Judges do not punish women for lying, they add to it.
This page was last updated on Saturday, November 15, 2014.
Criminal Coercion is an act of extortion and unlawfully restricts another person’s freedom and this is what some women do. Their motive is to accuse their victim for personal gain, and then play the ‘abuse card’ to get their own way. If the abuse card does not work, they alter the documents and this behavior is also very common. Lawyers and prosecutors do this frequently and their magic words are "I cannot recall" and this is a lie of omission. The problem is that the ‘shield laws’ limit what a defendant may ask a female.
That is more about ‘Catch-22' when the circumstances present undesirable alternatives. If man did not beat his wife, then she must have beaten him. This means that he is guilty of corporal (physical or bodily) abuse. This is not a misprint. The courts have convicted men of abuse for simply shielding themselves from attack. That means that she is free to continue to lie because the absence of evidence is the only evidence that the court will try. That is treachery.
Most of the reports of violence and abuse do not include the witnesses and this is also true in false allegations of rape. That is one connection between the two crimes, rape and abuse. The other is the lack of evidence that the purported crime did occur. So while questioning the veracity of female’s claim of rape may not be politically correct, failing to consider that she may be lying eradicates the presumption of innocence.
This Constitutional right is especially significant when dealing with allegations of rape. As in most jurisdictions, sex offenses and female spousal abuse are the only crimes that do not require corroborating evidence for arrest or conviction, thus depriving a man of his liberty and property. The reason for this is that often no witnesses or physical evidence exists because the purported victim delays in filing the report. This means that the matter rests on the credibility of the accuser who has lied. So assessing the credibility of the alleged victim takes on special importance, especially to those who were falsely accused and the episode never occurred.
According to an Associated Press report, the government can deport immigrants who have not obtained U.S. citizenship. So prosecutors may decide to file lesser charges or charge the innocent party to avoid conviction and mandatory deportation. "We are not talking about giving alternative charges." Said District Attorney Nancy O'Malley. If that is true, what kind of charges are they, prefabricated or preferential? So they have to blame the victim, who is now the defendant, for the crimes that she committed (November 2, 2012). According to O'Malley, they have to lie to avoid telling the truth. The rub is that so few of the scholars have any sense of this truth themselves — Benjamin Farrington. This also applies to prosecutors and there is your evidence.
Theft and Fencing Stolen Goods
Hilda and her sons, Jonny and Roberto were in the business of theft and fencing stolen goods. They stole from my mother's house and burgled other homes. So they probably needed space to store their stolen goods. The reason that they did not use a self storage rental facility was that they were thieves and the police inspected public storage facilities for stolen goods from time to time. So my home, with its storage room would be a perfect place to hide that property.
So after the court had wrongly evicted me, Hilda and her sons converted the loft in the garage to another bedroom. Moreover, they had filled the garage and other areas with furniture, appliances, and other items that were not previously there. These included many irreplaceable items that were worth tens of thousands of dollars, and not including their intrinsic and sentimental value. Among the stolen items were my two concert violins that Jonny Duenas mounted on his car. How could the police miss that?
Note: However, the police could be simply acting out of revenge after I had uncovered a false rape scheme that a female detective of the police department had engineered (See false allegations of rape). This may mean that she may have been one the prominent instigators behind this scheme. Since then (1989) the Vallejo police department has had many more problems.
I contacted the court at one point and asked permission to return property to my clients. This property belonged to the clients while other property belonged to the Government. Hilda and her sons did not want that and so they called the police. So when the officer arrived, I showed him the documents and he did not care and instead threatened me with arrest. So I made it clear that this was Government property and any interference on his part would be abetting the illegal transfer of that property to foreign nationals. However, the real issue was that the police were using this episode to harass. In doing, they proved that their loyalties laid not with this country but elsewhere. Otherwise, I would not be writing this now because a straw man is a person set up to serve as a cover for a questionable transaction. That's why they played role in transferring stolen technology. Copyrights and Patents are used to protect a person's work that may be or could be protected and regulated by law.
