized by their scope and relevance.
The inventory and systematization will also include some of the main norms and standards
concerning judicial independence and codes of conduct for judges. The international and
regional norms and standards regarding corruption in the judiciary and judicial independence
consist not only of legally binding legislations, but also of a great amount of non-binding
documents. Therefore also declarations, charters and other non-binding instruments will be
8
9

E. Buscaglia, 2001, p. 6.
UNCAC, Article 11.

A CALL FOR ETHICAL STANDARDS:

CORRUPTION IN ORANGE COUNTY
baggage of impropriety.93
The Grand Jury cannot control or predict the competence of elected (or
appointed) officials. The Grand Jury understands that political ideology will
always be part of a politicians decision-making process. The Grand Jury does
expect however, that local officials govern with high ethical standards -- always
placing the public good ahead of their own.
The Grand Jury believes that the primary goal of an effective ethics
program is the enhancement of public trust in government. After corruption, it is
the appearance of impropriety that is so damaging to public confidence. When
presented with a conflict of interest or obligation situation, officials often seek the
advice of an attorney.
Legal advice is an important consideration for public officials, but it is
often narrowly interpreted to convey whether a proposed conflict
resolution is lawful - with little regard to the appearance of impropriety.
When facing allegations of misconduct in office, officials often insist that
they sought legal advice and what they did was legal. It is not
appropriate for public officials to use loopholes in ethics laws to their
advantage at the expense of the public. What is sometimes technically
legal doesnt always equate to what is ethical. Too many bureaucrats
take a legalistic approach to government ethics an approach that may
be the biggest problem officials face when dealing with conflicts of
interest.94
Public officials are best served by seeking advice from a neutral ethics
professional to see how their conduct would appear to the public.
A secondary goal of an effective program is to prevent unethical conduct
and to establish a healthy ethical environment at all levels of County government.
The County should serve as a shining example to all other forms of local
government. It is in local government where politicians that aspire to higher
office cut their teeth and experience their first ethical challenges, learn to play
the game, misplace their convictions and begin to feel a special [sense of]
entitlement.95 Unfortunately, local government has more ethics scandals than
effective ethics programs. Poor ethics environments start at the local level.
The Ideal Ethics Program
93

Los Angeles Times article

Wechsler, R. pp. 29-34
95
Wechsler, R. pp. 21-22
94

20122013 Orange County Grand Jury

Page 18 of 32

SUPERIOR

COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
MINUTE ORDER
02-0CT-2002

Dept:

L66

Judge:

Nancy Wi eben Stock

Case

98D003818

Clerk:
Case

Name

Linda Sun
KING V KING

No Appearances.
You are hereby noticed that, effective 10-15-2002,
Lhis case is ordered reassigned
to Commissioner
Gale P. Hickman, for all purposes.
The previous order assigning
this case to Judge Daniel T. Brice is ordef&*L~sated.
All hearings for the above
mentioned case shall take place in ~&partment ~3
of the central Justice Center.
The Central Justice Center is located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana,
Ca.
Department C63 is located on the Third Floor, West Wing.
Department C63 can
be reached at 714-834-3368.
All filings with the exception of ex parte relie= for emergency orders for this
matter should continue to be submit~ed to the Family Law Clerk of the Court at
Lamoreaux Justice Cente~, 341 The City Drive, Orange, Ca. 92868.
Emergency ex parte
relief should be submitted directly to Department C63.
The hearing dates of matters currently set on or after 10-15-2002
will be heard before Commissioner
Hickman in Department C63.

are to remain

and

Entered: 02-0CT-2002

Corruption Cover Up - Only found in 2011 in review of document in strange filing order missing facts
Clerks Certificate
of Mailing (CCP 1013a) - I certify 1 am not a party to this
cause, over age 18 and a copy of this document was mailed first class postage
This
is the Vacated assignment of Judge Daniel Brice of Orange County Court to the King vs.King case that
prepaid in a sealed envelope addressed as shown below.
Mailing and execution
resulted
from acertificate
letter I wrote for
Dianne King
years
abuse in the
Family Court system by
of this
occurred
on after
OCT
0 3of 2002
at Orange
Orange,County
California.
"Judge
"Super
Attorney"
Grainne
This letter
the coordinated
AlanCandidate"
Slater, "Judge
Chief Pro-tem"
Execu~ive
Officer
and
Clerk Ward-Hardiman.
pf the Superior
Courtshows
in and
obfiscation
of the
court of
records.
Thisby
motionSOPHIA
we were neve
given and instead
recived a letter assigning her or
for t.he
County
Orange
BERDA.vir
' Deputy.
another Judge "due to scheduling conflicts." The letter attached shows what was given to Daniel Brice
requesting his self-recusal and to Judge Horn. The Date recieved written on the document is a lie It was recieved on
the monday after court when Brice dismissed with prejudice the contempt filing for the missing support Perry King
still wasn't paying. He was $2000 in arrears and to this day HAS NEVER PAID HIS $16K DIVORCE SETTLEMENT
in the form of tax debt from 1999. He erned $100K she erned $24K the entitre debt wasw seized from her.

