Richard Childers
2008-06-15 20:45:56 UTC
(Want proof that Marjorie Slabach is a crook?
Just examine the transcript of the hearing for FDV-93-005153 , and note
how, towards the end, Commissioner Slabach advises Defendant Childers
that Plaintiff Wong has "something" for him.
Search the transcript for any indications of how Commissioner Slabach
acquired this information. No such indications are to be found. Is this
proof of an ex parte communication? Answer: yes.
[What's an ex parte communication, you ask? It's a violation of judicial
canons, that's what it is. Here's one description: "A judge shall not
initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other
communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties
concerning a pending or impending proceeding ..." - 'nuff said!]
Note how Commissioner Slabach declines to identify, for the record,
exactly what it is that the plaintiff is returning. It's not that she
doesn't know. It's not that she doesn't care. It's as if Commissioner
Marjorie Slabach knows exactly what it is, and she doesn't want it on
the record, because it will interfere with the prejudgement (see:
Prejudice) that she has already decided upon, before the hearing!
This is because the plaintiff is returning a stolen work of art,
prominently mentioned in Defendant Childers' Answer ... and this detail,
which would provide a perfectly good cause for the defendant to have
been "harassing" the plaintiff, seeking contact ... is being, not just
obscured, but deliberately, maliciously concealed, from the court
record, by Commissioner Slabach ... who still hasn't explained who told
her that the plaintiff wanted to give something to the defendant -
because, remember, the plaintiff was representing herself, and,
supposedly, there was no one else in the courtroom to represent her!
Want more evidence of ex parte communications?
At the end of the hearing, Commissioner Marjorie Slabach announced that
she was extending the restraining order to cover all family members -
even though no family members had been named in the complaint, no family
members had been contacted by the defendant, and no family members had
requested protection, and no family members were even at the hearing.
Where did Commissioner Marjorie Slabach get the idea that it was
necessary, or desirable, to 'protect' not only the plaintiff - but every
single one of her unnamed, unmentioned family members? From the
plaintiff? The record certainly doesn't reflect any such requests on the
part of any persons present during the 'hearing'.
And, without names ... how do we even know who's a member of the family?
So, yes. Marjorie Slabach is one crooked commissioner.
Who appointed her? Why, Judge Donna Hitchens, of course - her boss, the
Presiding Judge of the Unified Family Court.
Perhaps it's time for a change.)
Is SF Family Court Commissioner Marjorie Slabach A Crook?
Is SF Family Court Commissioner Marjorie Slabach A Crook?
Yes, she is - Marjorie Slabach is as crooked as a dog's hind leg.
I can attest to this, first hand.
In late March 2006, I was before Commissioner Slabach, on the matter of
FDV-93-005153 .
When I told the Commissioner that I wished to cross-examine my accuser,
with a list of questions I had drawn up beforehand, in hand ... Marjorie
Slabach denied me permission to cross-examine my accuser, abruptly
delivered her verdict, and abruptly concluded the hearing, finding me
guilty and ordering me to remain seated, while my accuser - Helen J.
Wong, of 459 1/2 16th Avenue, San Francisco - left the building.
This violates the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
And, let me add, I would affirm this sequence of events, under oath ...
and I expect to take, and pass, a polygraph (lie detector) test, as well.
Some might say that the United States Constitution only applies to
criminal cases ... however, when I examined the transcript of the
hearing, I determined that the transcript had been surreptitiously
altered (AKA forged) to reflect a different sequence of events, one
where I had asked to cross-examine my accuser, after the verdict had
been delivered - not before.
I submit that the act of obfustication that I describe, above, could
only have occurred if the people whom carried out the act were in fear
of discovery - so, regardless of whether it is a violation of the
Constitution or not, the responsible parties have a guilty conscience,
are in fear of losing their jobs, and are intent upon covering up their
abuse of legal proceedings.
However, if you were to ask Marjorie Slabach what happened, I am
confident that she would NOT tell the truth. She appears to be
unacquainted with such an entity.
This is not the first time this has happened. In January 1993, when this
matter was first initiated, my case was mysteriously moved from the
assigned judge's docket, to Presiding Judge Baxter's courtroom - a
change which flew in the face of existing procedures and which has never
been explained.
During that hearing, I informed 'Referee' Baxter that the plaintiff
accusing me of threatening behavior was a mental patient, diagnosed with
psychosis. The 'Referee' asked the plaintiff if this was true, and the
plaintiff affirmed that it was true - but, reviewing the transcript,
again, weeks after the fact, I was stunned to find that the exchange
between the plaintiff and the 'referee' had been deleted from the
transcript - leaving me accusing the plaintiff of psychosis, with no
supporting statement from the plaintiff.
So, tell me - who, exactly, are the criminals, here? I mean, if I went
changing transcripts to reflect the way I wanted my hearings to end, to
reflect the way I wanted people, in the future, to interpret events - no
matter how false the interpretation - would I not be a criminal, in need
of arrest?
So, if you have a hearing before San Francisco Superior Court
Commissioner Marjorie Slabach, I strongly advise you to secure your own,
private copy of the hearing's audio - because the official record of the
hearing is sure to be tampered with, by the criminals, behind the bench,
there, at San Francisco Superior Court's Family Division.
