I was one of those people who thought this could not happen to me, as I only read or heard about them, but now I am writing about mine, as I became the victim of a very bad divorce. Like so many people out there, I put up the fight that so many parents had to put up with, as I lost my “title” as a “Father” to my child. Here is my story.

PRE – DIVORCE

I was raised in the Catholic faith, as one six adopted children, married June 14, 1986 to 1997… My ex-wife was a CPA and I was a General Contractor and we adopted a son, Ryan (3/24/92) and I was finishing building a 6,500 sq. ft. family home at _____ Stauffer Lane in Cupertino on a 2 plus acre hillside lot that overlook the valley. My ex in-laws bought the brand new house  across the street from this empty lot while we were planning and getting permits for building “our” dream house.

When I was about 90% done building this house, I had discovered my wife had an affair and “we” went to the Catholic Church for marriage counseling over several months as I thought this was the way to save our marriage, as we were married in the Catholic Church. But that was not the case.

THE FINANCES AT TIME OF DIVORCE

My ex-wife and I had borrowed about $140,000 with no interest to build the house and we had stock we could of sold… I paid back $50,000 to my ex-wife’s father, Nick Mardesich on August 28, 1997 with a casher’s check, which they did not cash and charged me interest on.

The record show on my ex-wife’s 1997 IRS that she had sold 126 shares at the price of 63.60 a share of Compaq Computer Corporation that was community assets on 11/07/97 (That is $8,013.6). She did not notify the Court or me. I reported this to the Judge as soon as I learned of it.

According to the Court documents filed under oath by Connie on June 8, 1998 there is over 3500 shares (That is $222,600 at that price that she sold at) plus there was another $75,000 401K plan, which are community assets. Again I notified the Judge who I claimed was bias. To date I have not seen one dime of the stock or 401K.  From the transcript of Nick Mardesich, Feb. 3, 1999 -page 97 states:

“that was loaned?

A – (Nick Mardesich) It was for the purpose of building their house.

Q – And that was to both Mr. and Mrs. Ignacio; is that correct?

A – That’s correct.

Q – Did you keep records with regard to those loans?

A – Yes, I did.

Q – And if I may ask, what was the aggregate amount of the loans?

A – It was – -

The Court – That might not be a fair question but –

A – It was approximately $240,000.

Q – And that was a series of loans; is that correct?

A – Yes, it was a series of disbursements.

Q – Did you make payments with regard to those loans?

A – There was one payment made at the time when they sold their first house in the amount of $100,000.

Q – Was there a written note for those loans?

A – No.

Q – Did you keep a log of those?

A – Yes.

The Court: Was there any interest or was it an interest – free loan?

A – It was interest – bearing.

Q – what was the rate of interest?

A- 8 percent. (This is not true, at that time he sold his home at 2227 Sierra Ventura Dr, Los Altos, Ca in which he made a loan to the buyer for a large amount and he charged them 6% the first year, 7% the second year, and 8%the third and last year, then they would have a balloon due. We did not have interest because we were family.)

Q – And do you have records which show what the current balance is of the loans owed to you by the parties?

A – Yes. The principal amount in the amount of $141,398.08 and interest accrued through 12-31-98 in the amount of 38,055.30.

Q – If my addition is correct, that principal and interest would be currently$179,453; is that correct?

A – That’s correct.

Q – And it’s your contention that that amount is currently owed to you by both the petitioner and respondent; is that correct?

A – That’s correct.

When I was finally allowed to cross examination Nick Mardesich under oath, at the trial in 1999, I learned that he never cashed the $50,000 so he could get 8% interest on the money he lent us (interest free) to build. So the next day I went to the bank and put a stop payment on the $50,000 check.

On September 7, 1997, when I was forced off my property, they left me to live on $276 with a broken down truck.

At my ex-wife request, I went to try to see a doctor on August 18, 1997 at El Camino Hospital and the nurse their told us if you wanted to see him that I would have to check in or you can come back tomorrow. So we made an appointment and both my wife and I saw him. But my ex-wife wrote this to get a TRO on me under oath:

“7. On August 18, 1997, I took Respondent to El Camino Hospital Emergency. The crisis counselor there asked Respondent to voluntarily commit himself, but he refused.”

So I went to her attorneys (Mr. Santoro) office and gave him the medical record that had “intake” date at the top 8/19/97 that I wanted to use to show that I did not refuse. As he used this document to say I was crazy at the hearing. As they wanted me to take drugs going through a divorce and calling me crazy and I did not want to give the impression I needed to be on medication when I knew I was not sick.

I tried to explain that my ex-wife declaration was based on situations taken out of context to get this TRO. I handed her the medical report with the “date on it” to prove my version about “seeing” the doctor. Also that I talked with the priest but he is refusing to testify under oath, even though the Priest said he did not say it. Because my ex-wife also claimed on the TRO under oath:

“9. On August 30, 1997, I was in a counseling session with James Tucker, LMFCC. Mr. Tucker previously counseled both Respondent and myself jointly. Respondent unexpectedly showed up at the session, and Mr. Tucker asked Respondent to voluntarily commit himself. Respondent refused. After Respondent left, Mr. Tucker suggested that I not leave my son alone with Respondent.

10. At this time, I am very much concerned for the welfare of my son. I do not want m son to be alone with Respondent…”

Well, I went to court and was told to talk with a mediator for about 10 to 15 minutes with my ex-wife attorney who did most of the talking as I complained about not being able to see or talk with my son, and I had to come back in a couple days and this is how this trial went.

I went into Court before this judge for the first time and he called this mediator Karen Dreen to the stand where her testimony went like this:

EXAMINATION: BY THE COURT (Oct. 2, 1997)

Q     You are from family Court Service?

A      That’s correct, your Honor.

Q      And you been there for over ten years?

A      That’s correct.

Q     And other than doing some mediation work, you spend your full time evaluating competing claims of custody and visitation and making recommendations to the Court?

A      That correct, your Honor.

Q      And you were the screener in the matter of marriage of Ignacio?

A       Yes, I was.

Q       Can you tell me who you’ve talked to in arriving at your recommendation in this case?

A       Certainly, your Honor.

Q       And also any documents that you may have looked at?

A       Okay. To start with, I spoke with both parents and with counsel for mother. I read the declarations of both parties. I read some medical records that the father submitted to me from a Dr. Thomas Haveille (phonetic) in Los Altos. I spoke by telephone to Dr. Haville and also to Dr. James Tucker….

The judge asked all the question and the answers were all based on hearsay evidence and whatever the attorney had feed this mediator/ evaluator.

There is a long history of abuse like this that was going on for years. As I found they had a history of doing this to people. And I thought I was being forced into this legal situation under “irreconcilable differences” and I was seeking to get back into my house/ place of business and have them sell my half the community stock as they wanted sole custody of house and child as she claimed that it was her house and her son and none of those two things were mine and the court took her declaration as true and correct and I had no rights walking into that courthouse.

Because they both talked about the money that was in the hands of my ex-wife as the Judge interrupted Karen Dreen and the first question he ever asked me was; “Mr. Ignacio, Do you have any funds that are liquid by which you may make some payments? I said “No. I don’t” The judge then said: “Mr. Santoro, I think that whatever the fees here are involved should be looked upon as payment in best interest of the children.” This was the first time I ever spoke on my behalf with this judge and he had already made up his mind before I had a chance to speak as I told him:

“Well, I mean, restraining order against me and my son, I think that’s detrimental to my relationship with my son. And I’ve tried to contact him. I’ve told petitioner’s parents to please talk to him once a night, let me talk to him once a night. I called him once or twice a day. I’ve talked to him four times now since the 8th of last month –”

The Court: Ryan doesn’t need that. It may be your truth but Ryan doesn’t need it.

Mr. Ignacio: I’m a blunt person so I –

The Court: Your saying to me: Take me as I am and I’m not going to try to modify it to help Ryan; is what your saying to me?

Mr. Ignacio: No. I’m telling Ryan that everybody’s different, everybody has their own voice and free will and you’ve got to take that in and try to deal with each individual person as a person.

The Court: All right. Anything else?