Hilda's False Accusations, June 14, 1993
Hilda and Roberto left the house together in his car. Yet the crime report (93-13196) shows a gap of more than four hours before Hilda contacted the police. The point is that Dialing 911 is just three digits away and it does not take a day to file a complaint unless it is false. Moreover, this raises another point. How can a woman who was born in 1935 be only thirty-seven years old in 1993? Was this a case that when the facts do not fit, ignore them or better yet, hide them? The neighbors probably knew that nothing had happened and that is why the police decided to ignore them. Moreover, falsely reporting a crime is punishable but that rarely happens. So the police simply ignore those facts that would not fit. The neighbors probably knew what happened and that is why the police never contacted them. This was also true with the Cheryl Sheldon matter involving her false allegations of rape.
According to the police report, Hilda claimed that I had abused her Monday, June 14, 1993, between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. and that is not true. She did not contact the police until 4:00 P.M.. It does not take five hours to see the police and file a report. Recently, Hilda was accusing me of adultery when in fact she was seeing another person. Adultery does not look good on a person’s performance report especially if that person is a cop and some cops in Vallejo had a bad reputation for 'skirt chasing'. That is in the public record. Note her birthday on this report. It is October 4, 1935. In a subsequent report she would change it to October 7, 1935.
Shortly after my arrival at the Solano County jail, another Vallejo police officer and a female deputy sheriff came to my cell and verified my identity. They were puzzled and asked why I was there. I told them that I didn't know why I was in jail except that the police accused me of abusing Hilda. The sheriff's deputy said that they have a missing person's report concerning me and there were no warrants for my arrest.
On that same day (June 17, 1993), Commissioner David Haet held an ex-parte hearing with Hilda. She implied among her other lies that Roberto lived in my home and that the restraining order should include Roberto. Haet issued a temporary restraining order (F003237) based on her lies and soon after others had moved into my home with Hilda. Then Saturday, June 19, 1993, the Vallejo Times Herald published a log stating that the Vallejo police arrested me on June 17, 1993 at 10:30 p.m. at my home. The problem was that it did not happen that way. I went to the police and they arrested me at the police department after reporting that Wells Fargo Bank had put all of my accounts into Hilda's name. That meant that my outstanding checks would not be honored. That set the stage for entrapment.
The Civil Complaint (F003237) - False accusations of spousal battery are now common because they are so easily contrived. On July 8, 1993, I appeared and Haet did not show himself for that matter. Instead, he hid in his chambers and did not want to hear the truth. Ms. Joanne S. Taylor, my wife's attorney, and I met in the hall outside the courtroom. During that meeting, Ms. Taylor served the divorce papers (F003455) and presented three fake Polaroid photographs of Hilda. Ms. Taylor attributed what the pictures depicted to me and threatened lengthy litigation. Ms. Taylor admitted that someone took the pictures a week after the incident.
I asked Mr. William L. Crow to represent me in the matter. Ms. Taylor showed the pictures to Mr. Haet and Mr. Crow. Mr. Haet called the case and the matter of F003237 was consolidated within the dissolution of marriage F003455. The result was, that Mr. Haet evicted me from my home and handed over my home and possessions to Hilda and her grown sons. I had to pay the mortgage, utilities, and make other payments. The order falsely stated that Hilda pay me $1,500 when fact was I paid her $1,500 and I have the canceled check to prove it. Someone altered this order after I signed it and judges have admitted that this was a common practice.
On July 8, 1993, the California mutual standard restraining orders, came into effect. These orders were supposed to protect my property but they did not. The court altered the order to nullify any protection of my property. That was why Hilda never had to comply with the restraining orders. Moreover, she stole my mail and retained the bills and mortgage statements, demanding that I pay her in cash. She entered my office and harassed me, making it impossible for me to work. Later hearings would give me exclusive use of the office in the lower portion of my home. A new paper stated that Mr. Crow would provide Ms. Taylor copies of the family's financial records. After I signed the August 19, 1993 orders, someone changed it. A cursive script appears on all written parts but someone printed that court revoked the restraining orders after I signed them (Item 8). Then Taylor complained that I had changed the locks to my basement office but that was how Hilda was able to legally steal my property
This order was prepared on Thursday,
August 19, 1993.
Please note that in Item 8 that someone had printed that restraining orders are revoked.
