CA Assembly Passes “Piqui’s Law” by Senator Rubio, Family Court Bill Heads to Senate Judiciary

SACRAMENTO, CA – In a unanimous, bipartisan vote, the State Assembly today passed Piqui’s Law, by Senator Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), which mandates judges take training on domestic violence and child abuse to prioritize child safety in custody proceedings and clarifies California’s ban on the use of dangerous reunification programs in family court.

Senate Bill 616, Piqui’s Law: Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence, is named for a 5-year-old murdered by his father. The boy’s mother, Ana Estevez, fought in family court to protect her son against her ex-husband before Piqui’s death. The bill will align with federal provisions within the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in order to receive funding to reform family court. The Assembly passed the bill in a 64-0.

Read more here.


Someone is Mentally Ill, an Addict, or an Abuser: The Vastly Different Response in Family Court and in Life: Essay by Barry Goldstein

“Shared Parenting” Places Ideology Over Children

by Barry Goldstein

Just as custody courts developed responses for domestic violence at a time when no research was available, early proponents of shared parenting sought to experiment when there was no research about shared parenting. Initially, parents seeking shared parenting did so voluntarily, in situations where they were able to communicate and cooperate. There is now legitimate research that found co-parenting benefits children only under the best circumstances. This requires the arrangement to be voluntary; an ability to communicate; neither parent is afraid of the other; and they live nearby. There is other legitimate research that found shared parenting is harmful to children because of the constant disruptions. There is no valid research supporting shared parenting without the necessary favorable circumstances. Unfortunately, this is a mistake courts frequently make.

Most custody cases, like other litigation, are settled more or less amicably. The problem is the 3.8% of cases that require trial and often much more. Court professionals have been taught to use a high conflict approach that assumes the parents are angry with each other and acting out in ways that harm the children. The research found 75-90% of these cases are really domestic violence cases that involve the most dangerous abusers. These are men who believe she has no right to leave, and who seek to use custody disputes to regain control. These are the last cases where shared parenting should be considered, but courts that have been slow to integrate important scientific research or use a multi-disciplinary approach, have trouble recognizing abuse in these cases. The use of shared parenting increases the bias to minimize or deny abuse in order for the case to be eligible for co-parenting.

The use of shared parenting has been encouraged and promoted by three groups based on their preferences and personal benefits, divorced from the well-being of children. Male supremacist groups support shared parenting because otherwise the safe, protective mother would have a strong advantage. Court professionals promote shared parenting because it creates the need for lucrative services, particularly to help hostile parties communicate. Court officials like shared parenting because they must respond to overcrowded dockets, and believe shared parenting is the only compromise both parties can be pressured to accept. In domestic violence cases, the abuser would never agree to anything reasonable, so they need to pressure and sometimes threaten the victim to settle cases. In my articles, I often need to explain problems that occurred after victims were pressured to accept co-parenting with their abuser.

Shared Parenting was Never Intended for Domestic Violence Cases

Most people, including court professionals, are unaware custody courts are having severe problems trying to respond to cases involving domestic violence or child abuse. Many protective mothers believe the courts are corrupt because the decisions and process are so unfair and catastrophic. While there is corruption with the cottage industry, courts are making harmful decisions because of their failure to use evidence-based research and unintended bias. Court officials would vehemently deny the system works poorly, but the factors that influence courts demonstrate their denials are wrong.

There is something undeniably wrong with a system in which a theory based on no research; but only the belief that sex between adults and children can be acceptable; and twice rejected by the American Psychiatric Association because of the lack of supporting research; has more influence over courts than two studies from the most credible sources, that go to the essence of what courts need to decide in custody cases involving possible domestic violence or child abuse.

Domestic violence is about control, including financial control. This means that in most contested cases the abuser controls most of the financial assets. Unscientific alienation theories were concocted and continue to be used to help cottage industry professionals make large incomes helping abusive fathers. The cottage industry lobbied to include alienation in the DSM which is the compendium of all valid mental health diagnoses. I am not aware of any other court that continues to consider a theory twice rejected by the leading professional association.

The ACE (adverse childhood experiences) Studies are peer-reviewed medical research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ACE found that children exposed to domestic violence, child abuse and other traumas will live shorter lives and face a lifetime of health and social problems. Most of the harm is not from any immediate physical injuries, but from living with the fear and stress abusers cause. Clearly, this knowledge goes to the essence of the well-being of children.

The Saunders Study is peer-reviewed scientific research from the National Institute of Justice in the US Justice Department. Saunders found court professionals need knowledge of specific subjects that include screening for domestic violence, risk assessment, post-separation violence and the impact of DV on children. Professionals without this knowledge tend to focus on the myth that mothers frequently make false reports and unscientific alienation theories. These mistaken approaches lead to recommendations and decisions that harm children. Saunders recommends a multi-disciplinary approach that would include experts in domestic violence and child abuse when those subjects are important to the custody decision.

I think it is significant that ACE is used by medical doctors to diagnose and treat patients, by therapists to treat patients, by schools to help traumatized students, and by health officials to improve public health. In contrast, the only purpose of alienation theories is to help abusive fathers gain custody. Without ACE, courts inevitably minimize domestic violence and child abuse and without Saunders, courts rely on the wrong experts and so disbelieve true reports of abuse. ACE and Saunders demonstrate that many standard court practices are mistaken. This is not neutral in the sense it applies to both parents. All the mistakes from failing to consider ACE and Saunders tilt courts in favor of abusive fathers and towards risking children. Significantly, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges seeks to train other judges about ACE and Saunders.