Mr. Ignacio: Well, also work and finances. My wife’s closed all access to my finances. She took out all the money out of our checking account and froze that account. She left me with $276 in my business account, which I had to close. The Money I borrowed was to pay off her father who I believe that I owed and we have assets. Stock … (I was asking to sell them so I could have money to live on.)

And I had donated money for the memorial for women in the military and I requested during that trial that my son go.

“…My mother’s really old and I don’t expect her to live that long and I’d like her grandson to have something to remember my mother by … I would like for that to be an experience in my son’s life to honor my – - it’s his grandma. “My ex knew I wanted to go and “… I donated money to this cause and it’s important to me and to my family, my set of family.

The Court: Anything else?

Mr. Ignacio: Not at this time.

Mr. Santoro: Your Honor, I’d like to ask Mr. Ignacio one or two questions.

The Court: All right.

Cross-Examination: by Mr. Santoro:

Q – Mr. Ignacio, how much money did you donate to this cause?

A – A little over 25,000

Q – $25,000?

A – Over.

The Court: Is that one lump-sum?

Mr. Ignacio: Yes.

Mr. Santoro: No further questions of Mr. Ignacio. Just a quick comment, your Honor, and I’ll submit it.

The Court: All right.

Mr. Santoro: This is the problem that we’ve experiencing in this case in that in one hand Mr. Ignacio says he has not work in two or three years, then on the other hand he says he is independently wealthy and withdrew $85,000 in the last three or four months and now he just donated $25,000 to this cause.

The Court: Withdrew from where?

Mr. Santoro: As his words were an advance on his inheritance. (I had borrow against my inheritance – legally) And also with regard to his employment on the house, he says on the one hand I have not worked, on the other hand he says I worked full time on the house. The fact is the roof’s been leaking for two years so there’s no emergency now. …”

______________________

Of coarse I have to explain to my son Ryan one day that his mother and grandfather said a lot of lies under oath and did a lot of things to keep full custody of him. His grandfather, Nick Mardesich under cross-examination on February 3,1999, in which we had been married over 11years and I was questioning him about $10,000 he gave as a Christmas present, page 100 and I quote:

Q- “On these gifts, weren’t they Christmas gifts to both parties? (His mother and I)

A – (Nick Mardesich) No, they weren’t. The Checks were issued in my daughter’s name and also that was my intent specifically, that they were to be her gifts alone.

Q – Did you tell anybody that they were her gifts alone? Did you tell your wife? Did you tell Connie?

A – Yes. Generally I would give her the check alone at Christmas time. I don’t think you were normally even there when I would give the check.

_____________________________

The Court ordered: “Father shall be responsible for all costs associated with this assessment.”

This one thing Judge Stewart said to me on that date, and that was and I quote “Mr. Ignacio, you have to understand, I’ve work with Mr. Santoro a long time.”

I found out later that these guys were working together for 14 years, as this judge refused to give me any money to live on and ordered me to see a doctor that my ex-wife was suppose to “advance me some money” since all the asset were in my ex-wife name. The Judge had already made up him mind before the 15 minute trial and just changed one part of the document, he was going to sign no matter what … as he had written this on the order in pen…for my ex to give me some money to see the doctor and he warned the attorney about this cost to be released to me, by ordering “Advance these fees.” Though I called that doctor up that day, his office said he was not taking divorce cases as I waited for them to advance these fees – which they never did.

I filed a motion seeking a change of custody of my son, saying that the Judge was not fair and asking to sell stock for money to live on 20 days after this hearing, but the judge/court set that motion for 120 days later and on the wrong calendar. At one point I went to court to investigate this judge to see what kind of judge he was, and I sat in on a case which he deny a Father who wanted to spend more time with his child who could only see his child every other weekend and a couple hours after work one time in the middle of the week visit that a so many Fathers received as the “standard” that these divorce judge says.

Judge Stewart stated as he ruled on that case, “that I want to bond this child to one parent over another”… as I was sitting in the courtroom… I knew I was coming before him and this left a bitter taste, as I believed he acting this way towards me. At my child custody trial about a year later, I tried to submit evidence in my trial that according to the latest news of the day from the local paper, San Jose newspaper had published that the United States Census Bureau showed that 85% of women were awarded custody of their children. But of coarse judge Stewart did not allow such evidence. But he requested to read the article.

As this so-called divorce or fight over child custody and control of assets often prompted me to file more motions and lawsuits that I should have, and made me more aware of how unfair this justice system is once you fall under there abuse  and control. This was more a political system where you made deals by declaration with the judge behind the other parties back with an Ex Parte motion and could force the other party into a situation in which one has no rights as it comes to their own life/children and property.

I tried to report these things as they happened and was filing a complaint against them, for the court order and went to the Sheriff’s Department to file a complaint about perjury and not “Advancing funds,” I discovered that they reported me for driving by the house??? (Which I did not do.)

Nov.14, 1997 – -  11:20A.M.

“A compact light blue station wagon (Foreign) drove by the house very slowly- It had two bicycles on racks at the back – Two people in car – Almost sure one (passenger) was Tevis – However, can’t be certain for m widow blind was halfway closed – they took a long look at our house, Then turned around and slowly drove off.”

But the police report 97-318-0205C that was written by Deputy Quadros #1570 (The same Deputy who promised me I could talk to my son) stated:

Violation of a restraining order. Statement of W01 Nick Mardesich: W01 Nick said he saw a small, foreign made, white station wagon, drive by his daughter’s house. Nick, who lives across the street from Connie, said S Tevis Ignacio was driving the vehicle. Nick said he had a good view of the driver, and, it was definitely Tevis driving the car. Statement of Connie Ignacio: V Connie said that she had been receiving odd notes, in her mailbox

On11/18/97 at 1545 hrs, I contacted Deputy Quadros concerning his contact with suspect Tevis Ignacio regarding his report of a violation of court order. (Case# 97-321-0094C which is attached to this complaint) Deputy Quadros stated that while receiving the new complaint made regarding him being seen by W01Mardesich. Tevis Ignacio stated that he was not the person seen, and that the witness must be mistaken. Deputy Quadros further added that the notes mentioned in his report and received by the victim were not threatening. They stated such things as “your committing perjury.”

My ex-wife filed another motion (12/17/97) asking for a full custody and a no contact order. Then they decided to put me in jail and had Judge Kenneth P. Barnum for Sunnyvale court sign the arrest warrant on 12/24/97 based on this police report.

I went into court on this Personal contact restraining order on 1-6-98, upset with the judge and had written down 12 questions that I wanted to put on the record first and told him he was “unjust and unfair.” As they claimed I drove by the residence and broke a restraining order and they also declared that I stated ”unless he puts $100,000 in the bank for respondent, a lot of people were going to get hurt.” As I wanted some of my assets to live on and they refused to give me anything for over three year.

As I let Judge Stewart know I had no money to live on and he wanted me to pay to see my son… as I told him I refused to pay to see my son and he stop the hearing and stated: ”There are people that have cases to put in front of me besides just getting out their hostility towards the Court.” Then order me to pay to see my son.

Then on February 2, 1998 my ex-wife attorney filed an OSC for the Court to appoint a Guardian Ad Litem, on the grounds of Incurable Insanity. I found out about the arrest warrant and I turned myself in and that was a big mistake for me, as I was not treated fair. I could not use any of my community assets to bail myself out of jail, and the public defendant, Shelgna Brown stated that I might have to pay for her service after learning all that I tied up in this divorce. She saw the two statement above and said to me that they wanted me in jail for a year and a half, or I can plead guilty and say that I am crazy and take medicine, and not get my son back or I would go to jail for a year and a half. I spent 16 days in jail.

I was in jail when the Guardian Ad Litem came before a different judge and I did not get a chance to speak and my ex-wife attorney Mr. Santoro transferred back in front of the judge that I claimed was bias, Judge Stewart.

As I was defending myself in the criminal trail, I had another hearing and could not be at two places at the same time I sent my sister Hilary to have this Guardian Ad litem continued and ask her to ask Connie for the extra key to the truck. She wrote this:

To whom it May Concern,

I am writing to inform you of the conversation that took place on April 29, 1998. I am not certain of the exact date at this time, but do have it documented at home with notes made that day.