Intellectual and Software Piracy and Foreign Nationals
I had received an order from Pivotal Graphics in San Jose, California to install a 10-second timeout feature in their standard and fast firmware products. This modification was required by ABB to meet a government requirement and its specification. Hilda and her sons were foreign nationals and they had no need to know or right to know about my role in Government work, for that matter, neither did anyone else. I decided to return the properties that belonged to my client before Hilda and Roberto could steal them.
On November 16, 1993, Roberto had some of my personal items and tools strewn in and about his car at my home. They had entered my office and took some items and tampered with equipment. I took what I could, including papers required for this matter. The adjoining tool room was a mess. During this, I saw him smirking with my video camera recording the event. I wrote to Mr. Crow that I would return my client's (Pivotal Graphics) equipment on November 18, 1993 and I did not want any distraction with continued photography and recording.
Eventually Hilda did enter my office with the help of her sons and stole valuable tools, equipment, and my notebooks. Those notebooks contained trade secrets that I have developed since 1968 and they were my private property just as a diary would be. Years ago, computer software could not be patented. But an innovative device that uses computer programs, called firmware, could be patented and that was the value of those notebooks. Today, software piracy is a global problem of immense economic proportions.
Returning Company Property
With the court’s permission, I went to my home at 209 Gary Circle with a friend to recover some items. When I returned that Thursday, Hilda and Roberto were furious and they called the police. When the police arrived, I showed the court orders and a Pivotal Graphic's company official and I showed the inventory papers that included descriptions and serial numbers. One officer implied that he would arrest someone, and that meant me, upon additional complaint. Later that day, Roberto went to the Department of Motor Vehicles and, without possession of the car's title, replaced my name with his on my car's registration. Subsequently, I had to pay the fines that accrued due to his deception and the Department of Motor Vehicles' incompetence.
The Court scheduled several hearings scheduled in the spring of 1994. Ms. Taylor filed a contempt action against me and I made several appearances without being heard. When I appeared for a hearing in April 1994 and learned that former District Attorney, Mr. Mike Nail, would hear this matter, I requested his disqualification for prejudice. Then I received a misdemeanor complaint (111412) from the District Attorney's Office on or about April 19, 1994. It stated that I disobeyed a restraining order. How was this possible when the court had revoked the orders?
Tampering with the Video tapes
The audio video transcript of the hearing held Thursday, May 12, 1994, is not an accurate, complete, or true account. It is a fabrication, to conceal the truth of what happened that day. The county replaced court reporters with audio video recording systems and banned litigants and the public from making their own recordings. Instead judges operate this system to create an audio video transcript that we expect to be an accurate, complete, and true account of a hearing. However, they allowed to courts to edit and dub the tapes.
In 1994, Ms. Taylor filed a contempt action against me and I made several appearances without being heard. When I appeared for a hearing in April 1994 and learned that former District Attorney, Mr. Mike Nail, would hear this matter, I requested his disqualification for prejudice. As a result, he charged me with disobeying a restraining order that did not or could exist (Case Number 111412).
Mr. William Crow, Ms. Joanne Taylor, and I briefly met in a law library near the court room. Among the few items we discussed was a fabricated letter that I knew nothing about. Taylor said that Hilda said that I gave the copies of the letters to her. That was a lie and Mr. Haet and the attorneys spent considerable time trying to figure out the reason for a hearing because they were not prepared.
Ms. Taylor pointedly complained that she did not have my accounting of monies. Mr. Crow reached into his brief case and handed her a copy of the report. Moreover, Hilda, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Gamboa never produced any accounting of inventory, monies, or income but I did. So the fix was in well before this case arrived and it had a predetermined outcome that would make mobsters blush in disbelief.
Then Taylor presented a forged letter from a business named Incorporated Computer Services, dated November 21, 1993, requesting routine information from me. I remarked that someone had dated the letter on a Sunday when most companies are closed. The letter did not have a return address, phone number, or fax number and so their letter was a forgery. That should have been sufficient to charge Taylor with extortion, forgery, and perjury. Still, no one did.
Ms. Taylor had a copy of a letter from Intranational Computer Consultants, dated December 14, 1993, requesting an updated resume. Not only did Ms. Taylor and Hilda were creating phony letters, they were intercepting and stealing legitimate mail to me, hindering my efforts to find work. The forgery and the legitimate letter were a part of a letter to Mr. Crow from Ms. Taylor dated February 3, 1994. At one point, Mr. Haet noticed that Ms. Taylor and Hilda had failed to complete some papers. He completed the papers himself, an ethical breach.
