Related documents, FDV-93-005153:
DV-120, Item 03: Personal Conduct Orders
DV-120, Item 04: Stay Away Orders
DV-120, Item 17: Turn In Guns
DV-120, Item 19: My Answer To Statements


DV-120, Item 19: My Answer To Statements




0. Outline

1. Summary
2. History
3. Answers
4. Debts
5. Death
6. Hearing
7. Transcript
8. Defamation
9. Threats
10. Pro Bono
11. Rehearing
12. Transcript

1. Summary

1.1 Waste of Taxes

Defendant believes that this is a case involving a mentally ill woman whose lack of integrity has already led the State of California into wasting thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money, simply to satisfy an emotional whim.

Defendant believes that this case threatens to waste thousands of dollars more of taxpayer's money, simply to satisfy an emotionally and mentally ill woman's whim - which whim amounts to a demand, that no one with any knowledge of the matter at hand, discuss the consequences of her previous whim, in any serious fashion, where it might attract any serious attention ... anywhere, forever and ever.

(Exhibit 1, 1981 Physicians' Desk Reference, page 3, see bookmark in plaintiff's handwriting)

Defendant agrees that the conduct defendant was the unwilling recipient of was, and is, disgraceful, shameful and unspeakable, but continues to believe that communication, of some sort - not unenforceable restraining orders - are the solution to any problem that may exist, between plaintiff, and defendant.

1.2 No Evidence, Witness or Corroboration

Defendant observes that there is no evidence, witness or corroboration to any of the plaintiff's accusations.

Defendant observes that there is abundant evidence and corroboration supporting defendant's accusations and allegations.

Defendant denies each and every accusation made by plaintiff.

1.3 Incapacitated By Father's Death

Defendant observes that as a result of his father's manslaughter, and burial, immediately before the trial, in 1993, defendant was unable to defend himself.

(Exhibit 10, City & County of San Francisco Death Certificate for Leon Edward Salanave)
(Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993)

Defendant requests a retrial.

1.4 Incapacitated By PTSD

Defendant observes that defendant was incapacitated by multiple related events - fraudulent domestic violence restraining order, fraudulent termination of employment, and father's violent and unexplained pedestrian death, all in the same week, which led to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder - and that as a result, plaintiff was still unable to defend himself at the retrial, in 1996.

Defendant requests a retrial.

(Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993)
(Exhibit 10, City & County of San Francisco Death Certificate for Leon Edward Salanave, page 2)

1.5 Counsel Willfully Excluded Evidence

Defendant notes that as a result of defendant's legal counsel willfully excluding a critical exhibit in the petition for a retrial, that defendant was denied a fair retrial.

(Exhibit 2, Declaration of Richard Toshiyuki Drury, 08 February 1995)

Defendant alleges sabotage.

Defendant requests a retrial.

1.6 New Evidence: Drury Declaration

Defendant notes that as a consequence of defendant's counsel having willfully misrepresented defendant's interests at trial, that the evidence which was unlawfully excluded should be regarded as new evidence.

(Exhibit 2, Declaration of Richard Toshiyuki Drury, 08 February 1995)

Defendant requests a retrial.

1.7 New Evidence: Telephone Harassment

Defendant notes that as a result of having been incapacitated that defendant was unable to maintain defendant's materials in an adequately organized fashion. As a result of this incapacity defendant was unable to locate materials related to telephone harassment undergone in 1993 and 1994.

Defendant has located these materials in response to the present summons and introduces these materials as new evidence.

(Exhibit 23, Reportee Follow-Up, case number 930587794)
(Exhibit 24, Authorization For Line Identification And Disclosure To Law Enforcement Personnel)
(See also 9.0 Threats, below)

Defendant requests a retrial.

1.8 New Evidence: Perjury In Original Complaint

As a result of reviewing and assembling materials in response to the Request for Temporary Restraining Order, defendant has identified inconsistencies between the transcripts and other materials which suggest that plaintiff engaged in perjury during the original trial.

(Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993, page 3, lines 27-28)
(Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993, page 4, lines 20)
(Exhibit 9, Photograph of Plaintiff's front door with 'Doorbell disconnected - please knock' note inside glass)

Defendant requests that the case be vacated.

Defendant pleads mercy on behalf of the plaintiff, as she was mentally and emotionally ill at the time, had ceased taking her prescribed medications, and had ceased seeing her licensed therapist.

1.9 New Evidence: Proof of Mental Illness

As a result of reviewing and assembling materials in response to the Request for Temporary Restraining Order, defendant has identified materials which corroborate defendant's original assertion that plaintiff had recently been diagnosed with borderline psychosis and was a recent outpatient from a mental hospital.