2002 -The Supreme Court named Orange Superior Court Presiding Judge Frederick P. Horn to the
Commission on Judicial Performance http://www.metnews.com/articles/endyear123103.htm.
GRAINNE WARD IS BULLY, A LIAR, AND RESPONSIBLE FOR ALMOST KILLING MY DAUGHTER 2X. 2002
http://www.scribd.com/doc/148194279/Smartvoter-Grainne-Hardiman-ward
Bottom line is a mother in LVN-RN program ws forced out of school by abusive judge and corrupt cronyism. spent $12K on 14K
on divorce lawyer fees for a never inforced NON DISMISSABLE DIVORCE SETTLEMENT, paid all of the tax bills, spent $8500
trying to inforce before giving up - Please note PERRY KING PREDICTED THIS BECAUSE GRAINNE WARD KNOWS
EVERYONE AND "YOU"LL NEVER WIN HE TAUNTED" ... IN 2011 he threatened to use his DCSS relative against me and my
ROBERT
C one
BERGEN
DIANNE
M KING
obviously t least 3 Judges were aware of what
children
and not
agency would do anything - ABUSE TEACHES
ABUSE
333 CITY
BLVD.
STE.
1240
22320gave
HARBOR
LANE
happened
one even
takingW.,
judicial
notice
in my complaint ... nobody
a "$#!t"RIDGE
about the
damage it created in a family's
life and the ripple effect of 3yrs of abuse and feeling hopeless
NO.and
2 accepting less than you deserve as a person and
made
to feel beneath
others. Dianne King was an abused wife
who at 29 CA
had 90502
never even driven, she left her husband
ORANGE,
CA 92868
TORRANCE,
agreed to any custody he wanted, set her goals put her life together nd you destroyed it all. She became bitter and nasty
and poisoned the environment she was in and latter abandoned her children ... and became her Ex... the cycle continues

.y
1':t.

SUPERIOR

COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
MINUTE ORDER
02-0CT-2002

Dept:

L66

Judge:

Nancy

Case #

980003818

Wieben

Clerk:

Stock

Linda

Case Name

Sun

KING V KING

No Appearances.
You are hereby noticed that, effective 10-15-2002, this case is ordered reassigned
to Commissioner Gale P. Hickman, for all purposes.
The previous order assigning
this case to Judge Daniel T. Brice is ordefGd vacated.
All hearings for the above
mentioned case shall take place in ~e~artment
ot the central Justice Center.

t63

The Central Justice Center is located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana,
Ca. Department C63 is located on the Third Floor, West Wing.
Department C63 can
be reached at 714-834-3368.
All filings with the exception of ex parte relief for emergency orders for this
matter should continue to be submitted to the Family Law Clerk of the Court at
Lamoreaux Justice Center, 341 The City Drive, Orange, Ca. 92868. Emergency ex parte
relief should be submitted directly to Department C63.
The hearing dates of matters currently set on or after 10-15-2002 are to remain and
will be heard before Commissioner Hickman in Department C63.
Entered: 02-0CT-2002
Clerks Certificate of Mailing (CCP l013a) - I certify I am not a party to this
cause, over age 18 and a copy of this document was mailed first class postage
prepaid in a sealed envelope addressed as shown below. Mailing and execution
of this certificate occurred on
OCT 0 3 2002
at Orange, California.
Alan Slater, Chief Executive Officer and Clerk pf the Superior Court in and
for the County of Orange by
SOPHIA BEROAv&'
,Deputy.

ROBERT C BERGEN
333 CITY BLVD. W., STE. 1240

DIANNE M KING
22320

HARBOR RIDGE LANE

NO. 2
ORANGE, CA 92868

TORRANCE, CA 90502

of

Associar:e

to

(MNllO)

This is proof of Fraud, Corruption and conspiracy in Orange County Court. On 9/20/2002 Judge Daniel Brice fraudulently
:
dismissed
the contempt charge with prejudice. This letter was written the following day after learning we had 10 days to file a
formal motion to recuse. Monday 9/23/02 went courthouse to order transcripts and ask for self-recusal and delivered this to both
Brice's and Judge Horn's secretary so he would be aware of the abuse in his court. We were told 60 days to get transcripts needin
in 10. The clerks could not find the "motion in limine" sent unstamped that dismissed the airtight contempt w/prejudice

..

To : The Honorable Judge Daniel T. Brice We recieved the expected denial from Brice but was suprised
Orange County Superior Court - C65
to see the one from Judge Horn saying he found nothing
wrong. We all know that if a attorney can get the removal of
9/2112002
all support from a 6mo. pregnant mother about to go on
maternity leave and earning 1/3 of her ex-spouses income
in her 2nd year of trying to enforce a JUDGEMENT pro se'
Re: King vs. King - 98-D003818
because the IRS garnished all debt from her smaller
wages.... There is something terribly wrong
This is an informal request for you to voluntarily reconsider your decision on 9/20/02. It is my
contention that your decision must have been a judicial oversight as the decision to dismiss my
case was done even though:
1) The Motion filed was signed on 9/16/2002 4 days prier to the court date of 9/16/2002.
Therefore the motion filed failed to meet the deadline as prescribed in:
CCP. 1005(b). - Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving
and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 21 calendar days before the
hearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed
or to be filed with the court
"All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall
be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least 10 calendar days, and
all reply papers at least five calendar days before the hearing. "
Additionally there is no local protection of this failure under Orange County Rules of
Court:
Rule 703(E) Time Limitations:
Responsive or supplemental declarations, memoranda
of points and authorities and other documents in support of a position shall be filed in
the department where the OSC or motion is set and served on the appropriate parties or
counsel not less than 48 hours (two court days) prior to the date and time of hearing.
The court may allow responsive declarations to be filed at the time scheduled for
the hearing, however upon a showing of prejudice to the other party, may permit
a continuance if requested.
Respondent filed a "Motion in Limine" and a responsive. Motions require filing "At least
10 calender days" prier to the hearing. This motion could not be heard on 9/20/02.

2) These papers were served to 223210 Harbor Ridge Ln. apt #2, Torrance Ca. 90502 as my
Address of record is 22320 Harbor Ridge Ln. #2, Torrance Ca. 90502
3) I was not served "conformed endorsed-filed copies of all of the moving papers" as
required. I was not served a financial declaration nor copies of his paystubs. I have no way
of knowing if this was actually filed or not.

4) Respondent's motion for relief was filed in a "Motion in Limine" and added an accusation
of a frivolous action that is a separate motion and is not a response seeking affirmative
relief under Orange County Rules of Court 706(c).