The research differs on whether shared parenting is helpful or harmful in cases involving two good and loving parents. Decisions in these cases are less consequential because either parent or both parents will do their best for their children. Cases involving possible domestic violence or child abuse are very different. I interviewed medical doctors working with the ACE Research for my Quincy book. I asked them the most important question for courts to consider in these cases. When a child has been exposed to multiple ACEs, is there something we can do to save the child from the awful consequences? We can save these children, but standard court practices, particularly when promoting shared parenting prevent the responses the doctors said are necessary to save children from the awful consequences. Saunders found abusers use decision-making to block needed treatment and especially therapy because they are afraid the child will reveal his abuse. When courts require unprotected visitation without requiring the abuser to change his behavior, the child cannot heal and is doomed to a shorter, less healthy life. These contested cases are often the last chance to save the child.

Stop Using Shared Parenting in Abuse Cases

The combination of high conflict approaches and shared parenting is dangerous and too often deadly. High conflict creates a false equivalency between victims and abusers. Courts typically immediately demand co-parenting and take risks before they have time to consider the evidence of abuse or the critical context. Many court professionals immediately start promoting and pressuring for shared parenting. Victims are routinely punished if they object to cooperating with their abusers. Victim’s lawyers often tell clients not to raise abuse issues and not to object to dangerous arrangements. This results in courts making harmful decisions without ever learning about the history of abuse. This approach also serves to silence children who are exposed to the abuser. In the process, the importance of primary attachment is minimized and in some cases breast feeding is short-circuited to make sure the abuser has a “fair” amount of the child’s time.

Court professionals have repeatedly been told that children do better with both parents in their lives. This is true but is based on having two safe and loving parents. This is often not true in contested custody cases. Children need their primary attachment figure more than the other parent and the safe parent more than the abuser. When children have two good parents, they certainly benefit from a relationship with both parents. There is no valid research that children do better with 50-50 than say 70-30 or some other division.

The original idea behind shared parenting was made in total good faith. Unfortunately, it is often used for harmful purposes that bad-faith actors seek to hide. Male supremacist groups promote shared parenting as a first step towards taking children from their best parent. This is based on the ideology of “father’s rights” and a strong desire to avoid child support. The use of shared parenting often limits the needed inquiry about the history of abuse.

The biggest problem with shared parenting is that it is routinely used in inappropriate cases. Saunders found it should never be used in domestic violence cases. Even in the rare instances that a mother makes a false report, this is not the kind of case where parties are able to communicate effectively. Shared parenting was never meant for abuse cases, but with present outdated practices, courts are destroying children’s lives to promote an ideology and sense of entitlement.

Courts and legislatures need to address the failure of custody courts to integrate evidence-based research and consider the specialized expertise about domestic violence and child abuse that would help courts avoid dangerous mistakes. Until the present problems with the courts’ approach to the most consequential cases can be fixed, the last thing legislatures should focus on is expanding co-parenting arrangements that are already dangerously overused.

Some legislatures have recognized the serious problems discussed in this article. They have passed piecemeal solutions that would help children if they were properly implemented. The problem is that judges are often comfortable with familiar outdated practices and defensive about their mistakes. Repeatedly, we have seen courts work around instead of with the piecemeal reforms. Legislatures that want to protect the children in their states must support comprehensive legislation to create needed reforms. The legislation should specifically tell courts to stop using the outdated practices that harm children. The legislation must make the health and safety of children the first priority. The use of the word health requires courts to use the ACE Research because otherwise judges cannot recognize the full range of health risks. The legislation must promote the integration of important research like ACE and Saunders. The legislation must promote a multi-disciplinary approach that Saunders recommends. The legislation should provide for an early hearing limited to abuse issues to avoid distraction with less important issues and tactics. The legislation must also provide training in domestic violence as recommended in Saunders for judges and preferably other court professionals. The legislative solution is called the Safe Child Act. It is the comprehensive solution to court decisions that too often take away our children’s last chance for a full and healthy life. When legislators are ready to respond to the custody court crisis, it is much better for them to finally solve the problem rather than make it worse by further expanding shared parenting that is already overused.

Barry Goldstein is a domestic violence author, speaker, advocate and expert witness. He is the author of six books concerning domestic violence and child custody. Barry is the author of the Safe Child Act which is a comprehensive plan based on current scientific research that can fix the broken court system and make family courts safe for children.


Time to Divorce.jpg

Time To Divorce: Do You Know What To Expect During The Divorce Process?

Time to Divorce.jpg


By its very nature, divorce is not a pleasant experience. Involve divorce attorneys and Family Court Judges and the unprepared person, the situation becomes much more stressful. In most cases, a person is so emotionally worn down by the time they decide it’s time to divorce they’ve not had the wherewithal to consider what the legal process of divorce entails.

Once the legal wheels start spinning, there may be no turning back. The moment those papers are filed, everything you’ve worked for sweated for, and planned for during your marriage is at risk. The wheels spin fast at first, then slow down to an agonizing pace. Days can seem like weeks, even months!

You find yourself smack in the middle of the divorce process with the sinking feeling that things might not go as planned. That great idea that you had…to divorce and move on with your life might not have been so great after all. In fact, it has turned into an absolute disaster.