Just examine the transcript of the hearing for FDV-93-005153 , and note
how, towards the end, Commissioner Slabach advises Defendant Childers
that Plaintiff Wong has "something" for him.
Search the transcript for any indications of how Commissioner Slabach
acquired this information. No such indications are to be found. Is this
proof of an ex parte communication? Answer: yes.
[What's an ex parte communication, you ask? It's a violation of judicial
canons, that's what it is. Here's one description: "A judge shall not
initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other
communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties
concerning a pending or impending proceeding ..." - 'nuff said!]
Note how Commissioner Slabach declines to identify, for the record,
exactly what it is that the plaintiff is returning. It's not that she
doesn't know. It's not that she doesn't care. It's as if Commissioner
Marjorie Slabach knows exactly what it is, and she doesn't want it on
the record, because it will interfere with the prejudgement (see:
Prejudice) that she has already decided upon, before the hearing!
This is because the plaintiff is returning a stolen work of art,
prominently mentioned in Defendant Childers' Answer ... and this detail,
which would provide a perfectly good cause for the defendant to have
been "harassing" the plaintiff, seeking contact ... is being, not just
obscured, but deliberately, maliciously concealed, from the court
record, by Commissioner Slabach ... who still hasn't explained who told
her that the plaintiff wanted to give something to the defendant -
because, remember, the plaintiff was representing herself, and,
supposedly, there was no one else in the courtroom to represent her!
Want more evidence of ex parte communications?
At the end of the hearing, Commissioner Marjorie Slabach announced that
she was extending the restraining order to cover all family members -
even though no family members had been named in the complaint, no family
members had been contacted by the defendant, and no family members had
requested protection, and no family members were even at the hearing.
Where did Commissioner Marjorie Slabach get the idea that it was
necessary, or desirable, to 'protect' not only the plaintiff - but every
single one of her unnamed, unmentioned family members? From the
plaintiff? The record certainly doesn't reflect any such requests on the
part of any persons present during the 'hearing'.
And, without names ... how do we even know who's a member of the family?
So, yes. Marjorie Slabach is one crooked commissioner.
Who appointed her? Why, Judge Donna Hitchens, of course - her boss, the
Presiding Judge of the Unified Family Court.
Perhaps it's time for a change.)
Is SF Family Court Commissioner Marjorie Slabach A Crook?
Is SF Family Court Commissioner Marjorie Slabach A Crook?
Yes, she is - Marjorie Slabach is as crooked as a dog's hind leg.
I can attest to this, first hand.
In late March 2006, I was before Commissioner Slabach, on the matter of
FDV-93-005153 .
When I told the Commissioner that I wished to cross-examine my accuser,
with a list of questions I had drawn up beforehand, in hand ... Marjorie
Slabach denied me permission to cross-examine my accuser, abruptly
delivered her verdict, and abruptly concluded the hearing, finding me
guilty and ordering me to remain seated, while my accuser - Helen J.
Wong, of 459 1/2 16th Avenue, San Francisco - left the building.
This violates the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
And, let me add, I would affirm this sequence of events, under oath ...
and I expect to take, and pass, a polygraph (lie detector) test, as well.
Some might say that the United States Constitution only applies to
criminal cases ... however, when I examined the transcript of the
hearing, I determined that the transcript had been surreptitiously
altered (AKA forged) to reflect a different sequence of events, one
where I had asked to cross-examine my accuser, after the verdict had
been delivered - not before.
I submit that the act of obfustication that I describe, above, could
only have occurred if the people whom carried out the act were in fear
of discovery - so, regardless of whether it is a violation of the
Constitution or not, the responsible parties have a guilty conscience,
are in fear of losing their jobs, and are intent upon covering up their
abuse of legal proceedings.
However, if you were to ask Marjorie Slabach what happened, I am
confident that she would NOT tell the truth. She appears to be
unacquainted with such an entity.
This is not the first time this has happened. In January 1993, when this
matter was first initiated, my case was mysteriously moved from the
assigned judge's docket, to Presiding Judge Baxter's courtroom - a
change which flew in the face of existing procedures and which has never
been explained.
During that hearing, I informed 'Referee' Baxter that the plaintiff
accusing me of threatening behavior was a mental patient, diagnosed with
psychosis. The 'Referee' asked the plaintiff if this was true, and the
plaintiff affirmed that it was true - but, reviewing the transcript,
again, weeks after the fact, I was stunned to find that the exchange
between the plaintiff and the 'referee' had been deleted from the
transcript - leaving me accusing the plaintiff of psychosis, with no
supporting statement from the plaintiff.
So, tell me - who, exactly, are the criminals, here? I mean, if I went
changing transcripts to reflect the way I wanted my hearings to end, to
reflect the way I wanted people, in the future, to interpret events - no
matter how false the interpretation - would I not be a criminal, in need
of arrest?
So, if you have a hearing before San Francisco Superior Court
Commissioner Marjorie Slabach, I strongly advise you to secure your own,
private copy of the hearing's audio - because the official record of the
hearing is sure to be tampered with, by the criminals, behind the bench,
there, at San Francisco Superior Court's Family Division.