5) Respondent claims that he was not personally served. Respondent has failed to file a
motion to quash service of summons and has:
a) "By seeking relief other than as provided in CCP 418.10,418.11 or FAM.C. 2012,
respondent makes a general appearance and submits to the court's personal jurisdiction
in the action. "The voluntary appearance of a defendant is equivalent to personal
service of the summons and copy of the complaint upon him" (Code Civ. Proc.,

416)"
b) The motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court was without
jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action amounted, substantially or in legal effect,
to a demurrer to the complaint on that ground. At all events, a motion to dismiss on the
ground of want of jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action necessarily calls for
relief which may be demanded only by a party to the record. It has been uniformly so
held, as logically it could not otherwise be held, and, furthermore, that where a party
appears and asks for such relief, although expressly characterizing his appearance as
special and for the special purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, he as effectually submits to the jurisdiction of the court as though he had
legally been served with process."
[Crabtree v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.2d 821].
c) Respondent was served called me on xxJxxJ2002 and statement I can't believe that you
are trying to put me in jail. He appeared in court on August 30th 2002, with attorney
Grainne Ward and offered to pay children's psychological evaluation if I dropped the
contempt case. Further he agreed to postpone the existing case to trail the contempt
therefore further demonstrating 'Jurisdiction" and knowledge of the service and motion
by executing his rights against self-incrimination and due process.
6) Respondent states in his motion "Petitioner merely states of total amount due". My "OSc.
And Affidavit for Contempt" pg. 2 states reasons and refers to the pages relevant in the
accompanied chronicled "King vs. King-Evidence in Support". There are typographical
errors that should be amended.
a) For failure to pay his 12of the joint tax obligation it should read- pgs. 2,13-25.
b) For failure to pay support 6115/00, 7/01/00 - pgs. 2,3,11,12
c) For failure to pay support ordered on2/21/02 by Judge Brice - pgs. 28-31

The accusations are exact and documented. The page numbers were typos. The
documentation in support is enormous and includes the copies of garnishment receipts from
employers of partial payments, a list of all checks, missing arrears, and checks from his
personal account. In fact the checks are written by him and include the support dates
they cover he prove conclusively that payments are past 30 days late and

automatitally a violation of contempt. He has siened these checks and therefore

already has testified against himself. Pg 29-31
7) Petitioner is requested sanctions against me while he has abused this system. His choice to

attain an attorney in the 11th hour is evidence ofhis lack of "Good Faith". He has
currently failed to respond to the motion in a timely matter and has thereby denied me
the time prescribed to prepare myself properly. As I am in "Pro Per" this is multiplied
lOx. Further he is accusing me of being frivolous and harassing him. I in no way, am
harassing him and I have continually attempted to resolve this issue for the last three years
by asking him to pay what he owes and agree to the correct amount of support as statutes
have prescribed. I am at a huge disadvantage but I intend to exercise my rights to the best
of my ability and the fullest extent guaranteed by the Constitution, Legislators, and
Justices. He is further seeking ridiculous sanctions in the amount totaling $13,000 from a
"Pro Per" for mailing a copy of my motion instead of having it personally served.
8) Respondent has declared on pg. 2 of responsive declaration 9116/02 that all support
payments have been made and are documented in Petitioner's evidence
accompanying her contempt action." This was signed under the penaltv of contempt.
a) Pgs 29-31 of this documentation clearly shows that, April 2002, May 2002, June
2002, the payments were a minimum of30 days late. That is 3 instances of

contempt.
b) It further documents that the 7/1/2002 and the 7/15/2002 payments have never
been paid. This is another contempt
c) The Respondent has declared his own contempt in his declaration
refuses to testify he has convicted himself.

and if he

9) Respondent further says I said in open court "that no back support was due".
a) I stated in open court "Not at this time" when the judge asked if I was pursuing any
other arrearages. I never did say respondent doesn't owe them.
b) On 7/6/99 Respondent agreed to retroactive support in the amount of$687.5 twice a
month. After failing to pay the difference as agreed I had to obtain on order to
garnish respondents wages.
c) This order stated 10 months of2 payments of $38.83 payments. There were
only 18 of the 20 arrearage payments made. Payment due 6/1/2000 was short

and payments due 6/15/2000 and 7/1/2000 were never paid. The garnishment
took longer than expected and he accrued additional arrears that were not on the
order but were still due. There was a standing order often months of payments and
respondent only paid nine.

d) Therefore from 6/1/2000 every month until support was abated (September
27th 2001) or for 16 months respondent failed to make his court ordered
support payments and is therefore in contempt every month. 16 additional
accounts of contempt

10) Declaration #3 - " The order on 7/6/99 regarding tax obligations was paid by garnishment
of my portion of the divided 401 K in 1999"
d) The order dated 7/6/99 is the equalization of assets and debts but at no point does it
credit respondent with paying $6228.33 of taxes.
e) In fact the equalization contains an error in math that incorrectly denied me
$1718.80 that was due to me.
f) This statement supports the fact that he has made no payments to our joint
obligation and has forced me to pay all cost including $8140.00 of his
obligation. The academics are set forth on pgs. 13-25.
11) Declaration #4 -" I did not fail to provide Petitioner with my employer's name address and
phone number"
g) "At the time of the petitioner's request on 5/22/00, I had not started work - One
week after I started my new job I called Petitioner's mother and gave her the new
employers name address and phone number." As of 5/19/2000 Respondent had
received final compensation from Toshiba. This means not only did he have
full knowledge of his new job he also had given Toshiba some kind of two week
notice. This contradicts the innocent complying demeanor of this statement.
Further, it took my lawyer to find respondents job.
h) "Petitioner's request for employer information on 12/15/01 could not befurnished
as 1was not employed until 12/19101 1attempted to call Petitioner however 1was
unable to speak to her. " Respondent has my cell phone, home phone and work
phone and has reached me to exchange the children. "1finally gave the information
to our son Blair on 111102." His responsibility is to give it to me. Respondent's
credibility is non-existent as respondent specifically told our son "Blair" that he
would be in trouble if"mommy find out I have ajob" This was told to my mother
while she was watching "Blair" during his Christmas break while respondent was
working. I found out where he worked only after Grainne Ward sent proof of his
job just days before court date of 2/21102. This is a perjured statement as I didn't
know until January about him having a job and kept quiet to keep my son from
getting in trouble until I found out who he was employed by from Grainne Ward.