Welcome to the wonderful world of divorce and its cast of supporting characters…lawyers, judges, interrogatories, continuances, custody disputes and high expectations. Most parties to a divorce have never been involved in legal litigation, used an attorney, or been inside a courtroom. For them, divorce is their first sobering involvement with the world of legal litigation. Divorce is both an end to a marriage and the beginning of an education in family law.

If you aren’t emotionally prepared to maneuver the choppy waters of the legal divorce process, you are not ready to divorce.

Can you answer the following questions?

  • How is custody of children decided in your state?
  • How does the court divide marital property?
  • Can I move to a new location after divorce?
  • What do I need to know before hiring a divorce attorney?
  • Who has to move out of the marital home?
  • What is divorce mediation?

If you are confused by the above questions, you are not ready to enter the legal process of divorce. You’ve got some learning to do! And until you’ve done your homework, believe me, you don’t want to find yourself tangled up in the legal process of divorce.

There are 3 things you should do when it is time to divorce.

Once you’ve come to terms with the emotional ending of your marriage and gotten yourself financially prepared, you will need to do the following:

1. Understand Divorce Law:

Most will tell you that your legal education begins with a divorce attorney. I strongly disagree! No one is prepared to hire a divorce attorney until they have an understanding of their state’s divorce laws which will give them a better understanding of what they should and should not expect from a divorce attorney.

Divorce in the United States is governed by laws that are particular to each state. State divorce laws deal with all aspects of the divorce process, from residency requirements to child custody to the division of marital property.

2. Be Prepared:

There are documents a divorce attorney will need to get your divorce underway. Gathering these documents and having them ready before you hire an attorney can help keep those “wheels” spinning and allow you to feel more prepared.

This is not fun, but you will be glad you took the time to compile these documents at the beginning. You will need copies of tax returns for the last three years. If you filed separately, you will need copies of your tax returns and your spouse’s tax returns. Make copies of all bank accounts, joint accounts, and individual accounts for the last year.

Credit card statements for accounts held jointly and separately should be copied and provided to an attorney. You will also need at least three paystubs or proof of monthly income for yourself and your spouse, a list of all monthly expenses, a list of all marital assets and debts, and a brief description of how parenting duties are handled between the two of you. Once you’ve put together these documents, you are ready to hire a divorce attorney.

3. Hire a Divorce Attorney:

This is the person who will promote your best interest during the divorce process. You won’t find a divorce attorney who has as much invested in your divorce as you do BUT with a little research, you can find one who is invested enough in his/her legal reputation to make sure that you are legally protected.

A look at the divorce process

Below is a loose outline of 8 things that happens during the divorce process. I say loosely because each state and local district handles divorce differently. Regardless of your state’s laws and your district’s legal procedures, you will experience each step in some form or another.

1. File for Divorce:

A divorce or dissolution usually begins with the filing of a form, typically referred to as the original petition for divorce. This must be filed with the court that deals with marriages in the county where you live, which may be called the Family Law Court. After the petition has been filed, a copy must be served on (or delivered to) your spouse.

2. Divide Marital Property:

You will need to either work out an agreement on how your marital property is to be divided or argue about it in divorce court. Courts prefer that the parties work things out for themselves, and some states or counties require mandatory mediation, which means meeting with a neutral third party who will help you resolve conflicts over who gets what. If the parties can’t agree on a way to divide their property, the court will decide.

3. Distribute Marital Debt:

Debts incurred during the marriage need to be divided between the spouses along with the property. Joint debts may be deducted from the amount of property the spouses own together, or some debts may be considered the responsibility of only one spouse. This depends on the system your state uses for dividing marital debt.

4. Negotiate Spousal Support: 

Support paid by one ex-spouse for the support of the other used to be called alimony but is now often called spousal support or maintenance. The laws for spousal support vary a great deal from state to state, and you should be sure you know what your state requires. Spousal support can be awarded to both husbands and wives.

5. Decide Child Custody/Visitation:

The single most important thing parents need to work out in a divorce or dissolution is the way they will continue to raise their children and what kind of custody they will use, and it’s always best if they can work out this plan cooperatively. Some states call this a parenting plan and no longer use terms like custody and visitation.

There are many questions that must be resolved, such as where the children will live, how much time they will spend with either parent, where they will spend holidays, or which parent will make decisions about the children. One or both parents might make legal decisions, such as where the children will go to school and what medical care or medication they will receive. Parents also have to resolve issues about the religious training and activities of the children.

If the parents can’t agree on these issues, the court will consider the best interests of the children in resolving the conflicts. The court will look at the gender of the parents and children, their physical and mental health, emotional bonds, the effect on children of changing their living situation, and—if a child is around 12 years or older—the child’s preference.

The court also considers practical matters such as the ability of the parents to provide the necessities of life, such as shelter, food, and clothing. Court orders involving children are never final. They can always be changed if the best interests of the children require it.

6. Calculate Child Support: 

After a divorce or dissolution, both parents remain responsible for supporting the children. Divorcing parents need to negotiate child support or the courts will use state guidelines to do so. There are several factors to consider in working this out, such as the income and assets of the parents and whether one parent has primary childcare responsibilities. If the parents can’t work this out agreeably, the court will make the decision and order the parents to comply.