(Exhibit 1, 1981 Physicians' Desk Reference, page 3, see bookmark in plaintiff's handwriting)

Defendant has described, below, how this affirmation was surreptitiously removed from the transcript of the original hearing, and offers some circumstantial proof that the removal actually happened, below.

(See 7. Transcript, below)

Defendant observes that all of defendant's legal problems with plaintiff began after plaintiff began to cease taking her prescribed anti-psychotic medications, and began to become irrationally, psychotically angry at defendant, in 1991.

Defendant requests that the case be vacated.

1.10 New Evidence: Lack Of Due Process

Defendant observes that multiple exhibits corroborate defendant's claim that defendant was served in late January of 1993.

(Exhibit 2, Declaration of Richard Toshiyuki Drury, 08 February 1995)
(Exhibit 10, City & County of San Francisco Death Certificate for Leon Edward Salanave)
(Exhibit 21, page 2, Memorandum, Discrepancies and Personal Observations)

Defendant observes that court records, signed under oath of perjury, allege that defendant was served with process on 02 February 1993.

(San Francisco Superior Court, case FL 00005153)

Defendant believes that as a consequence of restraining orders being a species of injunction, that the case MUST be heard within 14 days of service of process.

Defendant believes that court records were altered from 30 January to 02 February to conceal the fact that plaintiff's court date had been altered, to be heard in a different court, more than 14 days after service of process.

Defendant believes that court records were altered from 30 January to 02 February to conceal the fact that plaintiff had been denied due process, and equal protection, under the law.

Defendant observes that as many of these changes could not have been made by the plaintiff that they must have been made by whomever assisted the plaintiff, in association with someone else working inside of the San Francisco Superior Court Clerk's office.

Defendant believes that these actions constitute the requisite elements for charges to made, of criminal conspiracy, against these unknown, concealed third parties.

Defendant alleges that defendant was the victim of forgery and criminal conspiracy by these concealed third parties to surreptitiously deny defendant of defendant's civil rights.

Defendant requests that the case be vacated.

Defendant requests that the case file be forwarded to the San Francisco District Attorney's office for investigation and possible prosecution.

1.11 New Evidence: Debt Avoidance

Defendant observes that most of his attempts to communicate with plaintiff, at the time of the original Request for Restraint, have been related to either an attempt to collect personal property, or pursuant to an attempt to collect a debt.

(See 4. Debts, below)

Defendant observes that most of his attempts to communicate with plaintiff, after the time of the restraining order, have been predominantly pursuant to a need to know who helped plaintiff file her original temporary restraining order.

Defendant requests that the case be vacated on the grounds that attempting to collect a debt is a protected activity, and the original restraining order was issued in error, and illegally ignored defendant's testimony.

Defendant wishes to know who this person is, who assisted plaintiff, in 1993, so that defendant can evaluate pursuing other legal remedies and so that defendant can assure himself and others that this person is not occupying a position of trust, authority, or responsibility.

Defendant regards this as legitimate exercise of his obligation to engage in due diligence with respect to the relationship between government, public policy and private responsibility.

1.12 New Evidence: Civil Harassment

Defendant observes that this lawsuit was instigated by one or more third parties, whom covertly contacted plaintiff and provided plaintiff with copies of material defendant had published on the Internet.

(See 3.14 "Someone told me about this posting", below)
(See 3.16 "Someone told me about this website", below)

Defendant observes that defendant never made any direct reference to plaintiff in any of his postings, but only made direct references to the case number - FL 00005153 - and the organization that defendant believes was involved in the original filing of FL 00005153, in 1993 - W.O.M.A.N., Incorporated, a registered nonprofit agency, in San Francisco.

Defendant observes that plaintiff does not normally use any of the Internet venues that defendant uses.

Defendant observes that plaintiff could only have drawn the conclusion that the material written involved the plaintiff with the assistance of the unidentified intermediaries.

Defendant believes that he is the victim of civil harassment, or 'cyberstalking', by these third parties.

(See 9. Threats, below)

Defendant requests the Court compel the plaintiff to identify these third parties, where possible.

Defendant requests the Court issue a permanent restraining order against each and every one of these third parties ordering them to cease and desist their civil harassment, stalking, and interference with defendant's freedom of speech.