Also we have directly exchanged the children since September so the statement
regarding being unable to reach me is another ridiculous lie.

Based on this evidence presented I all of the respondent's motions should have been denied with
prejudice as further attempt to suppress evidence can only impede justice. I attempted to express
this in court and you wouldn't listen to me.
I am absolutely terrified of you. You have the ability to take my children away and deny
me justice. I was in court when you told a lady that if she cares about her children that she cannot
afford not to have an attorney. You further gave her a date and told her to be sure she returned with
an attorney. On 8/26/200230 seconds before I went in front of you, you made a comment to the
attorney's in court that" The Appelettejudges that believe it is the right/or people to represent

themselves need to come and sit in the court and deal with the 20 little messes that I have to deal
with every day. " I understand your frustration as I can easily see how much time can be wasted,
however it is my constitutionally guaranteed right to self-representation and taxpayer money pays
our judges to provide.an atmosphere and forum for judicial equality for all persons Pro Se or not. I
am not trying to insult you or attack you in anyway.
If you would take 10 minutes and look at the document entitled" King vs. King -Evidence
in Support" you will see without a doubt that I have support money owed to me, have been denied
access to money I have worked for, have incurred thousands of dollars in attorney bills trying to
get what was rightfully mine. You have punished me for not having an attorney and have rewarded
him for disrespecting this court's orders by giving him an advantage that further impairs my ability
to afford an attorney. I have tried to have an attorney and have incurred $20,000 in attorney fees.
Respondent makes $80,000 per year plus options and bonuses I make $25,000. I didn't choose
not to have an attorney I was forced not to. If this court had forced respondent at some time
during the last two years to pay his arrears of over $4000 and his tax obligation of over $8000
that was taken from me I would have a lawyer. Further I have incurred over $8000.00 in
attorney fees trying to get $2000.00 in arrears.

If my take home is about $1800-2000/mo and I am paying rent, car insurance, utilities
and supporting 2 children how can I afford an attorney when the court still after 2 years has
not addressed my arrears. I cannot afford my own health insurance. He has not had to pay
his support that he owes and can afford to pay three attorneys and agree to pay $4,000 $6,000 to a psychologist friend of his attorney to recommend the removal of my child from
my home. I am trying to survive and he is buying Hi-Definition Big Screen Televisions.
There is no reason that Grainne Ward needs to talk to a "Independent" evaluator of my
children's needs. That person needs to assess my children, their father, and myself only. Grainne
Ward's input can only skew the process in her favor. In an attempt of "Good Faith" I agreed to use
their evaluator on the simple condition that she was not allowed to talk to the evaluator. This was
denied

Respondent is a verbally abusive and controlling person with a lot of charisma so he doesn't
appear so. I help to support him from when he was a telephone installation person and I made more
money than him. He advanced in his career to an excellent position. He wouldn't allow me to
return to school to become a RN as he didn't like the idea of me making more money than him. I
wasn't allowed to drive and didn't get my license until 1999 after my divorce at 29 years old. I

divorced him in this court to alleviate myself from his control and yet he controls my life and
my finances more now than ever.
I am not uneducated and have not pursued anything frivolous or un-merited. I have not
embarrassed this court and have provided basis for my case. I have purchased the $400 California
Practice Guide - 2002 and am paying $80/week to have access to "Find Law" to help me attempt
to protect my rights and access case law an rights. I have not insulted you or the integrity of this
court yet I am being punished with decisions. I am in Pro Per and I know you don't want me to
be. You told me at least 10 times in court" That why you need a lawyer". Please allow me to
fail and loose my case on the merits, rather than decisions that I hope are "Judicial Oversights" and
not what appears on face to be "biased".

If this has not been simply a "Judicial Oversight" a person would be forced to question if there
was any type of preferential treatment being provided to an attorney who has served as "Judge Pro
Tern" in the court, and was running for a Judgeship in the Orange County Court. Respondent had
told me before that I can't win as Grainne Ward is personal friends with most of the judges in this
court and has served as a judge. I hope this insight of the respondent is was a lucky prediction of
the outcome and not some sort of admission to more of the unethical conduct of his attorney based
on some type of agreement or knowledge of relationship currently unknown to me. However there
are issues that must be raised if not an oversight.
1) Grainne Ward is able on September 27th 2001 to get an order abating support to a pregnant

mother supporting 1 child and about to start her maternity leave without ever having a

motion filed or served anybody during a court date that has been agreed to be continued
by all parties.
2)

Grainne has preferential treatment and continually talks to the judge in chambers about a case
where there is no representation there for the "Pro Per" person.

3) Where this same attorney has lied to the court regarding a "Threat" that never happens.
4) My attorney makes statements to me that the judge believes that I should be working more
than 36 hrs. per week- I should be working 40. - I haven't been involved in this conversation
in court.
5) When my attorney tells me that the judge has had difficulties with me yet I have followed
everything the court has asked and respondent has violated orders and stipulations on at

least 30 different occasions.

6) When Grainne Ward's client is in arrears and everyone in the court knows it, has violated
almost every order this court has made, and the presiding judge dismisses the case with
prejudice for the contempt that everybody knows he is guilty of This case is dismissed for

improper service yet this motion it is guilty of a more numerous and more serious
instance of improper service. Yet all of my legitimate, statute guaranteed, case verified
defenses against the dismissal are ignored.

7) Why is it important that the attorney is able to speak to the "Independent" evaluator. The
report should be submitted to the court and the court should use it on it's merit or allow both
parties to view what the independent evaluation is. Grannie Ward and I are in adversarial

position as she nearly caused the death of my child, she has lied time and again to the
court, and made negative comments to the last evaluator. I don't understand why she was
there the last time stating that I "Allegedly was the custodial parent" as this is more of her
unethical behavior. I also don't understand why she needs to say anything to the next
evaluator - Idon't have kids with her, they don't live with her and her input is only negative.