7. Mediation:

Divorce mediation is a process where the divorcing parties sit down with a mediator (a neutral third party) to work out and resolve conflicts over property division, finances, debts, and support and/or child custody/visitation. If the state is paying for the mediation, the mediator often reports back to the court with information about the mediation session(s).

The parties can also arrange their own privately paid mediation sessions, which will be completely confidential. Decisions reached in mediation aren’t legally binding but can be included in the court’s final order or decree. Attorneys usually don’t attend mediation sessions, though they may be available to advise the parties on legal issues.

8. Final Judgment of Divorce: 

The final judgment of divorce is the final order of the court that legally ends the marriage. The final judgment can also contain legally binding orders about other issues, such as child custody, child support, visitation, spousal support, property division, and how property division is to be carried out. It can also restore the pre-marriage name to one or both spouses.

Filing for divorce means stepping into the world of the Family Court System.

It is a world of legal rules and, at times, extreme emotional stress. It can change the way you live, the way you think, and the way you do things. Ignorance of what takes place in the system and how to take care of yourself can be the mistake that kills your chances of a successful post-divorce life.

I’m sharing with you information about the divorce process and the negative aspects of the legal process not to dissuade you from leaving your marriage. My concern is that you fully understand the process before putting yourself in the middle of the process.

Knowing when or if it is time to divorce means having a comprehensive understanding of exactly what it means to divorce. Unless you are in a situation where divorce can be handled in a civil manner between you and your spouse having full knowledge of what to expect in a conflicted divorce scenario is the only way you will be able to protect your legal rights.

The steps that I’ve shared above may seem simple, cut and dry but if you are divorcing a spouse who is angry, hurt over your decision to divorce or is unable to accept the idea of divorce you will become involved with a system in which no one wins but the system.

Understanding the emotional, financial and legal aspects of divorce before deciding to divorce means you will be making an informed decision about how and with whom you want to spend the rest of your life.

After Thoughts

I’m not someone with “standard” views on marriage and relationships. I do however have traditional views when it comes to choosing to divorce once you’ve committed to a marriage. It is my opinion that if you get married you should put in the appropriate time and attention to the marriage and do everything possible to save the marriage before making the choice to divorce.

When you take the vow, make the promise to stay with someone for the rest of your life, “for better or, for worse,” it is no small thing. I’m keen on folks keeping promises but for every promise made there is a price to pay and when the price you pay in your marriage becomes too high it is better to break your word than do harm to yourself by keeping it.

Here is the problem as I see it…people get married for a lot of foolish reasons. Some marry because they think society expects it of them. Some marry because they think it will solve some problem they are grappling with. Some believe marriage is the natural end to any relationship, that something is wrong if a relationship doesn’t culminate in marriage vows. Some marry because marriage confirms them as a person.

None of us marry without the expectation that the marriage will last “until death do us part.” But, that doesn’t always happen; our expectations about marriage are not always met. Nothing is more evident of that than the 40% divorce rate we experience in this country. In my business as a marriage educator and divorce consultant I often wonder why people don’t take more seriously the high rate of divorce. Could it be they don’t because there are some very, very good reasons to divorce?

The decision to divorce should only be made if something is radically wrong in the marriage. What do I mean by radically wrong? Well, there is abuse, infidelity, broken trust, disrespect to name a few examples of marital problems that might not be overcome with hard work.

We don’t take lightly the decision to marry; we should not take lightly the decision to divorce!

The post Time To Divorce: Do You Know What To Expect During The Divorce Process? appeared first on Divorced Moms.


We Need Changes in How Courts Handle Parental Alienation _ Psychology Today Printed by Family Court-Corruption on Scribd

We Need Changes in How Courts Handle Parental Alienation _ Psychology Today Printed by Family Court-Corruption on Scribd


Santa Clara Minor's Counsel, GAL, Scam Moves to Alameda , Orange and LA  Counties

          Elise Mitchell Real Estate Bribery Scheme 

Caliornia’s State Auditor issued a report on lawyers appointed for children during their parent’s divorce after complaints from Marin and Sacramento Counties showed lawyers padding thier bills and gouging parents and taxpayers for work that did little for the best interests of children. 

Minor’s counsel appointments are the gateway appointment to scams lawyers run in connection with family law matters. A divorce or cusotdy case where lawyers claim ” high conflict ” between parents will see a judge quickly appoint a favored lawyer as Minor’s Counsel in a case. The appointment provides lawyers with immunituy to issue reports and advocate for children. In  reality the appointments serve as permission to bill and bill families until there is no money left in a community property estate subject to division. 

Parents are forced to go into debt in order to pay lawyers to tell them how to feed, cloth, educate and support thier children. Minor’s counsel are not required to make financial or other disclosures so they often sit in cases where they own businesses with other lawyers, or the judge. 

It was said that the auditor uncovered the scheme in Marin and Sacramento that had been running as designed by Tani Cantil Sakauye  who sat in family court before the Third District Court of Appeal . She was  appointed as the California Supreme Court Judge in 2011, where she not only did nothing to curb the appointments, she moved thorugh local bar associations and clubs in San Jose , Monterey, LA and Orange County to expand them.

​ In Santa Clara she worked directly with former stte bar Chief Trial Counsel Jim Towery and his wife Karyn Sinunu to expand the corrupt practice of profiting from harming kids and robbing families. 