1.13 New Evidence: Political Harassment

Defendant observes that defendant sent a certified letter to W.O.M.A.N., Incorporated, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the California Franchise Tax Board (CFTB), questioning W.O.M.A.N., Incorporated's nonprofit tax status, asking for copies of W.O.M.A.N., Incorporated's Board minutes (as offered on their website), and alleging that the agency had been involved in improprieties ... only weeks before plaintiff, allegedly on her own merits, filed the final Request for Restraint against defendant.

(Exhibit 26, USPS Certified Mail # 7005 0390 0000 2503 1809, pages 1-4)
(DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 03 March 2006, served 04 March 2006)
(See 3.1 In Pro Per, below)
(See 3.22 "I could not get the order served", below)
(See 3.23 "I have been unable to have Defendant served", below)
(See 3.28 "I have been unable to have Defendant served", below)

Defendant alleges that plaintiff and the nonprofit agency W.O.M.A.N., Incorporated are conspiring against defendant to interfere with defendant's lawful use of the Internet and freedom of speech in general, and that this constitutes conspiracy to violate defendant's civil rights.

(See 9. Threats, below)

2. History

2.1 Abortion

In 1988 or 1989, defendant and plaintiff shared a home, which they rented together, in San Mateo, California.

Plaintiff became pregnant; defendant was the father of the child.

Defendant was unsure of defendant's parental skills and wanted to discuss the situation with defendants', and plaintiffs', parents.

Plaintiff refused to discuss the situation with anyone and wanted to secretly get an abortion.

Defendant was unable to articulate defendant's feelings on the matter but was so disturbed at the prospect that when driving to the appointment, in San Mateo, defendant missed the exit and went off the road.

During the abortion, as plaintiff was lying on the table, naked and vulnerable, plaintiff suddenly announced that plaintiff wanted to keep the child.

The staff at Planned Parenthood ignored this, sedated the plaintiff and aborted the child. Defendant was a witness and reluctant participant to this event.

Plaintiff was later informed that the aborted child was male.

In the weeks and months afterwards, plaintiff became increasingly insane.

2.2 Psychosis

Plaintiff experienced diverse symptoms, including psychosomatic pains in plaintiff's arms, frequent panic attacks, and depression.

Defendant was frequently required to leave defendant's place of employment, at AMPEX Research & Development, and travel to Stanford Hospital, in Palo Alto, where plaintiff was employed as a receptionist, in the Department of Respiratory Therapy. Plaintiff's manager, Patti Gurza Dully, would call defendant, at plaintiff's request, to respond to each crisis.

Defendant sought to assist plaintiff as best as defendant could, primarily by bringing defendant to emergency care clinics located in San Francisco, where defendant's family would be able to visit defendant.

Plaintiff's sister was involved in several of these emergency responses, on one occasion meeting defendant and plaintiff at a psychiatric emergency care facility adjacent to Mount Zion Hospital, located on Divisadero Street, in San Francisco.

Plaintiff was eventually hospitalized, diagnosed as borderline psychotic, and released, after two weeks of hospitalization, with a large bill and instructions for plaintiff to take plaintiff's prescribed medications. (Exhibit 1, 1981 Physicians' Desk Reference, page 3, see bookmark in plaintiff's handwriting)

2.3 On Medications

Plaintiff experienced considerable discomfort as a result of the medications plaintiff had been subscribed.

Plaintiff's and defendant's sexual relationship, in particular, and capacity for intimacy, in general, was crippled, as a result of the libido-depressing side effects of several antidepressants that plaintiff took, including Prozac.

Plaintiff rotated through several different psychiatrists in search of a doctor that would be able to heal plaintiff's emotional pain, without satisfaction.

During this time defendant agitated for plaintiff to move back to plaintiff's home, where plaintiff could be with plaintiff's family, and have access to care, during the day, while plaintiff was at work.

Plaintiff had previously experienced an inability to live away from plaintiff's family, as a result of sharing a home with defendant in Los Altos Hills, previous to the home plaintiff and defendant had shared in San Mateo.

Plaintiff and defendant's move from Los Altos Hills to San Mateo had been in response to plaintiff's existing need to be closer to plaintiff's family, and spending most of her time driving back and forth between the two homes.

Plaintiff and defendant separated at this time and defendant lived in a small room in a friend's house, in Berkeley, California.

Plaintiff was a frequent visitor in Berkeley, and frequently stayed with defendant, over night.

2.4 Suicide

In summer of 1990, while defendant was living in the East Bay, plaintiff attempted suicide, in the flat, above her parents' home, in San Francisco.