My motion to have her not speak to the evaluator is denied.

8) When we were in court on Friday, Grainne Ward made a comment to you attacking a letter
written to by me to Perry that she gave you. She stated ''that it was disturbing". Idon't
understand how the court could have in its possession a copy of a personal letter written on
the previous Saturday to respondent and we were in court together and there was never a
request in open court to enter this letter into evidence into the record. Yet you replied
''yes Ihave a copy right here in front of me". How does evidence get to the judge this way?
Where is my due process?
9) Why has this court still not addressed his obsession with guns and his attempt to retrieve guns
he has been compensated for. This type of behavior only solidifies my position as to the
obsessive behavior that coincides with all the things that have happened in this case
10) Why has Respondent never been forced to provided proof of income in two years of court
when Orange County Rules of Court 702(a) requires compliance with C.R.C.1225(b)
and 702(c) requires three pay stubs State and Federal tax returns, and his W-2. His
employment letter states he gets $80,000 per year plus 40,000 shares of the company in 33
installments and health is paid by the company yet he claims $80,000 as his income (66671
mo.) This is just under the change in calculation in the support calculator and does not
include his shares in a $250 million company and he is given a $250 credit for health
insurance. I can't even afford health insurance.

Pro Per litigants are supposed to be held to a lower standard than the attorney counterparts,
How am I being held to a higher one. The purpose ofthis court is to provide justice and a balance
this has not existed in this case due to the aggressive and unethical conduct of respondent's
attorney.
With respect I ask that you re-consider your decision and either re-instate the case as a
"Judicial Oversight" or dismiss it without prejudice. Further this case is inherently sensitive and
you have made it clear that you hate doing "Pro Se" cases. Also I respectfully ask that you
voluntarily recuse yourself from this case and relieve yourself of this "Pro Se" litigant as I will
not lay down to Respondent or Grainne Ward any longer and will do every legal thing available
to protect my rights, keep my children, recover money that belongs to me, an find an equitable
solution to this abomination of a case.
I seek resolution and your question in court about why we don't just agree to keep the children
separated as they are is a valid question and would be answered if you would listen to the CD you
refused to admit in evidence. It is what we agreed to, except he wanted to use his attorney to bully
me into accepting $400 per month in support "or I will take both fucking kids away from
you." As you can see by the calculation in record that is still below the correct guideline, $400 is
way below the California guidelines of what he should pay. And for this the case continued since
September last year.
This case is about money, control and the abuse of power that superior financial position
provides. It has nothing to do with the children.

With Regards,

Fanily Law Public

Woo - Print

Register Of Action

ROA

Docket

143

Oed crati on-Uni form Custody

Proof Of Servi ce-Other
Proof Of Servi ce-Other

11441
145

Proof Of Savice By Mal-Family

Law
Notice-Ooc Continua1OO
By

r.

J~
tf(

C'
~

Filing
Date
08120/200
08/23/200

Document SeI

08123/2002

2 pages
es
1 pcges

08123/2002

Dtame M. King

1pcges

08/2812002

Minor Children

2paJeS
3pcges

09/20/2002

LCMf

109/20/20021
0912012002

Dianne M. Ki n9
DimneM. King
Perry R. King
Perry R. King

Perry R. K in9

DimneM. Kin
DianneM. King
INSTANT ORDER - NO COURT
RECUSAL DEMAND DfUVERED
9/24 - MARKED 104

Perry R. King
Perry R. King
Perry R. King
Perry R King

2pcge;
2p~es

10/08/2002

Minute Order Conti nuCllce

Affidavit-Other
Response'Repl -Other
Responsi ve Oed aati on
esponse-M oti on Or Opposi ti on

https:llocapps.occourts.orglfcmpub/Pri

Filing Party
Dienne M. King
DianneM. King
Diame M. King

09/20/2002
109/20/20021
This Date 09/20/2002
09/1312002
09/13/2002
09/20/2002
09/20/2002
Responsive 000 T 0 Osc-Domesti c
09/20/2002
Violence
Proof Of Servi ce-Other
09/16/2002
Proof Of Servi ce-Other
109/16/20021
Proof Of Servi ce-Other
09/1612002
Proof Of Servi ce-Other
09/16/2002
Minute Order Reassignment Re
1010212002
Inventory ChCJ1ge
M oti on-Other
09/20/2002
Proof Of Service By Mal-Family
09/20/2002
Mati on-Other
Motion-Other
MinuteOrder-Continuoo By
Stipulation
RElCISS
gnment -I nventory
Proof Of Service By Mal-Family
Law
M iocell CI100US Document
Noti ce-Conti nuance

Pa;}e5 of 6

ntRoa.do

\NoDocumen1D
DianneM. King

1pcges

Diame M. King
Perry R. King
1 PC)des
DiameM. King
DianneM. King
Perry R. Kin
Depatment Of Chi Id
Su port Savi ces

9/27/2012

128585
AITORNf'(OR
PAAlY1fTHOUT
AnORNEYOR
GOVERNt.'.EHT,tLJrrGEN::'f
K 11475.1, U4782J (NMIJfI. slal&beI'lXNnbw, ...-d.ct:te.uJ:

~WtM.'!nIl

FOH COUNt U:'l: ~'l

Code,

'(

rRANDALL K. RUPP 165774

i.AW OFE'ICF.S

K. RUPP

01" RANDALL

RANDALL x. RU?P
910 WEST 17TII STRE8T #"
92706
(714) 542-2000
Pe r r y fL King,

SANT1~ ANA,

CA.

Ta.PHONENO,
An(RNE.Y

fOR (NanmJ:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA.