I came into the family courts to inform Connie Ignacio and her attorney Michael Santoro that Tevis was detained in another court session and we would need a continuance. I then ask Connie for a key to the truck that my brother drives, she in turn stated it was her truck. Michael Santoro then spoke, asking me “Do you really want a key to the truck?” “Yes” I replied. Per Mr. Santoro and I quote “Maybe we can work a deal!” “You have your brother promise never to come to my law office uninvited and I will give you the key.” I explained to Mr. Santoro I cannot make deals for my brother, that he can make his own deals. Again Mr. Santoro quoted, “I don’t think so, don’t you think you had better e conservator for your crazy brother??” I walked off very upset. I don’t think any attorney should be speaking to me in that manner about my brother who I love very much and will stand behind 100% due to his honesty and integrity, which I am sure no one can say about Michael Santoro which probably upsets him and that is why he is after my brother for whatever hell he can put him through.

I will again testify to this statement, for I was raised an honest person also. I do want to state that Tevis Ignacio is the most honest, reliable, hard =-working person I know, this is not fair what you court system has allowed Michael Santoro and Connie Ignacio to do to him. If it continues we will have to go public with this disturbing news!!! AND I MEAN VERY PUBLIC!!!! I HAVE THE BIGGEST< MOST HONEST MOUTH I KNOW>>>> AND I HAVE HAD IT!!!!!!!

Sincerely,

Hilary Ignacio Robinson

In my criminal trial, I was told that if I pleaded guilty to these charges and took “medicine” that I would not have to serve the year and a half jail time that I was going to get if this jury found me guilty by the public defendant attorney that was assigned me by the State of California. As I tried to present the jury the evidence that “they” had put in my file, like my medical records, as it was all produced by my ex-wife, transcripts she made, and medical records and hand written note from my ex-father in law, and lists of possible sightings that they had turned in as evidence and had me arrested and I wanted to explain to the jury what was going on, but the Judge stop me and then told the jury to step outside the court when I tried to get the jury to look at “my side or viewpoint” and the Judge told me I could not tell the jury anything regarding the evidence that they put in my file.

The Judge told the prosecutor, Johnee Stebbins while as the jury was out that the State should be producing these transcripts and not the ex-wife as I was trying to say that they were setting me up. When I did report these things to the FBI they came after me and had been following me around and breaking into places that I stayed while I am in hiding from reporting their crimes, and all kinds of stuff that they do.

I mean it is hard to tell a jury that the local government is corrupt in front of a judge who allows this kind of “set up.” Well I was found not guilty on one charge and a hung jury on the charge that they tried to have me thrown in jail for, making telephone calls in the middle of the day asking for my stuff, left on the answering machine.

Now because I successfully represented myself in criminal court, that divorce judge James W. Stewart could not appoint a Guardian Ad Litem for me, so when I did appear before him, I complain to him about the abuse again and that I could not get any assets to live on, and that they used my medical records in my criminal trail. Judge Stewart said I had to file a motion for each cause to get be heard, which I had done and told him it had been set 49 days from when I submitted it. (Set for July, 21, 1998) Judge Stewart was then told by my ex-wife attorney Mr. Santoro that the law that such a motion has to be heard in 30 days. Judge Stewart told me to file another motion to shorten time, which I did and Judge Stewart set it for a week earlier on July 13, 1998. This was my second attempt to file a motion with the court for relief because he set the first one on the wrong calendar and I had gone to jail and trial in-between that time and this time. So I had filed an OSC on June 3,1998 again for financial relief which the court had set for July 21,1998. This “shorten time” Motion, was my third attempt at seeking to get back into my house.

My fourth motion I submitted an OSC for a New Judge on June 16,1998 declaring Judge Stewart bias (170.6). That was filed on June 18,1998. Thinking by law they have to give me a new judge.

The right conferred by… section 170.6 … is a substantial right, which is now part of the system of due process and judicial fair play in this state. (McCauley v. Superior Court (1961) 190 Cal. App2d 562, 564{12Cal. Rptr.119}.) “The purpose of the disqualification statute is … to promote fair and impartial trial…” (International Union of Operating Engineers v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App3d 340, 349 {254 Cal. Rptr.782} As stated by the Superior Court, “’[i]n order to insure confidence in the judiciary and avoid the suspicion which might arise from the belief of a litigant that the Judge is bias in a case where it may be difficult or impossible for the litigant to persuade a court that his belief is justified, the Legislature could reasonable conclude that a party should have an opportunity to obtain the disqualification of a judge for prejudice, upon a sworn statement, without being required to establish it as a fact to the satisfaction of a judicial body.”’ (Solberg v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal. 3d at pp. 192-193, quoting Johnson v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal. 2d at p.679.)

I submitted my fifth Motion (relating to vexatious litigant law) to seal my Medical Records and protect my civil rights and had cited confidentiality laws since they had no legal authority use them against me.

Since I had not signed any forms form from the Court or Doctor Misset to use in Court. Which the Court knew, Judge Stewart intentionally and illegally denied to seal these records on July 1,1998.

Because I filed these 5 motions and now seeking to get back into the home that I had been building and living in at the time, as my son was being watched by his grandma who lived across the street and I was going swimming and took walks and bike rides with him every day on my breaks from building this home, or after dinner, right before all this “divorce” stuff  went down, and they tried to get a “Guardian Ad Litem” on me, but could not, well they had the attorney who was buddy-buddy with this judge and did not want me to disqualify this judge file a OSC for a TRO to stop me from filing any documents under a pretends that I was a vexatious litigant, (which the law clearly states that you have to have lose 5 cases, I had not lost one) which Judge Stewart eagerly signed on July 15,1998 and it was filed on July 21,1998. This judge had been sued and disqualified on this issue so he knew the law.

The next time I walk into court I expected to see a new judge but had the same one. He said I had only 10 days to disqualify him from the start of the case to use this 170.6 code. (That was a lie) Then he called court to session and he knew from my declaration I had no money going into court. The Judge ask me if I filed an “Income and Expense Declaration” with the court? I said, I have no money, so I can’t spend anything and no income coming in. He knew he forced me off my property and work. He said, File the declaration with the court and come back next week to see if you get money from him.

As the attorney and the judge decided how to use my medical record legally only for the divorce case and agree not to share them is not to share them publicly and I had no say in this criminal act, the Judge gave only her attorney who type up an order for the judge to sign so he could use my medical reports against me in court.

I came into Court requesting that I get back to work on the house that was I was working on and to have some money on July 21/22, 1998 in which Judge Stewart had kick me out of, thinking that I would by law, be able to still get some sort of justice and him not taking my “word” that I was broke, I had my brother testify to him.

I had called my brother in to verify that I had no money to live on and that this was a burden on my family, as they could not understand how this judge could not let me have any assets to live on. As this caused hardship on the rest of my family members and they wanted me out of my parents home and into the home I had built. This judge heard the testimony of my twin brother at that trial and ask him question, and the judge wanted me to take my business and work out of my house and move it to my mother’s house, which nobody in my family (including me) ever wanted.

Every family has problems so I started with the one we had and I was trying to get back into my house the one I was forced off of, by this judge with this courts restraining order against me and my son, I ask my brother:

Q – Okay. Then there’s some problems there when you and our sisters Hilary and Laurie – - you got in a fight with them because Laurie wanted to move back in?

A – (Tracy) Yes. There was some argument about I had too much control over my mother’s estate.

Q – And we decided – - the whole family decided that nobody should be living at my mother’s house?

A – Yes.

Q – Did you want to – - did my wife Connie know about this? Did she type up letters and stuff like that to basically – - she knew all about that, nobody was supposed to be living there?

A – Yes, she was aware of it.

Q – Okay. So when I was – - when I stayed there for a couple of days when we got in an argument, was I – - did I have a place to stay permanently or temporarily?

A – I was under the understanding that you were their taking care of my mom, just helping my mom out.

Q – Yeah, for a couple of days when we got in an argument.

A – Yes.

Q – And I got a temporary restraining order. Was I allowed to stay there because of that or – - I mean, what’s the – - what do you see as – - do you think I should be living there right now?

Mr. Santoro: Objection, your Honor. I have refrained from objecting from all of the leading questions that have been asked but that ask for information that is supposition.