In the aftermath to this event, plaintiff's sister located an outpatient care facility in the Richmond District, called Richmond Maxicare, and arranged for plaintiff to become an outpatient of this facility. (Exhibit 4, Richmond Maxi-Center Outpatient and Prevention Services)

Although plaintiff was receiving psychiatric care, plaintiff also at this time self-diagnosed themself as being 'codependent', and joined a 'codependency group', where plaintiff received advice on how to conduct plaintiff's personal affairs from other people whom were also experiencing psychiatric and psychological problems, and whom had also self-diagnosed themselves as 'codependent'.

Defendant observes that there is no entry for 'codependency' in the DMS-IV, which is the accepted reference for psychiatric and psychological diagnostic disorders.

For this reason defendant believes that plaintiff was the victim of medical malpractice.

Plaintiff had also joined a religious group, a Buddhist group that believed that all of the world's problems, and of their personal problems, would be solved by chanting 'Nam, Yoho, Renge, Kyo', and purchased a lovely prayer shrine from them, as well, for around $100.

Defendant was concerned.

Defendant and defendant's friend had, at this time, experienced a falling-out related to defendant's friend's alcohol use, and defendant was looking for another place to live.

(Defendant notes that defendant and friend have since resolved their differences, and that defendant now hosts defendant's friend's website, http://www.evandain.com, at defendant's Internet business, http://www.daemonized.com.)

Plaintiff suggested that defendant and plaintiff look for a house in the Richmond District of San Francisco and move back in together. Defendant agreed.

Plaintiff and defendant spent many hours - several days - driving up and down streets in the Richmond District, looking for houses for rent.

Plaintiff and defendant located a house, negotiated the rent, signed the lease, rented a truck, and moved in. (Exhibit 13, Residential Lease for 800 41st Avenue)

Two weeks later defendant came home to learn that plaintiff had removed plaintiff's clothing and returned to the flat above plaintiff's parents house - incidentally forcing plaintiff's younger brother to move out of the flat, back downstairs, and into the unheated basement.

Plaintiff was evasive about plaintiff's reasons for moving out. Plaintiff had left behind all of her furniture, and alleged that she intended to return.

Plaintiff said that she was "just taking care of herself", a mantra that, plaintiff said, plaintiff had learned from plaintiff's codependency group.

At one point plaintiff cited the fact that defendant's younger brother was also living in the house, as making her uncomfortable, although plaintiff had previously agreed to this so as to lower the per-person cost of the monthly rent.

At another point plaintiff alleged that this had been at the advice of plaintiff's psychiatrist, at Richmond Maxicare.

Defendant determined that this was not a true statement.

Subsequent questioning ascertained that it was not Richmond Maxicare's policy to advise their clientele regarding their personal relationships, and in defendant's short discussion with plaintiff's psychiatrist, defendant gathered that plaintiff had also broken off plaintiff's relationship with the psychiatrist, Jing Ling, as well as the Richmond Maxicare clinic itself.

Defendant was unable to contact plaintiff's sister, Diane Wong, to discuss the situation, despite several attempts.

Defendant attempted to discuss the situation with plaintiff's parents but plaintiff's father's hostility towards people of defendant's ethnic background made this impossible, and linguistic difficulties arose, as well, as defendant and plaintiff's parents had no language in common.

As of the end of 1991 defendant and plaintiff were still on good terms. (Exhibit 5, Letter From Plaintiff To Defendant, dated 18 November 1991)

2.5 Off Medications

On the alleged advice of her codependency counselor, and with the alleged support of her codependency group, plaintiff ceased taking her medications, in 1991 - around the time that plaintiff abandoned the lease.

Defendant observes now, from a perspective of 15 years, that plaintiff's inability to trust or communicate with defendant dates from the time that she ceased taking her prescribed medications, in 1991.

For this reason defendant again believes that plaintiff was the victim of medical malpractice.

Plaintiff became increasingly insulated, excusing everything plaintiff did or did not do with the claim that plaintiff "has to take care of herself".

Plaintiff became increasingly offensive in her personal comments to defendant.

Plaintiff cast overt doubt upon defendant's abilities as a parent, saying that he would make a terrible father.

(Only later, after defendant became a father, did defendant realize that plaintiff's lack of confidence, as a parent, was in herself - not the defendant - but for several years, the accusations haunted defendant, as he assumed, wrongly, that the plaintiff - being a woman - somehow knew more about this matter, than the defendant did.)

Plaintiff would mock defendant's weight by imitating a pig, saying 'Sooey, sooey' to defendant.

Plaintiff also mocked defendant's race and threatened to seek a 'tall, slender Chinese guy'.

Plaintiff assured defendant that her codependency group had assured her that finding a new relationship with another man was, allegedly, a trivial matter.