5TREET

Jr.
ORANGE

OF

341 THE C:JTY DRIVE

PO 30X 14170
ORl\NGE,
Ch. 92663-l570

ADDRESS:

IMIUNG AODR.I!SS:

an AND ZiP CODE:

BRANCH

COUNlY

FAX NO.:

I,AI10Rr,;J.I.UX

NAME:

JUSTICE CSNTER

PETITIONERIPlAINTIFF:

DTf,N'IIF.:

RESPONDENTIDEFENDANT:

hRI{Y

KTNG
t{.

KlNG,

JR.

OTHER PARENT:

NOTICE:

CAS

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

~.--

....

NUO<&R.

98DO::3UlO

_.

To serve temporary

restraining

orders

you must usc persona! service (see fonn 1285.84).

1. I am over the age of 18. not a party to this cause, and not a protected person listed in any of the orders. I am a resident of or
employed in the county where the mailing took place.
2. My residence or business address IS:

910 W. 17Lh st
Santa Ana, CA

reer

Suite

9270G

3. Iserved

a copy of the follOWingdocuments (specify): Rcsponsi vo Declaraticn

to Order to Show cause ,
Defendants'
Hobon
Ln Limine Ra : Lack of Specificity
in Charging
),\].1 cUClti.or:,
Defendants'
Motion i:l ..t mi nc I(C:
:..ack of Personal
se rv. ce , and Derenriclnt"l'
Motion ~n LimIne re: S~~ctlon~ A9a~nDt Petitioner.

by enclosing them in an envelope AND

a. 0 depositing the sealed envelope with Ihe Unrted states Postal Service wtIh the postage fully prepaid.
1>. :J[! placing the envelope for collection and mailing on the dale and at the place shown in item 4 following our ordinary
business practices. I am raadily familiar wilh this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for
mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing. it is deposited in the ordinary course of
business with the United States Postal Service In a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
4.

The enveiope was addressed and mailed as follows:

a. Name of person served: ni.anna
King
b. Address: 22J210 Hazbo r Ridge Lane,

Torrance,

CA

Apr;. ?

90502

c. Date mailed: ')/16/02

d. Place of mailing (city and state):
5. I deciare

Sar.ta

Ana,

Ca 1 i r orru.a

under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of tho State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct.

~~'

Date: 9/16/02

.,T.a9Js.i.e.\(4PP.
(T'I?E OR PRIHT NAME)

.. .. ~ ~t1~~~T~-':--TIIIS--fOOM)-(See inSlructiollls on reverse)

Fwm~'9dbyRulltl2'85.8S
Jud'iaal Council 01 CUfomiol
I ZS5.M !Now Jutv I. 1eooJ

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

(Familv LoW)

,- -- \..

L.lmal
>ns'
SoIi.I~1rl

CodoolCl'''';;''"" e. !S

'0'" '0''''

2001- Void "no-notice" exparte "support abatement" against pregnant

"Pro Per" custodial parent by Judge Daniel Brice for friend and 10yr
O/C Pro Tem Judge/Candidate Grainne Ward.
SUPERIOR

COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANCE
MINUTE ORDER

27-SEP-2001
Dept:

Convened at

L60

08:30;00

JudgeJComm:

DANlEL BRlCE

Clerk:

JOANNE SCHWARTZ

Bailiff:

LES VANDERKOLK

Reporter:

STEVE PAY, CSR 7034

Case Category:

DC

DISSO WITH ClllLD

Case Number:

980003818

KlNG y KING

Event:

248

ase RE CHILD

SUPPORT,CUSTODY,vrSIT, OTHER ...

FILED 09-13-00 BY 02
255 OSC RE MODIFICATION CHll.D SUPPORT, A/F, OTHER ...
FaED 09-01-00 BY 01

APPEARANCES:
ATIORNEY FOR
RESPIDEFf

GRAINNE WARD-LAW OFFICES OF

IN OPEN COURT AT 9:20AM.

ORAL DISCUSSION HELD.

WITH WHO ?.... ABOUT WHAT ?

THIS IS ONLY A CONTINUANCE...

COURT GRANTS RESPONDENT'S

COUNSEL'S MOTrON TO CONTINUE.

HEARING CONTINUED TO:
Event: 248 OSC RE CHILD SUPPORT,CUSTODY,VISIT, OTHER. ..
FILED 09-13-00 BY 02
255 ose RE MODIfICATION CHILD SUPPORT, A/F, OTHER ...
FILED 09-01-00 BY 01
Date: 16-0CT-Ol at 08:30:00
1..60

COURT ORDERS CHILD SUPPORT ABATED PENDING THE t Q...16-01 HEARING.

RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL INFORMS THE COURT THAT RESPONDENT HAS LOST

#13 JMS

BERGEN said he wont be ready for Sept 27th appearance so... PRO-TEM JUDGE GRANNY WARD
"VOLUNTEERS" to get the continuance so "MOMMY doesn't have to drive out to O/C"... Then Judge
Daniel T. Brice in a no appearance EX-PARTE MOTION ABATES ALL SUPPORT - DIANNE WAS
6Mo. PREGNANT - HOSPITALIZED BY PERRYS ABUSE ONE WEEK, HOSPITALIZED BY ATTORNEY
WARDS THE NEXT, $1817 BILLS + 3WEEKS OFF WORK, DENIED CONTINUANCE - FORCED TO
PAY $500 FOR KIDS ATTORNEY - PERRY KING RECIEVED A SEVERENCE PACKAGE - HAD A
NEW JOB BY DECEMBER - CRIED VICTIM TO DIANNE'S
FATHER
HOW HE1 CANT BUY KIDS
ENTERED:
27SEP200
CHRISTMAS PRESENTS AND RECIEVED $2K - PAID NO SUPPORT UNTIL END OF MARCH

SfP 28 2001

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
MINUTE ORDER
30-AUG-200l
Dept:

Convened at

L69

08 :00:00

Judge/Comm:

DAVID S. WEINBERG

Clerk:

DOROTHY OKUTSU

Bailiff:

DAVE ERICKSON

Reporter:

DEBRA CADIZ,CSR 9076

Case Category:

DC

DISSO WITH CHILD

Case Number:

98D003818

KING V KING

Event:

248 OSC RE CHILD SUPPORT,CUSTODY,VISITATION

FILED ON 9/13/00 BY RESPONDENT
255 OSC RE MODlFICATION FILED ON 8/1/00 BY PETITIONER

APPEARANCES:
PETITIONER

DIANNEKlNG

RESPONDENT

PERRY KING

ATTORNEY FOR

GRAINNE W ARDLA W OFFICES OF

RESPIDEFT
HEARING CONTINUED TO:
DEPT L60
Event: 248 OSC RE CHILD SUPPORT,CUSTODY,V
Date: 27-SEP-Ol at 08:30:00
\ _

Oe. \\ca ..... -r

.... I
QlAec.-.