Q – Is my mom – -

Mr. Santoro: Not relevant.

Q – Is my mom – -

A – The Court: Of course I know that. Without the objection, it might be better.

Q – Is my mom capable – -

The Court: Let’s overrule it right now.

Q – Is mom capable of deciding her decisions for herself?

A – No. My mother has full -time help and is not able of taking care of herself. Since Tevis had no place to live, I’ve allowed him to stay there because if not he would be out on the street. Since then we’ve lost hired help because of him living there and many times the full – time person taking care of my mother Lorna has threatened to quit.

Q -Who is – -

The Court: Who is Tevis now?

A – Tevis is my twin brother. …. The person asking the questions … “I am.”

The Court: I’m sorry. All right. I’m sorry, Mr. Ignacio. Go ahead.

Q – Who’s paying for – - where do I get my food?

A – I do all the shopping. I take care of payroll, I take care of everything for my mother and I am now shopping two to three times a week mainly because of Tevis now living there. You know, normally I’d shop once a week for my mother but that Tevis is living there, I’ve pretty much taken on that responsibility of taking care of him.

Q – Okay. What was I doing before I got kicked out of my own property?

A – You were working on your house, building your house.

Q – And that was full – time – - basically a full -time job?

A – Yeah, more than full – time. You were working, I would say, as far as I know,12 to 14 hours a day.

Q – Okay. And the house isn’t done, right, as far as you know?

A – As far as I know, yes.

Q – Okay. Did the petitioner ever ask you for conservator ship to try to takeover my estates or my – - you know, to buy me out type of thing?

A – Yes. (She had ask him to be conservator or be appointed guardian ad litem of me)

Q – You denied that?

A – Yes.

Q – Why is it that I wasn’t bailed out right away?

A – Well, because we didn’t have the money.

Q – But you had access to it and I didn’t?

A – I had access to some of it, yes.

Q – Did I have access to it?

A – No.

Q – Okay. Do you think my mom wants me at her house?

A – No. In fact she’s asked for you to leave.

Q – Okay. Also, I ask Connie for the computer and I asked you if I can borrow a computer. You want to explain on – - because I’ve been trying to get my computer to go back to work.

A – Yeah. You’ve asked about a computer and I do have a computer but it’s my own from work. It’s my only personal computer which I need.

Q – So I don’t have access to a computer.

A – Not that I know of.

Q – and then one other question was I had a truck that was broken down and it still sits in front of our house and it needs work on it and there’s no key to it and I’ve been asking Connie for the key. Have you ever heard that?

A – Yes. Actually you are right. The truck is illegally parked in front of the house, (facing the wrong way, but not illegal) broken down, and from I heard that you’re asked for a key and the refused to give it to you.

Mr. Santoro: Objection. Hearsay.

The Court: Sustained. Stricken. (Of coarse I file a letter that my sister Hilary wrote, about Mr. Santoro action)

Q – Okay. That is all I have of this witness.

CROSS – EXAMINATION Q – (By Mr. Santoro:)

Mr. Ignacio, is it true that Tevis has resided at your mother’s house for the last year?

A – Not quite a year.

Q – Just about a year?

A – Yeah, about a year.

Q – How many bedrooms in that house?

A – There are five bedrooms.

Q – Besides your mother and him, is there anyone else living at the house?

A – Yes. There is a full-time care person living there.

Q – Who takes care – -

A – Yeah. My mother is unable to take care of herself so she needs full – time care.

Q – And does that person occupy one of the other bedrooms?

A – Yes.

Q – So there’s three additional bedrooms?

A – No. There’s also weekend help and those persons have their own bedroom.

The Court: I’m beginning to piece this together. Your mother is under a conservatorship?

A – Yes.

Q – Is there a formal conservator ship that’s being filed?

A – Yes.

Q – In Santa Clara County Superior Court?

A – Yes. (That is not true, my brother did not understand the question. It was a living will, he did not understand the question.)

Q – You indicated that Tevis was working more than full – time on his house; is that right?

A – Yeah. I said that he’s working anywhere from 14 to 16 hours a day. I mean, that’s seven days a week, too.

Q – So what was he doing, what sort of work on the house?

A – Well, it started – - I mean, it started out as just a hillside so he build from scratch from day one. There was nothing there and he built a complete house.

Q – Did it all himself?

A – All except, I think, for the sheet rock and some of the foundation work.

Q – So he did the framing on the house?

A – Oh, yes.

Q – Did the roof?

A – Yes.

Q – He did plumbing?

A – Yes.

Q – Did electrical?

A – Yes.

Q – Did he pour concrete?

A – He helped pour concrete, yes.

Q – And he carried all the materials about the yard?

A – Yeah.

The Judge refused to grant me any assets. Thereby denying all access to file any documents in this courthouse. I could not even file for financial aid or to respond to his Ordered of a payment of $23 due on July 23,1998 filed on July13, 1998. The courthouse refused to accept any documents that I tried to file or respond to. I had to agree to an attorney to file documents and represent me. As my wife’s’ attorney stated on the record that they would pay for an attorney on the record, all I had to do is find one.

I went to a local attorney and she refused to take my case, as I found out later that there was a network going on that a group of attorneys did not take cases against one another and this group had the Judges in their pocket as to speak, and I could not get one of these inside attorneys because I got into a fight with the head judge and they all would not take my case.

My sister knew an attorney out of the county. Although I had told this attorney about some of this stuff going on, he did not think I should disqualify the judge. That attorney told me that the judge had to give me money to live on and filed document for a “Motion for reconsideration” for all these assets around 8/1/98 and made one court appearance on my behalf before another judge on the motion to declare me a vexatious litigation on 8/11/98. My ex-wife attorney told the new judge, that this issue should be heard by his buddy, Judge Stewart who already declared me vexatious on a temporary basis, as my attorney said that he is being represented by counsel so it should be dismissed. That Judge sent it back to Judge Stewart who I had disqualified because Judge Stewart was the head judge in that courthouse.

Then my attorney got paid before I could even get a dime to live on, so I had to let him go as he charged me too much money and he was getting paid off by my ex-wife out of our community assets and I could not get any money what so ever from.

Judge Stewart knew about how this attorney was paid, by my wife as they bragged about it to the new mediator who thought this was okay as Jean O’Brien stated under oath … I wonder how he got money out of my assets and I could not?

Q – Did you learn anything or draw any conclusions – - well, first let me ask you this. You said you met with the father?

A – Yes.

Q – Did you learn anything that you’re relying on today from that meeting?

A – Yes I did. I learned that the father does not believe that he requires any medication, that he doesn’t believe he’s a danger to his son, that he wants to have visitation, that he was willing to have another psychiatric evaluation if mother paid for that. I did not recommend that. I think we have plenty of psychiatric information at this point. That there was a lot of anger towards mother and blaming of mother during that interview.

Q – What of mother?

A – Blaming of mother and anger towards the mother and the system. (Justice)

Q – What did you learn from the mother’s attorney actually, if anything, that you’re relying on today?

A – That the mother’s attorney actually – - that the mother actually paid for the father to have an attorney at that time, if that is correct. I believe Steven Leff was actually paid for by mother. That mother was very concerned about father’s psychiatric condition and also did not agree that father was complying with recommendations for treatment. (She paid out of community assets, I did not have any say in the matter and I could not get a dime for myself, I fired this attorney right after this as he could get money for himself but not for me.)

Q – Okay.

A – She couldn’t agree to a visitation schedule. (She did not want me to see or talk to my son, because he is going to see and hear all this and know that his mother is a liar and a cheat)

My CROSS – EXAMINATION of Jean O’Brien:

Q – Are you a doctor?

A – No.

Q – What are you basing most of your opinions on?

A – I’m basing my opinion on the screener’s notes, the doctor’s report. Dr. Missett’s, Dr. Havel’s brief notes, my contact with you and information I received from mother’s attorney.

Q- How long did you contact me, our meeting? How long was our meeting?

A – Very brief.

Q – About ten minutes? 20 minutes? What?

A – I don’t recall but I know it was very brief meeting.