Then came the issue about what happened on November 16, 1993. Mr. Crow and Mr. Haet did not want to hear my testimony because the District Attorney's office had filed a criminal charge against me. The assumption was that the District Attorney's Office could review my testimony. I had no problem with telling the truth but evidently others did. My testimony would have brought grounds to charge Hilda and her sons with several crimes but no one wanted to hear that. Instead, Mr. Haet and Ms. Taylor questioned me extensively in several matters including my efforts to find work. Hilda, Taylor, and Crow sat smugly in their seats knowing that Hilda stole my mail. Besides that, no one wants to hire a falsely accused person who is still on trial, although he is innocent.
Toward the end of the hearing, Mr. Haet questioned me about the 1992 tax filing. Hilda had hid the papers I needed to file the 1992 tax return and refused to sign the tax extension. That occurred in April 1993. I could not complete the 1992 and 1993 returns because Mr. Crow and Hilda had the papers. Nobody allowed me to testify to these facts. Near the end of the hearing Mr. Crow argued that Mr. Haet denied the petitioner's motion but then acted to approve it. After I left the court room, the transcript showed that Mr. Haet asked Ms. Taylor about the equity in my home. Ms. Taylor replied with a value that was at least $30,000 below the true amount and so she set the stage.
False Criminal Charges of Violating a Restraining Order Dropped
After the May 12, 1994 hearing, I received a copy of criminal complaint (111412) from Mr. Crow. Hilda and Roberto filed a false police report on November 16, 1993. Nobody seemed to care that not only was Hilda using multiple surnames and birth dates, October 4, 1935 and October 7, 1935. Those birth dates appear on the police reports and she had been using both since 1988. Moreover, the District Attorney's complaint referred to court orders that did not exist.
Moreover, the complaint included the altered August 19, 1993 orders that the court had revoked all restraining orders. So instead of determining who forged the order, the prosecutors falsely accused me of violating an order that did not exist. The bizarre part is that I was in full compliance with that order. So the District Attorney's Office dropped their malicious complaint (prosecution) in June 1994.
The date of the incident was Tuesday, November, 16, 1993 at 1415 (2:15 P.M.). A company representative and I had the court’s permission to remove specific material and equipment from my former home. This was according to standard procedures involving equipment and material removal that was or could become a national security asset. The Government could interpret the officer’s threat as collusion with foreign nationals to transfer material and technology to a hostile faction. Moreover, those interests are inimical to the interests of this country. Hilda and Roberto Duenas are foreign nationals. Note that her birthday in this report is now October 4, 1935. In a prior report, it was October 7, 1935.
The Plunder, and Involuntary Sale of My Home
About mid January 1996, I received a letter from Placer Title Company requesting that I sign an "inter-spousal deed and zero demand." The sale of my home was closing and I contacted Mr. Crow. He made some calls and late on January 29, 1996, Mr. Crow, Sandy Palomino (Hilda's realtor), and I entered my home at 209 Gary Circle. Mr. Crow expressed shock and promised to take action, this after fourteen months of inaction.
My keys did not fit any lock in the home. The house and grounds were a wreck and Hilda and Roberto removed most of the property. Furnishings, fittings, and cables were missing, damaged, or replaced with inferior material. Dirt, feces, grease, oil, mildew, garbage, trash, and all sorts of stains were everywhere. Mr. Crow called Mr. Gamboa who then filed a paper removing himself as Hilda's attorney of record.
Ms. Taylor complained that I refused to hand over all of my documents. She was right, she has no right to see all of them unless she has the need to know, and the right to know. She could not prove that she did but what she did prove was that she was on a scavenger hunt for anything that would discredit me. Perhaps she knew about the altered taped transcripts because she has been in the courthouse on many other occasions. The information I provided in this matter would have filled a four-drawer legal size filing cabinet (18x26x52 inches). I had made these pictures before Hilda falsely accused me in June 1993.
I kept the home in very good condition. The bathroom had brass fittings and the house had protective security panels on the door locks. Rectangular lighted switches controlled interior lighting so that no one had to search in the dark for a light switch. Motion detectors controlled lighting on front porch and all sides of the house. Ground fault interrupters protected the bathroom, kitchen, laundry area, and outdoor outlets. I kept the front and back areas neatly trimmed and trash free.