4"
I

"i."
,~

IN DEPT L64, PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CONTINUE IS DENIED.

MATTER TRANSFERRED

,,0 ffZ.

FROM DEPT L64 TO DEPT L69 FOR TODAY'S HEARING.

STIPULATION TO COMMISSIONER DAVID WEINBERG AS TEMPORARY

SIGNED BY PETITIONER AND COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.

JUDGE

IN OPEN COURT.
COUNSEL WARD PRESENT FOR RESPONDENT.
BOTH PARTIES PRESENT AND SWORN.
COURT HEARS FROM PETITIONER.

AUG 31 Z001

1\

30AUG20oi

98D003818

2of2

COURT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENT.

BOTH PARTIES VOIR DIRED BY THE COURT.
COURT APPOINTS, PER FC 3150, ROBERT BERGEN TO REPRESENT THE MINOR
CHILDREN.
COURT FINDS IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO APPOINT
COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE CHILDREN.
EACH PARTY IS TO PAY COUNSEL BERGEN $500 AS A DEPOSIT FOR HIS
ATTORNEY FEES SUBJECT TO REALLOCATION AND FURTHER FEES.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE MINOR CHILDREN SIGNED AND
FILED THIS DATE.
COURT FURTHER ORDERS COUNSEL BERGEN TO PREPARE A STATEMENT OF
ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS AND SERVE A COPY ON ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL
AND FILE WITH THE COURT PRlOR TO THE NEXT HEARING.
COURT MAKE.s NO CHANGES TO THE CURRENT ORDERS.

MATTER IS CONTINUED TO 9127/01 AS SCHEDULED ABOVE.

BOTH PARTIES AND COUNSEL PRESENT, THEY ARE ADVISED THAT THIS CASE IS
ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DANIEL BRICE FOR ALL PURPOSES.
COURT TEMPORARILY ORDERS THE CHILD, BLAIR, IS TO REMAIN ~TH
RESPONDENT AND THE CHILD, ELLE, IS TO
, , REMAIN WITH PETITIONER.
\

ALL PRIOR ORDERS TO REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.

PETITIONER IS TO WRITE DOWN HER CURRENT ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE

NUMBER AND THE ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER IN TORRANCE AND GIVE
THAT INFORMATION TO RESPONDENT BEFORE SHE LEAVES TODAY.
RESPONDENT IS TO WRITE DOWN IDS CURRENT ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE
NUMBER AND GIVE THAT INFORMATION TO PETITIONER BEFORE HE LEAVES
TODAY.
COUNSEL TO GIVE NOTICE TO COUNSEL BERGEN.
ENTERED: 30AUG2001

PETITIONERIPLAINTIFF:DIANNE

r-

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

PERRY

KING

R.

CASE NUMBER

KING

980003818

OTHER PARENT:

4.

c.

d. No provision of this order may operate to limit any right to collect the principal (total amount of unpaid support) or to charge
and collect interest and penalties as allowed by law. All payments ordered are subject to modification.
e. All payments must be made to (name and address of agency):
Orange
P.O.

County

Dept.

of

Child

Support

Services

Box 448

Santa Ana, CA

92702-0448

f.

An Order/Notice

to Withhold Income for Child Support (form FL-195)

must Issue.

g.

':'; Obligor
Obligee must (1) provide and maintain health insurance coverage for the children if it is available
through employment or a group plan, or otherwise available at no or reasonable cost. and must keep the local child support
agency informed of the availability of the coverage; (2) if health insurance is not available, provide coverage when it becomes
available; (3) within 20 days of the local child support agency request. complete and return a health insurance form; (4) provide
to the local child support agency all information and forms necessary to obtain health care services for the children; (5) present
any claim to secure payment or reimbursement to the other parent or caretaker who incurs costs for health care services for the

I==:J

children; (6) assign any rights to reimbursement to the other parent or caretaker who incurs costs for health care services for the
children. If the "Obligor" box is checked, a Health Insurance Coverage Assignment (form FL-470) must issue.
h. Both parents must complete the Child. Support Case Registry Form (form FL-191) and send (deliver or mail) it to the local child
support agency withiA ~ days of the date of this order. The parents must notify the local child support agency of any change in
the information submitted on the form by submitting an updated form within 10 days of the change.
The form Notice of Rights and Responsibilities and Information Sheet on Changing a Child Support Order (form FL-192) is
attached.

i.

j.

k.

The following ,person (the "Other Parent") is added as a party to this aclio'n under Family Code section 17404 (name):

x :

The court further orders (specify): Defendant

owes
arrears
of
$3,420.00 for
the
period
8/02 - 12/02. Defendant
owes arears of $2,705.00 for the period 1/03 - 5/03,
total
arrears
of
$6,125.00 less
child
support
paid
since
8/1/02. Cou~r Rc~G~S
::fuRI?i)K.not0
(JIftu

ru

jl/ppoRr

WALTER D. POSEY

Date:

]J~/<MI.JC
tJRD(!ReD

17k
7ODA-Y

rr'.ImL
I~

,4MOf'/\/r

PI<bo;: oP

or:
#'1GtlfeR

H~Re-~~
/A.)(.CJ.-fl:!