Q – During that meeting, did I not say that her attorney already played this game with her brother, that they have –

Mr. Santoro: Objection: Objection, your Honor. Argumentative and irrelevant.

Mr. Ignacio: I’m asking her a question. Can I finish?

The Court: Overruled.

Q – (By Mr. Ignacio) That when her brother, her only brother and wife got divorced, that they have done this, said that she was mentally ill? And did he not say that he was just being a lawyer and that, you know, doing his lawyer thing and he basically snickered; do you remember that?

A – I don’t remember that. (Don’t you think if she were not bias she would remember a comment like that?)

Q – Okay. Do you think – - you said I wanted visitation; is that what you said earlier? You were stating I wanted visitation?

A – Yes.

Q – I said – - I told you I wanted visitation or custody?

A – Well, I assumed we’d start out with visitation. That was the issue, that my understanding was I was to assess the issue of visitation.

Q – But I always wanted custody. I’ve never said I wanted visitation. This is what this is all about.

A – Okay.

This person refused to see me and I had to report her to her boss to even give me the 15 to 20 minutes in which she did not care one bit about my side of the story. She was mad at me for reporting her to her boss.

I had noticed a group of people for the National Coalition for Family Justice, Inc had been picketing outside this courthouse and I stopped and ask them how long they had been picketing for. They said “SEVERAL YEARS” They past out flyers that read and I quote:

“The purpose of this flyer is to provide information about our organization and our reasons for picketing in front of this courthouse today. Our goals are to do the following:

1) To promote public awareness and draw attention to the abuse of judicial authority exercised by Judge James W. Stewart in Dept. 119 of the Superior Court (Family Division). These abuses include, but are not limited to:

a) Ex Parte Communications.

b) Gender bias.

c) Abdication of judicial responsibility and authority in favor of court appointed experts.

d) Violation of due process rights.

e) On-going demonstration of inappropriate and prejudicial courtroom behavior.”…

I file another OSC demanding a New judge when I learned about these legendary abuses, but as he was the head judge of the courthouse he just got one of his  followers, a judge Leslie C. Nichols to deny this OSC on November 19,1998, and help cover-up his misconduct. I don’t know when I started reporting these corrupt judges to the Commission on Judicial Performance for the State of California. But they claimed they did not have the authority to stop these abuses and over a long period of time I tried to get them to see all the corruption that was going on. I think after every trial I sent them something.

We had had a pre-trial meeting were we did stipulate to the price of “TRICON” my construction company and all parties signed this agreement. But when I brought it up at trial the judge did not honor the stipulation contract.

Then the attorney and judge put on a mock trial were they all lied under oath and claimed 96.8% of a former property that we had bought together for $180,000.And sold for $450,000. We had borrowed $90,000 loan from my ex-wife’s Father, in which I did pay 9%. We had signed a loan which we had a copy and Nick had a copy. We paid off the loan in a couple of years. But when I questioned Nick Mardesich about this loan he claims he could not remember anything about the interest rate or the note that we signed.

This judge refused to hear that I had paid back a $90,000 loan at 9% to her father. (I later find out that they claimed 96.8% of this house as they slipped in documents that stated such) In which I had also completely remodeled this property. Enlarged kitchen with family room, new dinning room, new living room, bays and bow windows. New Master suit and bathroom with Jacuzzi tub and separate shower, added two bedrooms upstairs. Enlarged bathroom downstairs, New landscaping front yard and back, Gazebo with outdoor bar attached, separate outside 8 seats Jacuzzi. Which I did all the work on.

They claimed under oath on June 8,1998 the home I was almost done with was$900,000 to $1,000,000. I could not have any of my three realtors view the property, while their appraiser; Michael Frangadakis gave a low number. Judge Stewart did not divide any of the household furniture, furnishings, appliances, jewelry, antiques, Art, checking accounts, insurance polices, retirement, pension, stocks, or 401 K plan. He refused to give me any money until after the trial was done, he awarded me and I quote:

“Petitioner shall pay to Respondent spousal support in the amount of $1,000 a month per month commencing June 1,1999, but payable only for a period of (90) days. The Parties shall return to Court on August 9,1999, at 1:30 p.m., to determine when the Respondent should have income imputed to him and Ordered to pay child support. The Court should give the Respondent ninety (90) days to put himself under the care of a physician such as Dr. Havel, a qualified Psychiatrist who can prescribe medication, and to follow that physician’s instructions as to medication. At the end of that time, if the Respondent has failed to do so promptly, then the Court will impute earnings of 3,750.00 per month to the Respondent, and base support thereon. This is his minimum earning capacity according to Mr. Harper. If Respondent does as this Court’s suggests, he should rapidly become employable.”

Even though I always asked for stocks and 401K assets in this after trial order he states and I quote:

“Attorney Elizabeth Strasen is assigned to value and divide the separate and community portions of the Stock Option and 401K Plan of Petitioner. Petitioner shall advance the fees for attorney Strasen, and receive credit for Respondent’s one-half.” (Again he refused me these assets and now I had to pay an attorney who refused to do this job) Nobody better believe that the Government does not know about this corruption.

Judge Stewart rewarded the only family vehicle to my ex-wife that we had paid over$23,000 for. Her old car was sold for $5,000. They refuse to give me any assets or keys to the broken down old truck that I had been driving and was towed away by a bad cop (that is another story) who gave me a ticket and I complained when she boxed my truck in and had it towed away as I called more cops to stop her and they came and were cover up her crime and would not write a report.

During this trial, which was spread out over three days (2-3-99, 4-8-99 & 5-5-99) Judge Stewart refuse to listen to one word I said. He had refused my basic right and knew I had not signed a form for Doctor to use in my medical records. My ex-father in law then lied again under oath on February 3,1999 and on April 8,1999 when I question him about his testimony in which he said, “He definitely saw me ”drive by in the criminal trial. And now he claimed he did not say that under oath. That he was not sure but he just called the cops and they did the rest.

I placed a lot of this in the records in which I even demanded an attorney on the record at my trial on April 8,1999, Judge Stewart reply and I quote:

“An attorney in this valley would not represent me!”

Even from the transcripts on February 3,1999, it reads on page 55 and I quote:

“The Court: Okay anything else?

Mr. Ignacio: I’d like to for the record show how there’s settlement of positions showing that she’s all – - like selfish. She wants everything, basically, and she hasn’t given me any disclosure of furniture or anything like that and it just shows how selfish they are. And I don’t want to bring my son up in that kind – - I mean, I want him to see both sides but you’re tying my hands because you don’t want the truth to come out to my –(son) – to a six year old child. And I haven’t seen my son in over a year because you ordered me to pay money to have visitations and I had no money. When I applied for financial aid, you denied it. How is this just? How is this right? If I can have access to some of my money so I can bring in some of these witnesses, I’d like to try to delay this a couple of days and get some of the witnesses in, (The next time I came in I ask for an attorney) But I don’t have – - why don’t you order them to pay some of my – - I mean, they don’t even pay my legal fees or anything. They haven’t given me a dime and we have enough assets in stocks alone that I should be able to do this but –

The Court: Well, in order for me to make those kinds of orders, someone has to make a motion.

Mr. Ignacio: I’ve made a motion and I’ve made several motions on several things and they have all been denied. I’ve made motions to deny them access to my medical records, which is illegal, and you haven’t even decided on that. ”

To protect my rights and have a proof for the record I filed another OSC, It was file on May 5,1999 and set for May 25,1999. When I complained at the hearing on May 5,1999 Judge Stewart agreed to hear only one part of that motion that day. The declaration dated April 20,1999 attached to this OSC clearly stated such things as:

2.) I have given bank statements as evidence on September 28,1998 (see 26 – 49 in the following documents) to show how the petitioner and her attorney have perjured themselves. This Judge refused to do anything about it!

3.) The petitioner has sold community stocks on 11/07/97 without notice to the Court or to respondent. Again this judge refused to do anything.

4.) I wrote and ask petitioner on 12-11-98 to sell my half of Compaq & 401 K at over $40.00 a share, Now that stock is worth less than $23.00 a share. She is mismanaging our community stocks which loss is about $60,000 to date. (It goes on to state about the Medical records -disclosure – failure of court order – people picketing – Tricon property that was stipulated and agreed upon on December 22,1998 – abuse of power – denying of any funds, est.)