Minor’s Counsel Bring in Funding for Foster Care and CPS 

In Santa Clara, Monerey, LA and Orange County , the small group of lawyers acting as minor’s counsel stand as look out for lawyers involved in real estate schemes, charity fraud and the lucrative practice of private judging. 

Lawyers are vetted by how well they will be team players. Then with a few hours of training, they are appointment ready, If they incite conflict suffienctly, they can remain in a case for a decade until the children age out of the court’s jurisdciton. 

Elise Mitchell is a Black female attorney in Santa Clara, When the court got pressure for the lack of diversity on the Minor’s Counsel pandel, Mitchell was brougth in my Jim Towery and groomed for appointments after she drew in a case where she represented a NFL football player. 

Mitchell then got conencted to the domestic violence scam connected to charties including Women SV, and Judge Cindy Hendrickson who replaced Judge Persky on the bench. Hendrickson and Mitchell’s ties to local Catholic Schools saw them grooming cases to send kids to foster care to earn the county more money and net them kickbacks in real estate and dark money. 

As Mitchell suceeeded she was appointed in cases where lawyers playing for the private judge team would defend her minconduct and criminality., Mitchell was awarded a secret real estate deal in Alameda County where she was charged with expanding the enterprise and rewarded with kickbacks for getting Heather Allan, Jessica Huey , BJ Fadem  Eva Martel or Nicole Ford appointed in a case where she represents a client seeking to use the courts to abuse a former spouse or parent of a child shared in common. 

Accounting records accidentially leaked by Mitchell’s office, run by her children. show such payments from a grandma, Rosalie Black Baker , and others and how those payments  used to bribe judges in Santa Clara and Alameda. The payments also bribe cops, CPS workers and therapists  who will recommend children are placed in foster care for the right pay off price. 

Mitchell has also assured payments to lawyers appointed in LA and Orange County as an escalation of minor’s counsel and cusotdy experts appointments see  judges sending  kids to foster care or charity reunificaiton camps that kick back referral fees to minor’s counsel, district attoney election campaigns and judges through real estate schemes.  

Payments  documented between Mitchell and Orange County mnior’s counsel Cherly Edgar and Tracy Willis show a pattern that reveals  judges who are in on the bribery scam and benefit from real esate kickbacks.

Payments to Orange County Minor’s Counsel Steve Dragna  and Kelly Irwin along with payments to Anaheim police officer Mark Irwin connect the dots of minor’s counsel and Disney lawyers who paid off Judge Cowan in the probate case linked to Walt Disney’s grandson where Judge Cowan victim shamed Bradford Lund for having Down Syndrome after conserving Lund and denying him the ability to manage the money left to him by his grandfather, Walt Disney.  Like Britney Spears Lund has been locked deep inside LA probate court in a horrifically corrupt  conservatorship. The unhappiest place on earth and just down the street from Disneyland where Disney’s wealth was built. 

Minor’s Counsel Appointments Force Parents to  Lucrative Private Judge Cases at JAMS 

Attorney Ed Navarro has been dubbed the children’s assasssin in Los Angeles County. Ed is regualrly appointed in cases with Dennis Wasser , Lisa Meyer , Christopher Melcher and Ron Brot. . Navarro brings in custody experts and therapists associated with Family Bridges and Overcoming Barriers.. He is also linked to psycologists from UCLA and UC Irvine to  discredit the mental health and sobreity of parents and their children. 

Navarro is known for making the pressure so great, and billing hundreds of thousands of dollars to apply pressure to get parents to agree to use a private judge, with no questions asked. 

Los Angeles County District Attonrey George Gascon  has been seen getting payments in crytocurrency and real estate kickbacks to look the other way when middle class and high asset family law litigants use private judging to cover up fraud and child abuse. 

Noise from parents losing cusotdy of their children has grown louder and has been linked to the noise in the Lund and Spears Conservartorships. As a result reporters from the Los Anegeles Times, NBC, Pro Publica and Wall Street Journal have begun asking questions and making records requests about California’s family courts.

​These media requests are said to be reponsible for Chief Justice Tani Cantil Sakauye’s sudden annoucement to resign  as the minor’s counsel and private judge scams in California’s family courts begin to be revealed. 



Love for LA Dodgers Exposes Sheriff Deputies in Second Bribery Scheme Connected to Appeals Court

Santa Clara Sheriff Sgt. Manual Rey Connects to Ghost Knowledge Account in  Family Court Files 

 When Sargent Rey’s digital footprint connected to the LA Dogers  and former Family Court Public Information Officer Joe Macaluso,  he exposed a Ghost Knowledge Account funded through cryprocurrency transactions  by divorce lawyers, judges, and court appointed witnesses. These accounts reveal Santa Clara Sheriff Department Gangs operating through a” 7:30 Club” in Santa Clara County, and police officer associations throughout the state  running a money laundering and bribery scheme that involves the   rigging divorce and cusotdy cases up through the Court of Appeal. 

It was the linking of Rey and Swenson’s digital footprints that exposed the state wide operation weaving throughout California’s courts and law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles, Orange County, Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Gilroy and Morgan Hill. 

Digital footprints exposing these Santa Clara Sheriff gangs connected to family court cases and the Sixth District Court of Appeal are being scrapped and uploaded to an investigative database. That database is being sold through Bay Area News Group reporters and shareholders in the private companies known as JAMS, ADR Services and Siganture Resolutions. Businesses that conduct 90% of California’s mandatory arbitration and private judging cases. 