CWI?t)

w o

15 ree ...~A)TtfD

'/Z)

HOOIF,(

J77'~

JUN 13 2003
VvALTER D. POSEY

JUN 1 3 2003

JUDICIAL O~FICER

5. Number of

WALTER

attached:

Approved as conforming to court order:

Date:

(SIGNATURE O~ ATlORNEY

~L.~7

IRev Janu~ry 1. 20031

D.

POSEY

SIGNATURE FOLLOWS LAST ATIACHMENT

FOR OP'

ORDER AFTER HEARING

(('!I"'\\lor"nrnant::.l\

p;age 2

0'

DissoMaster(trn)

20D3
1:-

Ci(X(~
~

page

v.2003-1

,*V

,?~po( 1.i->:

DissoMaster Data Screen

Monthly

Input Data

king

Mother

Party Jnfo

king

Mother

Guideline

HH/MLA

HH/MLA

Filing Status

# federal exemptions
Wages + salary
Self-employment

20

20

New-spouse

income

Adjustments
(ATI)

to income

Payment cost

Add-ons

Itemized deductions

Required union dues

0*

Mandatory retirement

Child support add-ons

6443

6251)

Total

Basic CS

101

AMT Info (IRS Form

king, payor of CS, Prop. CS

541

Presumed CS

Proposed,

610

71

spendable

55.6%

56.3%

of saving over guideline

0%

138.1%

of combined

1442

1302

71

4161

4311

541

522

income

2861

2841

Total

Change from guideline

-20

44.4%

43.7%

0%

-38.1%

withholding

allowances

Mother
Payment benefit

Spousal
Support

0
610
52

Comb. Savings

Net spendable

% of combined

Releases to
king (opt)

spendable

of saving over guideline

269

357

val\.Je

-20

allowances

2312

2236

Total Taxes

12)

Net wage paycheck

Default Case Settings

Change from guideline

541 #

Presumed CS

Default Tax Settings

0.8%

3654

Total Taxes

Tactic 9

0%

3582

d Dep. exemptions value

Total

6495

income

0 %
blocke

6443

470

541 %

Spousal
Support

Prop.

Gdln.

541

Net spendable

Other guideline deductions)

2319

}suppon

(,

Mother

CS paid other relationship

Hardship deduction

Percent change

SS paid other marriage

Health insurance

4124

2600

Dianne has one child in her custody from

Other taxable income
this relationship and the one child in
plus CS
received
otherTANF
relationship
where
the child was
available as the fathers only deductionOther nontaxable income
Calculation should be 2

Comb. net spendable

Father

5667
income

Cash Flow Analysis

(2003)

Nets (adjusted)

Number of children
% time with NCP

Figures

Dep. exemptions

# withholding

Net wage paycheck

FILED

SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE
LA~(\I1'" .' '~. I' ,,.,rlr.r: CENTER

MAY 0 1 Z003

~-

ALAN Sl~_~.~.ur'

~S""""

Calculation Results Summary and Detail

'I~
) "'0

Calculation Results Summary ~

Parent 1

Parent 2

Monthly Child Support Amount

584.00

0.00

Basic Child Support Amount

584.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Child Care

0.00

0.00

Expenses
School Expenses

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Monthly Support Totals

Child Support Add-Ons Amount

vtsnrrravei

Uninsured Health Expenses

0.00

0.00

0.00
().OO

0.00
0.00

Parent 1

Parent 2

Total Arrears Support Amount

Temporary Spousal Support Amount (N/A)

, Monthly Tax/Income

Information

(Tax Year: 2004)

4221.00

Monthly Net Disposable Income

Monthly Taxable Gross Income

0.00
5566.00

Federal Adjusted Gross Income

, Federal Taxable Income
Net Income Of Parties With Support
, Federal Tax Filing Status

State Tax Filing Status

, Federal Tax Liabilities
State Tax Liabilities

FICA
Self Employment Tax
CASDI

2,t<

0.00
2600.00

1J2.'

HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

.....

SAME AS FEDERAL

Number of Tax Exemptions (State)

2600.00

~488.00
2857.00

4454.00
3637.00
HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD

Number of Tax Exemptions (Federal)

2273.00

r,

5667.00

Monthly Non-Taxable Gross Income

Page 1 of 4

SAME AS FEDERAL

2
663.00

211
97.00
0.00

181.0Q
434.00

NO

199.00
0.00
31.00
NO'

Parent 1

Parent 2

Child Support Paid (Other Relationships)

0.00

0.00

'Required Union Dues

Mandatory Retirement

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00.

0.00
, 01.00

0.00

Hardstup Deduction Amount

0.00

0.00

Hardshi~ Deduction Children

Necessary Job-Related Expenses

0.0
0.00

0.0,
0.00

Extraordinary Health Expenses

0.00

0.00.

Uninsured Catastrophic Losses

0.00

0.00

0.00
67.00

TANF/CalWORKS
Other Monthly Deduction Totals

Other Guideline Deductions

Health Insurance Premium

Monthly Support Amounts

% Time

Per Child

with
Parenti
HRST-BORN
SECOND-BORN

Parent l' Parent 1 Parent 1 Parent 2 Parent 2 Parent 2

AddTotal
AddSupport
Total
Support
Ons
Ons

50.0
50.0

Average % Time with NCP

0.00

193.00
391.00

().OO

10.00
0.00

G.OO

0.00

0.001 584.001 584.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.06
0.00

50.0%1

193.00
391.00

0.00

PARENT 1 is required to pay PARENT 2 $584.00 in CURRENT SUPPORT

, Total Child Support Arrears Per Child

II

Child Name

Prior Period Date Range

https:llwww.ese.ea.gov/ChildSupporti

Parent1

Parent1

Parent1

Parent2

Parent2

cselguidelineCalculator/viewGuidelineCalculation...

Parent2

12/12/2012