The very next day I submitted another OSC declaring under oath that read:

1.) On May 5,1999, the petitioner or her attorney slip into my box of files an 85page document titled:

“Marriage of Ignacio’s separate property reimbursement claims related to the real property at11209 Stauffer Lane”

I discovered on May 6,1999 when I empty the box I brought to court. In that document I had discovered that they had claimed 96.8% of a former home I had remolded and added on to as separate property. This adds up to close to $400,000 of fraud that is another felony.

Judge Stewart denied to hear this Motion which was filed on May 12,1999. He then issued orders and a statement of decision the next day and filed it on May 17,1999. I filed a class action federal lawsuit to stop California divorce Judges from using the vexatious litigant statue in the manner that Judge Stewart did and not allow a person to file documents in the state of California.

I had my sister, Hilary Robinson, serve Judge Stewart with a class action federal lawsuit prior to the hearing on child support issue on August 9, 1999 and clearly told him and handed him the 85-page document that they had slip into my files. He knew what he was doing and as he continued and signed this motion and the final judgment after he turned to his buddy Mr. Santoro at the start of this hearing and joked about this lawsuit by saying “looks like we are being sued by Mr. Ignacio.” And then rewarding my ex-wife attorney fees ($19,000) so he can use this money my money to fight against any lawsuit I filed.

When I finally got a chance in front of a new judge, I hired an attorney who knew all about the federal lawsuit and I had hired him for both cases, and he wrote this declaration and turned it into the federal court because of Judge Stewarts replacement Judge May who then refused to let this attorney present my case and he filed this statement in the Federal action on Jan. 7, 2000:

“As the attorney for Tevis R. Ignacio, I appeared on December 6, 1999, in Department 75, the Family Court Division of the Superior Court in Santa Clara County before Jamie Jacobs-May. At that time and place, I attempted to read a two page type statement why CCCP 391 did not apply to cases under Family Law Codes of California and why the error … Reading the statement would have taken approximately six minutes of the fifteen allotted to me by said court… Judge Jamie Jacobs-May interrupted arguments twice in three minutes and the abruptly stopped it as I discussed the impact of erroneously applying CCCP 391 to any judgment… Under the ruling by Judge May for the Family Law Division of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, every act committed or omitted by said court creates a new cause of action in Federal District Court.

For example, Michael Santoro stated in open Court on the record on December 6, 1999 that Connie Ignacio would deposit 485,0000 to the bank account of Tevis Ignacio with in one week; Though a month has passed, neither Michael Santoro nor Connie Ignacio have acted as they promised the Court. Due to the operations of CCCP 391, Tevis Ignacio has no remedy within the Family Court division of the Superior Court of the Santa Clara County to compel Michael Santoro nor Connie to act as they promised the Court.

By excusing any performance of any duty owed to those who come under its jurisdiction by stripping them of all legal remedies to enforce “rights” CCCP 391 thus constitutes a taking of property without due process of equal protection of the law as guaranteed by Amendments Five and Fourteen to the Constitution of the United States. Furthermore, in the hearing of December 6,1999, Judge May stated that she has no alternative but to enforce the provisions of CCCP 391 as if it were constitutional even though it might not be because the Court of Appeal had once stated it to be constitutional. Judge May had been informed that Ellen Tanno had attacked S.B.2675 before judge James Stewart on the constitutional arguments in attempting to vacate a judgment of the Family Division of the Superior Court… Until and unless this court frees Tevis Ignacio of the status 391 imposed upon him in a manner contrary to the constitution of the United States, he will continue to suffer…”

Though I was very upset with my new attorney after paying him money and walking into the divorce court he turns to me and tell me that he wants the $20,000 attorney fees that Mr. Santoro was awarded because I had “already lost that money” and that he wanted that to fight the federal case (Vexatious litigant) which was his specialty as he was one of the only attorneys placed on this California list. I let him from my representing me from my divorce case, and had to let him represent me in federal court, because I was not getting copies of documents from him that I asked for, nor did I get copies from my other attorney that I ask for.

I had informed Connie’s Attorney Michael Santoro twice I was closing my bank account by the fist of the year and I let go of my attorney on 12/22/99 but he did not return any calls. I sent him a substitution of attorney (as it was filed 1/13/00 in divorce court) and a letter. Mr. Santoro, knowing such facts he submits documents to have Judge May signed an order on January 27,2000, that takes my name off my property at 11209 Stauffer lane in Cupertino. She also signs this document that states, “That any objection raised by me was untimely and will not be entertained.” Judge May was part of a cover-up, as she knew most of the story by then as I had warned her in a letter that sent the FBI/ US Marshal to my doorstep and they began to follow me around because I was threatening them with legal action when I had no rights to be heard in a court of law, but to them I they knew I could only make jesters.

I file another federal lawsuit this time in Reno, Nevada against the Judge May who went along with this cover-up and denied my rights to due process of law. At that time, I was trying to protect myself from the County attorneys that represent the judges for the county of Santa Clara as they turned in half transcripts in the federal action to mislead the judge in which my attorney charged me for him to turn in full transcripts of the December 6, 1999 hearing as my attorney also claimed he did not have enough money at the time to send out a bunch of copies in which I was on a limited budget and I could not afford the $20,000 he seem to want as he was also representing another client who was for free in a related action to this class action lawsuit.

Right after that Mr. Santoro filed a notice of withdrawal on January 31, 2000 and the helped transferred the name off my property on Feb. 3, 2000. I move out of state to Nevada, because I had no rights to due process in the state of California under the vexatious litigant law and I filed a Federal lawsuit CV-N-00-0059-HDM (VPC) in forma pauperis against the California Judge on Feb. 3, 2000 as they transferred my name off my property without transferring any funds to me. Valerie P. Cooke wrote a report and to deny me the right to proceed in forma pauperis and even though I paid the money on May, 8 2000, but that judge denied to hear that case based on her report and knew I had no money to appeal the case after I just gave them the money to hear it.

I was summons into court by the Judge who I sued in Nevada and she told me that she was related to one of the attorneys that my ex-wife had hired and asked me if I wanted her as the judge, I told her I had to sue her to get justice because of all that is involved in this mess and she recused herself.

The State next assigned Judge Mary Ann Grilli, who I had to disqualify because Judge Grilli name was in the documents that she was judging on, because she had used this Vexatious litigant statute against Ellen Tanno after she had judge Stewart disqualified. Because Judge Stewart had threaten to place Ellen Tanno on this vexatious litigant list! In which another judge out of the county of Santa Clara had to disqualify Judge Stewart.  Judge Grilli was in a position to cover-up for herself and her colleges if she heard this case. She had an obligation to recuse herself, but she did not.

Then this case was assign to Judge Jerald A. Infantino. When I came before him on December 14, 2000 we had a short hearing (7 pages transcript) and I objected to the limit of documents this judge said I could turn in. Because my ex new attorney who was seeking $10,000 for this one motion turned in 83 and I could only respond with 10. When I stated that I was going to declare him bias (170.8) and got up to leave and stood up and put on my hat, the Deputy Joseph Sanchez did not want me to walk out and stopped me.

I declared under oath before this judge and the court in court documents that this judge fixed the transcript and added lines 20 and 21 on page 5. When deputy Joseph Sanchez took me out of the court- room and checked my ID, I ask him a question about a time for the next trial and he went back in and got a yellow note pad, which he wrote. (Which I previously posted on line)

“2/8/01 1:30 #73   10 pages Double Spaced ”

So if you don’t trust me ask deputy Joseph Sanchez (under oath) its his handwriting. He’ll remember, but he will not want to get this judge in trouble. He did not write “and 15 pages of attachments.”

Judge Infantino then had fixed the transcripts and committed perjury in his declaration under penalty of perjury, filed on January 30,2001, he claims he requires all parties and attorneys in all actions before him to limit their pleadings to ten (10) pages and their attachments to fifteen (15) pages.