Data Footprint of Court Attorneys Herrick and Soroosh

Secret Conflicts, Dark Money &  Case Rigging Links

Lisa Herrick
California State Court Attorney

Joseph Standley
Alicia Vojnik 
Rebecca Fleming 
Thomas Hogan 
Eileen Beaudry
Sylvia Perex Mac Donald 
Jaye Liang 
Holly Barr 
Orla Brazell 
Rachel Carrasquillo 
Jennifer Comartin 
Hanna Wilkerson
Janm Patrick Delin 
Tamara Costa
Tofoi Yandall – Moore
Alec Boyer   
Jessica Huey 
Desiree Stemberga
Frank Carrubba 
Jennifer Pollack
Tony Morefield   
Erin West 
​Christian Buckingham
JacinRenee Tumacder 
Duane Eatherly 
Elise Miller
Ella Blecher 
Eric Bonesteel  
Brett Colbert
Carina Carrillo 
Daniel Medel  
Carina Carrillo 
Catherine Hatch Fisher
William Rice 
Chandler Richards
Chris Davis  
Celia Rice  
Amy Drake 
Ann Wilson 
Ann- Marie Nelson 
Anna Mcgee
Carlos Leet  
Anne Schachal 
Jenny Higgins Bradanini 
Susan Ellenberg 
Cindy Chavez 
Araceli Arroyo 
Ashley Smiley 
Nicole Ford 
Kasey Halcon
Manuel Rey 
Brian Hopper
Laura Peak Hoffman 
Lauryn Sugai 
Nick Raisch
Nicole Ford  
Michele Dauber 
Natalie Nguyen 
Joanne Seavey – Heltquist 
Joe Macaluso 
Patty Estrada 
Paul Newton 
Monika Majors 
Leslie Maglione Jensen 
Lori Flaum 
Scott Purcell 
Rosalia Costa 
Maddy Mesa 
Kelly Osborne 
Rob Bonta 
Jyl Savard 
Kathryn Sardina 
Caroline Mederios
Max Colbert  
Shan Azima – Taylor 
Amber Robbins
Alec Boyer
Amanda Ruiz 
Meghan Macaluso
​Desiree Stemberga  
Michael Rossi
Kyra Kazantzis 
Thomas Engels 
Karen Lieu 
Orla Brazell 
Kelly Burke
Cher Anderson 
Holly Barr
Hani Durzy 

Fariba Soroosh 
California Family Court Attorney 

​BJ Fadem
Viola Alverez 
​Susan Ezzati 
Mary Maguire 
Janet Thompson 
Jamie Field 
Frandk Del Fiugo  
Elise Mitchell 
Janet Buchignani 
Kasey Halcon 
Fardad Khosravi 
Anne Im 
Catherine Gallagher
Michael Persky  
Debroah Mullin 
Dolat Bolandi 
Don Moser 
Thomas Wood 



Family Court Corruption & CPS Child Trafficking


Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen and his Wife , Judge Amber Rosen, join Karyn Sinunu Towery and Judge Towery in Summer 2021 for a BBQ. The Towery – Rosen power is connects Silicon Valley court corruption to Los Angeles and Orange County through court bailiffs, court CEOs and lawyers appointed as GALS or private judges in divorce and probate cases.

Cryptocurrency accounts linked to Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen and Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon,  show money laundering  schemes for a human trafficking  connected to the family courts where Rosen’s wife is a family court judge overseeing custody, adoption and CPS cases out of public view. 

In 2017 as DA Jeff Rosen’s office was wrapped up the prosecution  of Brock Turner in the sexual assault case that occured in early 2015 on the Stanford University campus. . During that same time, Jeff Rosen began assisting Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber and San Jose Women’s March founder  Jennifer Higging Bradanini in the recall campaign of Judge Aaron Persky. As Rosen provided the assistance that angered the #Metoo movement mob in the San Francisco Bay Area,  Rosen’s own daughter’s show a  data footprint that incidates while attending college in Wisconsin, they  collected  money on accounts for  sex , gas and large amounts of alcohol provided to campus fraternities.  

By early 2018 Bradanini’s personal divorce case landed before Judge Towery consistent with a case rigging scheme in Santa Clara County. That scheme is linked to  Christopher Melcher, Dennis and Laura Wasser in  Los Angeles County and Orange County lawyers Keith Dolnick and David Erza where  secret courtrooms in the  private business known as JAMS , is stripping custody for wealthy parents with counterfeit  CLETS DVRO orders and fradulent accountings are  run through corrupt 730 witness reports of CPAs Sally White, James  Butera, and Andrew ” Drew” Hunt.   

Melcher , a ” volunteer” member of the Los Angeles Sheriff Department,  is reportedly running the fake domestic violence scam through JAMS such that CLETS  domestic violence restraining orders do not get put into the law enforcement data base system. Melcher is reportedly being assisted by Santa Clara County probate lawyer Temmerman , as Melcher represents Temmerman in his own divorce. In that case, Robert Redding now of the McManis Faulkner law firm,  reportedly agreed to throw the case as he represents the wife. 

Temmerman was reportedly a ghost lawyer for  Jamie Spears  while his daughter, Britney Spears, was conserved in LA County during her divorce with Kevin Federline. Britney Spears was conserved by Commissioner Reva Goetz. Working for JAMS, Goetz is connected to the  private business handling the Temmerman divorce.