This is what I saw when the officials allowed me to see the property. I took the following pictures after Hilda had sold my home. They glued and screwed the doors to the house shut. They used the garage and the basement for the storage household items and other things that they could have stolen. The reason that I surmise this is that they left several lock picks and other special tools that had no other use but to burgle homes.
The next photographs show the living room (bottom left) and my office (bottom right).
They took all the oak fittings and cabinets, save for one towel bar. They replaced the polished brass faucet set with a cheap assembly. The wall has a patched hole left of the light switch. They destroyed the combination exhaust vent-heater and bathroom light and removed the protective ground fault interrupter outlet with a standard outlet creating a hazard. Moreover, other people were living in my home because they converted the loft into another bedroom.
The Veteran's Administration
The Veteran's Administration sent me a letter that included the Federal Collection Policy Notice. I could do nothing more than a sign the papers resulting in the sale of my home. Placer Title Company who became Chicago Title Company would not have anything to do with me. I signed the papers at the Solano Association of Realtors building at 1302 Springs Road in Vallejo, California. I never received the papers I was entitled and had to get them myself and through Mr. Weintraub. A lien had been placed against my home for the emergency room treatment I received on June 14, 1993, and I knew about this. The California State Franchise Tax Board had placed another lien for not filing a 1992 tax return. Since Hilda and the attorneys had the papers and forms, I could not file a return. Hilda changed my mailing address again and then managed to remove my name from the voters' registration list.
After Mr. Crow saw the house he did little more than accept the information and pictures I presented him. Mr. Crow had already abandoned the case and refused to return my property and papers. The Vallejo police department did nothing and it took three months before they accepted a report. The District Attorney, the Courts, and Mr. Haet did nothing. I turned to Mr. David Weintraub to represent me in late December 1996. So it started over. He wanted me to find Hilda and that was not my responsibility. Mr. Weintraub filed papers in October 1997. The Presiding Judge, F. Paul Dacy, removed the matter from the Civil Active List on October 15, 1997.
Dacy said that the "Petition not answered by the Respondent" [sic]. I was the respondent and I answered the petition. I had the impression that Elias Gamboa was representing her but evidently he tried to withdraw from the case. The court fined him 200 dollars for not following procedure (whatever that might be). If a proper procedure existed, then the court should have followed it. Dacy should have written was that my ex-wife did not answer the petition and the case would have been over. That did not occur, they were determined that I would lose my home and my other possessions. They succeeded.
More Legal Mumbo Jumbo
Finally, the Court clerk scheduled a hearing for January 20, 1998. Hilda and her attorney, Mr. Elias Gamboa, did not appear. Mr. Haet refused to call the hearing and set a default hearing for April 13, 1998. Then Mr. Haet decided to change the hearing to a trial. Mr. Weintraub called me Sunday, April 12, 1998 to discuss the case at length. He wanted a considerable amount of money for the next day's hearing. Mr. Haet mentioned that he required Mr. Gamboa to appear because he did not give my ex-wife's current address on his withdrawal notice filed February 6, 1996. Nevertheless, the address in Gamboa's withdrawal notice was, legally, Hilda's current address. Weintraub remarked that this was a default hearing and Gamboa acknowledged that fact. The record had said so but Haet decided not to continue because Hilda refused to appear. This man is the same judge who altered my papers and my testimony.
I searched the Internet last month (May 2002) and discovered familawt - a caricature of Camelot. The creators of this web page included this statement: "Here are a few highlights from the infamous AAML Symposium 2002." (AAML is an initialism for the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers). The web page showed nine photographs of judges, commissioners, referees, and lawyers joking about family law. The prominent center piece of this picture is King David Haet replete with gown and crown and whatever. This is the person I wrote about in Junk Justice where he falsified my testimony. He also changed my court papers after I signed them and others have reported the same behavior on part of Mr. Haet and other commissioners and judges.
Their own public creation.
It’s true, it’s true!
A law was made a distant moon ago
Support is paid according to a
We’re not just members of the bar
We’re connoisseurs of the bizarre!