I could not get this judge declared bias and he abused his authority the next time I saw him. I had reported him to the Commission of Judicial Performance and the FBI but they both allow this to happen to date. Judge Infantino had a one sided trial in which his bias is overwhelmingly obvious to any reasonable person. He asks me: (Transcripts in album 3-7-1)

The Court: What about getting other kind of work where you don’t need your tools? Have you tried to get any other kind of work?

A – Why would I need to work if – -

The Court: Because you have child support.

A – What?

The Court: Because you have child support.

A – The Thing is I have million dollars. I can invest that money and make money off of that.

The Court: In the meantime, while you don’t have the money, why aren’t you working, paying support?

A – Because I’m fighting a case. – -

The Court: Let’s go to the next item which would be, I guess – -

The Respondent: And it makes no sense for me to work at McDonald’s for $5 an hour when I can make thousands of dollars an hour. …. We go on to argue that ends up like this …

The Court: Can’t you rent a van?

The Respondent: With what money?

The Court: Well, can’t you work at McDonalds to make enough money to rent a van?

The Respondent: Does that make sense?

The Court: Yes. To me it does.

The Respondent: Okay. You might have to do that.

The Court: No, I wouldn’t have to do that. I would do that.

The Respondent: Well, we’ll see.

The Court: I would do that if I had to.

The Respondent: All right.

He places a 10-year restraining order on me from my son and rewarded $10,000 to his buddy attorney Mr. Hammon. He refused me any interest on over $450,000,claiming under

#2:“The equalizing payment in the amount of $485,438.00 shall not have any interest included as a result of the conduct of the Respondent in not cooperating and accepting the funds pursuant to the existing Court Order.”

He rewarded about $12,000 in child support even though I could not have any assets or tools to work, and that I had paid $3,666 to petitioner and he knew that they been rewarded another $6,000 under the Family Code Section 4600, which Connie’s former attorney Mr. Santoro already had a $6,000 account rewarded to him for.

They also held over $100,000 of my community assets stocks and 401Kwhich at 10% would be more than enough to cover the child support given the fact that is over $10,000 a year and it was only under $8,000 a year for child support at $666 a month. He then rewarded another $6,000 for child support to satisfy any support after March 2001.

As I tried to file documents in both the federal and State of California, I was denied this basic right as the State would use this law, “ORDER DENYING PERMISSION TO FILE PAPERS CCP section 391.7” filed on Feb. 6 2001 and again on Mar. 6 2001 claiming

“Respondent was found to be a Vexatious Litigant on July 15, 1998. Respondent seeks ex parte leave to file an oversized Order to Show Cause motion (approximately 125 pages) relating to Modification of a variety of matters. No good cause has been shown to justify the filing of a motion of this length. Accordingly, the request to file an oversized Order to Show Cause is denied.”     Like my son, Ryan is not a good cause?

I had been trying to get the federal court to hear the first case against Judge Stewart on this (vexatious litigant statue) matter and abuse and cover up of it. I filed another lawsuit vs. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., on April 4, 2001 in the Northern District of California, Case No. C- 01-20278 RMW. This complaint was about not protecting the rights of people to due process of law and claim the local government was corrupt.

In this case, County Counsel office (Santa Clara County) filed a motion to dismiss this case because I reported that Deputy County Counsel Mark A. Gonzalez who was the attorney for James Stewart, and was being sued because he turned in half transcript under penalty of perjury on January 21,2000 to deceive the federal judge Susan Illston in the vexatious litigant case titled Tevis R. Ignacio v. James W. Stewart, Case No. C99-4829 SI.

Though I claim this to be a related case in my filing, the “local” federal court decided to say it was not and Judge Ronald M Whyte allowed County Counsel to get away with turning in half transcripts of the argument that my attorney tried to make to the judge who was related to my ex-wife attorney who I had sued in this federal action under penalty of perjury to another federal judges and dismissed this case to cover up all this corruption and abuse that I was reporting and seeking justice in, as I filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Docket Number 03-15040)

I then was summons before another divorce judge, C. Randall Schneider who wrote this in a letter to the Commission on Judicial Performance on May 20, 2003 after I reported him for bias and limiting my response to 50 pages.

“On April 1, petitioner was requesting, inter alia, a court order that Mr. Ignacio post a $100,000 bond to secure the payment of child support in arrears and to pay her attorney’s fees of $29,000 for successfully defending a federal court action previously brought by Mr. Ignacio. Mr. Ignacio and Mr. Hammon were ordered to meet and confer, and then to notify the court which issues could be heard within the time limitations. After Conferring, Mr. Hammon notified me that Mr. Ignacio may wish to challenge me. Mr. Ignacio then made an oral challenge pursuant to “section 170.8 (sic), that I have a federal case pending,” and “that you’re to be biased because of all the corruption,” which was not supported by a declaration, oral or written. His unverified oral challenge was denied. (See People v. Bryant (1987) 190 CA3d 1569, 1573.)

Mr. Ignacio was then ordered to file a response to petitioner’s motions. His “Responsive Declaration to an Order to Show Cause re Domestic Violence Prevention” was stricken as irrelevant since petitioner was making no requests for orders regarding domestic violence prevention. After an extended discussion, Mr. Ignacio was ordered to file a response not to exceed five pages specifically addressing petitioner’s request for a child support bond and attorney’s fees regarding the federal case. The court initially ordered a 50-page limitation on his over-all response on all other issues, but, ultimately, Mr. Ignacio was given leave to file a response to Mr. Hammon’s motions without page limitation (RT of April 1, page 33, lines 21-24). The matter was continued to the April 22 law and motion calendar and Mr. Ignacio was ordered to file his response by April 16.”

At that time the court refused to except my “Responsive Declaration to Order to Show Cause and made me staple on a cover sheet of “Domestic Violence Prevention” so they could stricken it as irrelevant. As I claimed and shown Mr. Hammon more evidence that in another case I sat in on, my sisters Case No. 1-99-FL-088967 under Judge Grilli June 18,2002 transcripts were fixed as I reported it to the authorities and my federal Appeals court case 03-15040 in my filed on Feb. 18,2003.

When I received the transcripts of April 1,2003 I reported as fixed and stated that Judge Schneider letter said, “successfully defending” when the judge said that my ex “WON” in court… that was fixed. And also he added these lines on page 33, lines 21-24

“21 THE COURT: ANY RESPONSE PLEADINGS TO MR. HAMMON’S MOTION

22                              YOU CAN FILE WITHOUT LIMITATION – -

23                              Mr. Hammon: Thank you very much.

24                              THE COURT: AS TO PAGE LIMIT. ALL RIGHT.”

What happen was just like what Judge Infantino had done but demanded 10 pages response to what the petitioners’ attorney could submit 70 pages without any restrictions. When I argued this was not fair he stated that I could follow up it the petitioners motion in a response of up to 50 pages, but he made it perfectly clear to me if it was over 50 pages he was going to sanction me. Even the transcripts say this,

“THE COURT: RESONSE TO MR. HAMMON’S REQUEST WITHOUT LIMITATION. HOWEVER, ANYTHING OVER 50 PAGES WILL CARRY A SPECIAL FILING FEE. AND I’LL SET THAT IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING OVER 50 PAGES.”

Now I am asking, do you think a judge who just said that would take it back at the end of his threat? If you think he did, why did he sign a COURT ORDER on April 16, 2003 drawn up by Mr. Hammon that reads #4 Respondent’s Responsive pleadings can include up to 50 pages.

I mean really, I would not think these divorce judges can award a divorce attorney $29,000 for attorney fees in a federal case, which the divorce attorney did not represent any party and the federal court did not grant the attorney fees when requested by her attorneys when they motion for their attorney fees and I “successfully defending” that motion. I really mean this Mr. Hammon asks the court to award $10,000 to my ex for having to file a motion and she granted that too.

As I tried to get this divorce case moved again using the law Title 28 USCS 1443 that gives the defendant the right to remove a state court hearing to federal court. I filed in Nevada to remove this case to federal court (Case No. CV-N_03-0282- DWH-RAM) but again that court refused to hear an argument and sends it back to the same corrupt courthouse so they can award attorney fees in federal action.