Catherine Gallagher of JAMS presided over the Temmerman divorce. She was  reportedly paid over $1 millon through shadow  cryptocurrency accounts as part of a scheme to rig the case and assure the former Mrs. Temmerman did not get access to the finanicial records and case files of Mr. Temmerman’s thriving probate law firm. 

Karyn Sinunu Towery , wife of former state bar executive Jim Towery, is said to be arranging payments for kickbacks in a case rigging scheme where her husband is deeply rooted. Her husband is Judge James Towery. He sat in Silicon Valley family courts for over a decade after his employment at the state bar where he was known to be paid kickbacks from Thomas Girardi  and Jack Trotter , the founder of JAMS. 

JAMS is the largest arbitration, mediation and private judging business in the world. By 2010 the business began working with divorce lawyers to expand from employment arbitration cases into family law matters where their associates are appointed as private judges  in middle class and high asset divorce cases. 

Sinunu Towery,  who resigned from the Santa Clara County DAs office  in 2011 after reportedly taking payoffs not to prosecute Silicon Valley executives and 49er football players,   has reportedly  been  arranging kickbacks to area judges and reporters with the San Jose Mercury News.

Sinunu reportedly had an affair with San Jose Mercury reporter Ric Tulsky  in 2005, as they worked on a Trainted Trial story related to prosecutorial misconduct cases as Silicon Valley’s criminal matters. That award winning article has now been scrubbed from the internet in an effort to conceal patterns of public corruption l linked to both California’s family and criminal courts.  

San Jose Mercury reporter Ric Tulsky reportedly taught Sinunu Towery how  to kill stories about county and court corruption.  Sininu Towery and her husband Judge James Towery were recently connected to payments made  to SAn Jose Mercury News reporters Grace Hase, Robert Salonga,  Julia Sulek and Tracey Kaplan. The  San Jose Mercury is  owned by the Bay Area News Group, and Alden Capital investiment,  which operates similar schemes in Orange County. 

Collectively it appears these San Jose Mercury reporters and associates made  over $1 million  in cryptopayment kickbacks to kill stories about family court cases and pedo  rings operating from  the Stanford University and Santa Clara University campuses. Payments were also made to former reporters who have gone on to work for local government attorneys and voting offices as Public Information Officers. In those positions they are able to keep the public and competing news organzations from information that would expose  the corruption infecting the courts. 

Jeff Rosen, who again otained the Mercury endorsement to win his 2022 re- election for district attorney, reportedly arranged for $1 billion in “advertising”  and “investment”  dollars through shell companies, real estate transfers  and bogus LLCs  to Alden Capital along with pocket immunity for shareholders as the money was exchanged through cruptocurency accounts and transactions arranged by Jeannie Webby , the wife of Sean Webby. Mr. Webby has acted as Rosen’s Public Information Officer since  2011. Webby is a former Mercury reporter who has maintained ties with Stanford University Law Professor Michele Dauber to keep his boss, Jeff Rosen,  in office .

Rosen has refused to invesitgate or prosecute public corruption cases tied to the courts where his wife is now a superior court judge.  



Mitchell Papers Show Dark Money Divorce Lawyer Retainer Payments Linked to Minor's Counsel "GAL"


Over the past decade family law attorney Elise Mitchell was awarded court appointments to represent children as the county courts sought to provide the public with an appearance of diversity in divorce and custody cases. Mitchell is Black. 

Now Mitchell’s own adult  child, Ogechi Ajawara, has linked social media and  digital footprints that  expose what appears to be his mother’s involment in a California divorce case rigging and tax evasion scheme. 

The scheme has operated for over a decade and is  centered around Silicon Valley judges James Towery and Stuart Scott with links  to Los Angeles and Orange County Courts. The target, California  real estate and high asset community property estates  subject to  division in a divorce  or probate case.

Mitchell’s emails and dark payment transactions are linked to family law attorneys Stefan Kennedy, BJ Fadem, Constance Carpenter, Jessica Huey, Christina Adames and Nicole Myers , all operating in high asset divorce cases in  Silcon Valley. These lawyers, like their Southern California counterparts obtain immunity from their court appointments and as such are able to pad their bills with impunity. 

In  2018,  confidential files were reportedly left  at the San Jose Catholic School where Mitchell’s  daughter attended with the daughter of now Judge Cindy Hendrickson. After the leak, Mitchell  was shadowbanned and only given cases predetermined to be on the losing end of a real estate – private judge scheme operating in family court probate and divorce cases. 

More recently leaked files show that during the 2020-2022 pandemic, as courthouses were closed, Mitchell  nudged into private judging cases, representing the wives who were set up to lose due to case rigging involving California’s public court judges.  

Payments Mitchell collected in  cryptocurrency,  cash gift cards, and fradulent real estate titles  keeps Mitchell  funded as ineffective counsel in rigged divorce cases, while giving an appearance that Santa Clara County offers ” diversity ” in court appointments. 

Mitchell’s data footprint has revealed payments consistent with tax evasion and money laundering linked to the accounts of Pala Psychotherapy,  and cases of litigants in secret custody  matters, or divorce cases,  including  Gracie Razo, Abigail Portillo,  Juan Macias, Irene Medoza and Gary Ibarra.