For ending your relationship than here in
Our judges all deserve applause
They always stay within the laws
For when we’re through they’ve got, while
maybe not a lot,
AAML divorce lawyers were polled and "eighty percent of those polled said they had actually handled a case where they believed there was false accusation of abuse, as in disputes over custody of children, for instance." [News Release, from The Dilenschneider Group Inc., (representing the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers), Three First National Place, 70 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602, November 1991.
The photograph and the text entitled familawt are copies from the Northern California American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) web site. The photograph is one of nine photographs that appeared on their web page. I changed the visual appearance of jingle ‘familawt’ from double spacing to single spacing to enhance its visual clarity and to save space. I did not change capitalization. At least twice, the title ‘familawt’ appeared in their writings as imaged text. Attorneys and former California judges have acknowledged that false allegations of abuse are common in California courts. Others have estimated that the percentage of false allegations to be more than 90%. Falsifying court records and orders continues to be a problem in Solano County and elsewhere.
A Description of My House and Home
My home had two floors, the main floor and the basement. The main floor has about 800 square feet of usable living space and the walls are about eight feet, four inches high. The walls consist of steel lath and plaster. Two bedrooms, a full bathroom, a living room, a dining area, and a full kitchen make up the main floor. A fully insulated garage is a step down from the main floor and the basement contains a utility space, laundry room, half bath room, tool room and my office. In addition, the electrical system included ground fault interrupters, and up to date grounded wiring with circuit breakers that exceeded the highest standards. We used the garage for a sewing, recreation, and exercise area. Motion detection lighting illuminated all four sides of the home.
Most homes in the area have a garage that is also used as a laundry and a place to keep the hot water heater. However, the local building codes now require that the hot water heater be placed in an outdoor closet or on a pedestal in the garage. The pedestal had to be four feet high from the floor. This change was necessary to prevent the ignition of the gasoline fumes that could be in the garage. My house was unusual for this area because it had a useable basement and that is where the water heater was placed. So we used the garage as an exercise and recreational area. This left plenty of room for storage. The total area of the garage and lofts is approximately 250 square feet.
The basement had about 450 square feet of usable space and 260 square feet of crawl space. Blue board covered the interior walls in the moist areas of the basement and with regular sheet rock covered the walls in the dry areas. Its entrance is at the rear (west side) of the home. A keyed door lock, a keyed dead bolt, and a separate alarm system secured that door. The outer basement area included a tool room, toilet facilities and a laundry.
A solid core door, a keyed door lock, a keyed dead bolt and a separate alarm system secured the entrance to the inner basement office. So the total amount of readily available storage space was nearly 700 square feet. That is a large amount of space to store goods without using the crawl spaces. So the total available living space was about 1,500 square feet.
If it were not for me bringing my own records, this hearing could not have occurred. Mr. Weintraub questioned me regarding what I presented to him. Again, Mr. Haet questioned me extensively. Mr. Haet refused to accept my estimate of what my home was worth. I said it was worth more than $98,000. It was probably the only home in the area that had a basement and I used it for my home office. This included a tool room, toilet facilities and a laundry.
|160 Gary Circle||0.16ac||98,500||07/08/92|
|181 Gary Circle||0.12ac||98,000||04/30/93|
|11 Thomas Ave.||0.11ac||99,500||02/06/92|
|33 Reis Ave,||0.17ac||100,000||08/05/93|
|158 Hill Drive||0.13ac||105,000||06/15/93|
|521 Laurel Street||0.12ac||109,750||03/29/93|
|216 Gary Circle||0.16ac||115,000||04/08/98|
|104 Gillcrest Ave.||0.13ac||113,000||01/04/94|
|455 Maple Ave.||0.16ac||126,000||09/03/93|
Mr. Haet refused to accept that my only part in the sale of the home was signing papers under duress. This after he and the police allowed Hilda and Roberto to sack my home and move away. I have recently recovered information that shows that someone privately marketed the house for more than $100,000 but someone sold it for $85,000. The reason was that the house failed the mandatory structural and termite inspection and as a result someone had to eradicate the termites and repair the damage. The total cost of this work was $15,000 and Hilda pocketed $20,000. That explains the strewed lumber depicted in the previous photographs.