Well I came into California to try to stop them from brainwashing my son and changing his last name to Mardesich, as I fought this fight, I realized that I would not win and I stop coming into California. I was served in Reno Nevada to go into California to explain why I should not pay the federal attorney fees and the $10,000 that Mr. Hammon ask for my ex for bringing this motion and I responded by writing in a declaration and did not show up and Mr. Hammon produced an false arrest warrant out on me for not coming to court from Nevada, as the State Court has no authority to summons me into court in to pay federal attorney fees that that state court did not hear. I have been a fugitive ever since.

In fact when I was finally caught in California, Mr. Hammon told the judge I was crazy and I could not enter a plea and was released after agreeing to see a Doctor, and I was to call in a make a plea of guilty or innocent after the report to see if sane enough to stand trial for my crime of not showing up to a the State of California divorce Court Judge Order to Show Cause why I should not pay Federal Attorney fees of $29,000 to Mr. Hammon who did not represent my ex-wife in the Federal case and was seeking $10,000 for my ex-wife and his attorney fees for bringing this motion,

But the ordered attorney refused to defend me in court and he the doctor refused to turn in his report to this attorney or the court according to emails I received from this Court Ordered attorney who I could not fire by court order. As the emails attached show…

Subject: RE: I need confirmation as to “substitution of attorney” for my records.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:19 AM

From: “Charles B.”

Mr. Ignacio;

I have a pretty thick skin so, no my feelings are not hurt.  Please do not concern yourself with that.

With regard to your capacity to represent yourself, the Court made a determination at the last hearing (which you chose not to attend) that until the Court receives Dr, Cook’s report that, as a matter of law, you are not capable of representing yourself.  Frankly, if you do not want me to represent you I do not want to force myself on you, and I am not.  It is the

Court which has made this decision.

Nonetheless, until I am relieved as your attorney I will represent you to the best of my ability.  This does not mean that I will do everything you want me to do.  As you pointed out, you and I do not always (ever?) see eye-to-eye regarding the law and/or the strategy or tactics, which should be followed in your case.  However, I am the lawyer and I know the law.

Clearly you do not.  For this reason I will be making the strategic and tactical decisions in your case until the Court see fit to relieve me or until you are deemed competent and we file the substitution.  You may not like it, but that is the way it is.

With regard to the 9th Circuit documents you presented to me they are clearly immaterial to the contempt matter before the Court in this case.  I am not going to waste my or the Court’s time submitting them, so please do not ask again.

Please try to understand that in our meetings I found you, for the most part, to be a personable and likeable fellow.  In other words, I like you as a person.  But after communicating with you (and based upon my inexpert opinion) I believe that you may have a fundamental difficulty accepting reality.  Perhaps you want so badly to believe the truth of your position that you block out the possibility of any reasonable alternatives.  I don’t know this for a fact.  Like I said, I am not an expert in this area. However, I must admit that I will not be surprised if Dr. Cook determines that you lack capacity.

In either event, take care of yourself and stay safe.  I am looking forward to meeting with you again.

Yours;

Charles R. Bohn, Esq.

Staff Attorney

Legal Aid Society of Santa Clara County

Charles B wrote:

Mr. Ignacio;

I was informed by the Court today that they still have not received Dr. Cook’s report.  I believe that you may be correct and it is possible that the Court may need to apply some persuasion in order to compel Dr. Cook to provide his report.  For this reason I will be issuing a subpoena to Dr. Cook to compel his appearance (and the production of his report) in court.  In order to do this I must direct that you also appear on that date to return on the warrant, otherwise there would be no reason for the hearing.

I have set November 1, 1007 at 8:30 am in Department 94 of the Santa Clara County Superior Court for a hearing on your return on the bench warrant issued against you on August 2, 2007.  On that same date and time I have subpoenaed the appearance of Dr. Cook to testify regarding your competency to assist in your defense.  I have done this based upon my good-faith belief that you will appear as directed by your attorney.

RE: I need confirmation as to “substitution of attorney” for my records.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:41 AM

From: “Charles B.”

Cc:  “‘Customer Service’” , “‘Mears, Michael’” >, “‘Bianchi, Peter’”

Mr. Ignacio;

While you have been advised of this in the past, it appears that the message bears repeating.  Because you are represented by counsel in this matter DCSS cannot and should not respond to you except in the presence of your attorney.  For this reason I must direct DCSS, by this e-mail, to not respond to your e-mails or any other attempts by you to communicate with DCSS regarding your contempt action until such time as I have been relieved as your attorney.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you but I am obligated to protect your interests in this contempt action and must insist that DCSS respect your legal rights, even if you do not have the willingness and especially if you may not have the capacity to understand or assert those rights.

Yours;

Charles R. Bohn, Esq.

Staff Attorney

Legal Aid Society of Santa Clara County

Sent Nov. 2, 2007

Mr. Ignacio;

To say I am frustrated with you and your paranoia induced legal ignorance would be an understatement of the first water.  The operative phrase in your latest communication to me is “I think . . .” Unfortunately you may think, but you do not know.  You are not acting upon knowledge, but upon what appears to be a pattern of delusion.  Based upon your communications to me it seems that you have consistently and continuously made improper assumptions based upon false beliefs fabricated from an incomplete and inaccurate assessment of the legal facts and procedure in your case. Frankly I get the feeling that you have difficulty trusting anyone and as a result you would not recognize, or even trust, the truth if it walked up right up to you.

If you had trusted me we could have had a hearing yesterday, because Dr. Cook did provide his report to the court.  However, because you are clearly incapable of trusting me, you acted upon your own inaccurate understanding of the legal system and chose to not appear in court as promised.  As a result your hearing could not proceed and I was unable to receive a copy of Dr. Cook’s report.  I did however, have the opportunity to review the report and I will gladly take your telephone call to discuss it with you, but I will not discuss it in writing in an email.

Also, I am curious why you think the federal court in Nevada would even have jurisdiction to hear your case?  Was the money taken from an account in a Nevada bank?  Was the amount taken more than $75,000?  Are you alleging a violation of a federal law?  Did you even name the proper agency as a defendant?  I may be wrong but I do not believe that it was DCSS who took your money.  From what I understand, and again I could be wrong but I am trying to help you here, usually it is a state agency such as the Franchise Tax Board, not DCSS, who actually performs these types of garnishments.  You may want to check into this and amend your complaint accordingly.

Yours,

Charles R. Bohn, Esq.

Staff Attorney

Legal Aid Society of Santa Clara County

The State of California claims I can not represent myself and orders an attorney to cover-up crimes by claiming that “they” are protecting my interest in this matter as they have placed an $150,000 arrest warrant out on me in California, for reporting them, and if I get caught, it is like I will be thrown in Guantamamo Bay, Cuba with no rights and no one will be allowed to see me, because I have proof that they abused me and covered it up with the use of their titles as “government officials.”

I have to wonder how many people do not file appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States when they are denied justice… let’s face it… should people really spend there hard earned money and time trying to get justice from this kind of justice system.

What I can tell is this is probably there standard practice… “The Government” that is…” waving its right to respond”…

Yeah… when the odds are 1 out of every  100 cases that make it pass the clerks… and could get a lotto number… for a chance to be heard… and the rest are dismissed without any comment…

So unless…  this case has the lucky six numbers… the “Government” will play the odds and not take any of the other 99 cases seriously…

As I am trying to figure out how they would pick the one case… thinking if they role the dice… 10 times (possible numbers for 100) 70 is the ideal number… and I have the “one” above it… at 09-6971…

maybe if they look at the thickness of the document… because I tried to keep this “one” thin as I know, nobody wants to read complaints… and they can get pretty thick going through two courthouses…

maybe they throw darts… put a hole in the case… so it can help them dismiss the case later… saying the case had a hole in it…

I know… they have just changed to computer filing… maybe I’ll do what all those other people do and pay someone to get my case heard… or tap into the mainframe and put my case at the top of the list… like changing an F to an A on a report card you know… Yeah I flunked Philosophy in College, but my report card shows an A… don’t tell my family and friends… People in government do it all the time. Look at how easy it is for them to change the title of my case.

well… back to this “Government” under the Solicitor General who is defending this action as they play the odds…

and saying there motto Hear no evil, Speak no evil, See no evil, …

Unless requested to do so by the Supreme Court???  Seriously is this a justice system that anyone can trust.