More recently Mitchell has been  linked to a fraudulent CLETS DVRO scheme that began when she was paid by the NFL for a former San Francisco 49er in a custody / Domestic Violence case.  That case later saw Mark Erickson take over, after it was determined Mitchell stood to expose the case rigging scheme connected to Judge Towery’s courtroom and the Santa Clara County DA’s office through judge Towery’s wife, Karyn Sinunu Towery. 



Transgender Divorce Attorney Connected to Family Court Funded Pedophile Ring Linked to Santa Clara University  and California's Family and Criminal Cases

During the pandemic as California Courts were shuttered, a facilites worker at Santa Clara University was caught with sex toys and Kiddie porn linked to  transgender divorce attoney BJ Fadem. Mr. Fadem works in Santa Clara County family court where he is regularly  appointed as Minor’s Counsel while also working as an adjunct professor at Santa Clara University. 

More recently Fadem has been working in California’s lucrative private judging industry , where he is required to disclose his conflcits of interest before accpeting appointment and given immunity such that he is  elevated to the bench without vote or appointment of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Investigation of Faden’s “wife” Dawn  finds Fadem’s private juding disclosures vastly defective and ommitting income and connections to cyrptocurrency accounts used in sex trafficking and child porn rings  operating in the backdrop of  confidential court proceedings. where  by law school volunteer Karyn Sinunu Towery acts as link between cases in Northern and Southern California Courts. 

Since  “retiring ” from the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office in 2011, Sinunu Towery, wife of family court Judge Towery,  has worked as a ” volunteer” for the Santa Clara University  Law School ‘s charity operating as the Northern California Innocence Project. The charity purports to exonerate those wrongfully convicted in Criminal Cases Sinunu Towery herself was once linked to while employed in the DAO. 

According the the cryptocurrency and data footprint of Fadem’s wife and Santa Clara County DDA Steve Lowney, Sininu Towery has continued to use her power and connections in the DA”s office and at the University, to deflect criminal investigations that would expose  child trafficking rings funded and fueled by the criminal and family law matters involving minor children that are largely confidential. 



California’s family law cases involving unmarried parents , or criminal defendants who are minor children  are largely confidential. Case files and the court proceedings in these matters are not made public. This allows for lawyers involved in the custody and criminal cases linked to children to operated in secret. 

Digital scrapes  of the social media and cryptocurrency accounts linked to  criminal defense and divorce attorneys  was made possible by BJ Fadem, and his close associates Stefan Kennedy, Nicole Ford , Jessica Huey and Elise Mitchell show  hundreds of million dollars of unreported payments to court reporters, ” nannies ” ,” babysitters”, private investigators and IT experts moving around  the state’s divorce, probate, custody and conseratorship  cases. out of the court record, and view of the taxing authorties. 

The accounts of Northern California lawyers operating in private judge, custody and domestic violence cases where cusotdy or children is terminated for one of both parents,  link to Christopher Melcher, Dennis Wassner, Lisa Meyers, Laura Wasser   and Gregory Jessner who is married to an LA Superior Court Judge. 

LA Superior Court judges are regularly paid kickbacks for moving cases into the  private judge scam operating throughout the state where community property estates are used to fund systemic corruption in real estate and private businesses including JAMS and Siganture Reslutions. 

Venture Capitalists, lawyers, doctors, tech executives and Hollywood celebrities wanting to conceal their own criminality during a divorce, are retaining these lawyers during divorce or domestic violence cases are retaining these lwayers and then using private judges paid far more than agreed upon fees to cover up information and crimes that could be exposed during a family law or criminal court matter involing minor children. 

Paid to Change Gender of Children 

While acting as a private judge,  or appointed as minor’s counsel, BJ Fadem , an attorney celebrated in the judicary as openly representing the transgender community, has been linked to payments made to underground doctors used by child trafficking rings. The payments , revealed through datascrapes, are  linked to family law cases and to California Assembly member Evan Low, a proud member of the LGBTQ political landscape in California. Fadem also appears to have usd his assignment as a professor at Santa Clara University to advance a corrupt motive linked to his family law private judge business where he seeks to attract clients from the LGBQT community.  

Low, who has close ties to the Santa Clara County DA’s office,  and Karyn Sinunu Towery, is also linked to UC Irvine and Stanford University Title IX funding issues  that are being  exposed as the state bar reopens investigations related to lawyers Joe Dunn and Tom Girardi. 

Weaknesses  in BJ Fadem and Elise Mitchell’s cryptocurrency and client files have linked Northren California divorce attorneys loyal to Judge Jim Towery and   Thomas Girardi’s personal divorce with Real Housewives star Erica Jayne.  

State bar investigations into Girardi , and now former state bar director Joe Dunn, are now being expanded  to former state bar employee Jim Towery,  based on the data footprint and cryptocurrency accounts exposed by the sloppy handling of financial information,  misuse of client information,  and social media accounts used by Calfiornia divorce lawyers including BJ Fadem, Elise Mitchell, Nicole Ford, Lisa Meyers , Laura Wasser, Rob Brot, Christpher Melcher, Brian Pakpour, Jessica Huey , Stefan Kennedy, and Gregory Jassner.  All these private attorneys appear  to have benefited from selling client information, and rigging cases in public and private judging,  while handling some of the state’s largest divorce, cusotdy, probate and conservatorship cases  where lawyers are  regularly appointed as minor’s counsel or private judges in the state’s family law cases.