Meanwhile, someone had altered the records before January 29, 1996 and after January 29, 1998 before the last hearing with Commissioner David Haet. Mr. Weintraub prepared the after hearing order and sent the paper to Mr. Gamboa for his signature. Mr. Gamboa refused to sign the papers and I had to purchase the video tape record from the courts. I made two copies, one for Mr. Weintraub and one for Mr. Gamboa. I received a copy of the signed order in September 1998. Subsequently, I received my papers and property from Mr. Crow and Weintraub, toward the end of 1999. Then I bought two copies of the video transcripts, one in February 2000 and the other in March 2000. That is when I discovered that someone had altered the May 12, 1994 audio video transcripts. What I did not know was that a judge could make those changes without telling anyone. The equipment allows a person to alter the tapes and that is why the fidelity of those tapes is poor. It makes Nixon's Gap eighteen and a half minute gap a mere scratch.
The check (below) is drawn on 1st Nationwide Mortgage, 5280 Corporate Drive, Frederick, MD 21701, No. 855604240, dated 03-20-96 for $431.14. A judge was to endorse this check for me but did not. The cost to appear in court to have a judge to sign and endorse the check is $1,500.
|This check is reproduced in Graphic Interchange Format (GIF) so loss of detail at this compression is not unexpected. The original check still exists and is available for inspection.|
When a litigant fails to appear without good cause, then the remaining party is entitled to a default judgement. This case lasted for five years when it should have ended when Ms. Taylor, her attorney, discovered that Hilda lied to her in 1993. Her last words to Hilda were that "we have to talk" and then she removed herself from the case. Hilda refused to appear and that is proof of her guilt.
The point is that if a woman can send a man to jail on her uncorroborated complaint, then why does it take five years to learn the truth? When this country starts to imprison women for lying, theft, and violence, then it will become a better place for everyone. In some jurisdictions, your wife can falsely accuse her husband of abuse and he cannot collect damages from her. However, he might claim defamation.
According to the literature, ‘tax evasion’ is evading the assessment or payment of a tax that they owe. So when your spouse steals your money she is also stealing tax money owed to the state and federal governments. This obviously applies to only personal accounts and your tax status would be ‘married filing separately’. However, the tax laws may dictate how the taxpayer will divide deductions unless he or she can prove otherwise.
According to the literature, if the court settlement is for compensation for a loss, it is generally not taxable. However, if the court awards punitive damages, that ‘penalty’ is probably taxable. So receiving a compensatory judgement may be better than a punitive judgement. Yet no record that a court official has ever enforced such a judgement for a male victim in those circumstances exists.
The Phoney Correspondence
I had special paper prepared with my letterhead embossed at the top. The letterhead included all of the contact information that the addressee would need to contact me by correspondence or email or fax. I also maintained a separate phone and a post box those purposes and simplifying my tax returns. The reason for this is that they do not want to commingle their business expenses and income so that they are indistinguishable from their other expenses and income.
This is why those who run a business keep separate accounts and books for their business and their personal activities. A signature is more like a personal mark or brand rather than a legible writing. I do not use ‘Edward S. Nunes’ as my signature in my private life. Instead I use ‘Edward Steven Nunes’. Notice the absence of a letterhead, or watermark, or signature on this paper. That makes it a forgery.
In left justification, the left margin always appears a constant distance from the left edge. In center justification, the number of characters on the left and on the right side of the centerline are equal with a variance of one. Right justification is not often used because most people read from left to right. In full justification, the writer intersperses spaces between characters and symbols to make the left and right margins seem constant (straight) rather than ragged. The problem with full justification is that someone can alter the paper by filling the spaces with changes. This is why most people use proportional fonts and spacing in their publishings.
So in the letter below, the forger used full justification to achieve straight left and right margins. I do not use full justification in my letters because it leaves gaps between the words. Second, I do not provide private financial information to strangers. If someone wants to travel somewhere, a credit card or a traveler's check would be much better. Again, this is a forgery.
Please see my essay on the Power of Attorney.
Another problem was that her ‘green card’, an identity card attesting to her permanent resident alien status, would have expired. A more important issue was that other factors had strained the relationship between France and Peru and other factors would not allow many Peruvian citizens (my ex-wife) to enter France. This presented two problems, the renewal of her green card and her obtaining a visa to visit France.
She also claimed that her eldest son would pay her expenses and they would travel to Spain and to Benelux as well. Benelux is an economic union comprising Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg and so she would need a visa for Spain and Benelux. According to Hilda, she lost her ‘green card’ in Spain’s Consulate in San Francisco. Generally, consulate officials do not grant visas to persons whose ‘green card’ is about to expire unless if they are citizens of their own country. (Some countries require a visa to enter their country and others may also require an exit visa to leave their country.)
In May 1992, Hilda forged several checks that belonged to my personal business and separate checking account. How she managed to do this was, and still remains, unknown. The bank’s employees did not verify the signature of the maker. The signature on the check was not mine but Hilda's forgery. That is why banks maintain signature cards for each of their customers. So this was an extreme breach of trust by Wells Fargo Bank.
Hilda had help in preparing the phoney paper as shown above and the bank accepted her forged signature as my own signature and they knew better. We did not have a joint account because I did not want to commingle my funds with hers. That would allow her to steal my money and I would be responsible for drawing checks without sufficient funds. This is a good reason not to have joint bank and credit accounts.
The only reason that I chose Wells Fargo Bank, was that the female bank employees at Crocker National Bank were pasting new account numbers on their customer’s signature cards. Unfortunately, their customers did not know that. The problem became real when my checks bounced and the bank treated them as forgeries. According to my records, I wrote check number 3895 on December 5, 1991 for $783.16. This check covered the mortgage payment, homeowner’s insurance, and the property taxes.
Her name was not on my signature card but Wells Fargo Bank honored this illegal transaction. In other words, Wells Fargo Bank allowed Hilda to ‘embezzle’ my money. That means that Wells Fargo Bank and Hilda are equally culpable in this crime. This has also happened to other abused men and women. So any concern or business that is willing to accept a forgery that deprives people of their earnings or property is not trustworthy. This brings up another matter. Banks can report your financial activities to law enforcement and other local, state, and federal agencies.
This is called embezzlement by forgery and illegal proxy.
This is a classic example of psychological projection.
Those who write for abused men have acknowledged that psychological projection is one of the most significant traits of abusive individuals. Guilty women call it blaming the victim when the victim is their prey. In this example, Hilda lies about a court order that never existed. She demands that the money must be in cash and ‘not to forge her signature. So who is forging my signature?
Now someone could interpret Hilda’s demand that the money must be in cash as her attempt to make the money untraceable. The authorities would call this tax evasion. At first, the government applied the definition of money laundering to financial transactions related to organized crime. Now the definition includes any financial transaction that generates an asset (or increase in value). That is why false allegations of abuse are really acts of extortion.
In Her Own Words
My answering machine recorded this call on Friday morning, October 11, 1996 at 11:29 A.M. from my ex-wife and her message was "Hello Steve Happy Birthday - Sweetie."
Windows Media Player (WPM) is usually set to operate in ‘Full Mode’. This means that the program uses the entire screen and I did not want that. However, the media player does allow view changes. In Windows Media Player select ‘View’ and then ‘Skin Mode’.
If this doesn't work, then right click either arrow at the top left corner and then select 'View' and then 'Skin Mode'. One of the few redeeming features of the media player is that it retains its view mode until the user changes it.
The real problem is that useless and annoying features detract from the product rather than enhance it. Sometimes those annoying elements are bundled so that the user must tolerate them to get a desired feature. This why any programming should only use those elements and properties chosen by the user. Although this is not the perfect solution, it is better than the last one.
Please Click Here
A Women's Right to Lie
Veteran benefits belong to veterans but many others see it is a way to deprive them of their property and rights. The courts ignore the fact that many veterans earned those benefits before they married and that makes their home their separate property and that property indivisible. I have come to believe that many marriages end in divorce because one partner wants to control everything that the other might have. The problem is that most prosecutors encourage it. So they file a false report that puts him in jail and then they steal his property. Worse, judges rarely punish women for abusing their husband, instead they often reward it and so the continuing risks for abusing a man and the lying about it are so low that they approach nonexistence. The crime is criminal coercion and the means is criminal conversion, the taking of another's property without the right to do it. The courts wanted me to pay Hilda money so that her 40 something sons could live with her in my house while they were stealing from others and me. Yet under the law, I was the only person who was entitled to live there.Edward Steven Nunes
Saturday November 15, 2014 09:00 AM