Plaintiff frequently threatened defendant with the loss of the relationship.

Defendant was and is of the opinion that plaintiff was intent upon a course of psychological self-sabotage and remained a threat to herself, psychologically as well as physically.

2.6 Hypnotic Recall

At one point, just before plaintiff broke off plaintiff's relationship with Richmond Maxicare and plaintiff's psychiatrist, Jing Ling, plaintiff confided to defendant that, as a result of hypnotic regression, that plaintiff had come to believe that plaintiff had been molested by an older male member of plaintiff's family.

Plaintiff was extremely disturbed at this revelation.

Defendant became increasingly disturbed at the situation.

Around this time, plaintiff changed plaintiff's telephone number - on the advice, plaintiff said, of plaintiff's codependency group, because, plaintiff said, plaintiff needed to take care of herself - and defendant was reduced to leaving notes and waiting for a reply.

During one telephone conversation plaintiff told defendant that plaintiff could get a restraining order against defendant if plaintiff wanted to; that many of the women in her codependency group had them.

Defendant estimates this to have been around the beginning or middle of 1992.

(Defendant now understands this to have been a prior threat, and grounds for challenging the original restraining order - had defendant been able to defend themselves, at the time, that is.)

Plaintiff alleged that plaintiff had been told, by plaintiff's codependency group, that lots of women got restraining orders to keep their boyfriends from bothering them, while they 'worked on themselves'.

Defendant interpreted this as an anticipatory use of a restraining order, as a threat, rather than as a legitimate application of law, in response to a real or perceived threat - insofar as no domestic violence had occurred, and defendant and plaintiff had, as of late 1992, already lived apart for nearly two years.

Defendant never expected plaintiff to lie about events and circumstances and chronology.

Defendant asked plaintiff how many of these women's relationships survived three year forced separations. Plaintiff alleged that her codependency group had told her that many couples did get back together after their restraining orders had expired.

Defendant, even before he knew what humiliation and censure being restrained implied, expressed doubt.

2.7 Lease Over

In 1992, after considerable financial hardship as a result of the leased property, defendant moved to a new apartment, in the Sunset District. (Exhibit 6, Letter to Lessors, dated 10 July 1991)

Plaintiff learned of this new address when plaintiff called defendant and learned that the number had been changed. Defendant had no way of contacting plaintiff and plaintiff did not come by while defendant was moving.

Plaintiff visited the new apartment, incidentally learning defendant's new address, at this time.

Defendant asked plaintiff to stay and plaintiff refused, pushing out of the apartment despite defendant's plea for plaintiff to stay.

2.8 Bill Due

A few months after this event, plaintiff was contacted by Pacific Gas and Electric, regarding an unpaid balance on the bill for the house that plaintiff and defendant had leased together. (Exhibit 7, Pacific Gas and Electric closing bill for $755.88)

Plaintiff contacted defendant regarding the balance but defendant refused to pay the bill, noting that defendant had paid the plaintiff's share of the rent, for the majority of the lease.

Plaintiff then contacted defendant's brother - who, incidentally, worked at the same company, Oracle Corporation , as defendant.

Plaintiff persuaded defendant's brother, through yet-to-be-discovered means, to intercede for plaintiff.

Defendant's brother called defendant and threatened to pay the Pacific Gas and Electric bill if defendant did not, insisting that 'a bill is a bill'.

Defendant paid the Pacific Gas and Electric Bill for plaintiff. (Exhibit 8, Check to Pacific Gas and Electric for $755.88)

Defendant then attempted to contact plaintiff to negotiate repayment of the debt related to the lease.

2.9 Deadbeat

Plaintiff had disconnected plaintiff's doorbell, in the months prior, as part of 'taking care of herself'. (Exhibit 9, Photograph of Plaintiff's front door with 'Doorbell disconnected - please knock' note inside glass.)

Defendant, realizing that plaintiff was avoiding defendant, made the mistake of knocking too hard on the front door of plaintiff's apartment, and fractured a small pane of glass.

Plaintiff immediately seized upon the fractured glass (allegedly fractured in plaintiff's absence) as proof that plaintiff's life was being threatened, and filed a patently false request for temporary restraining order.

2.10 No Photos

Although both plaintiff and plaintiff's sister are accomplished photographers, no photographs of the fractured glass were provided to the Court. The fracture was misrepresented as a broken window.

2.11 Manslaughter

At this point in the history of events, a few blocks away from plaintiff's house, defendant's elderly father was struck down by a car, and killed. (Exhibit 10, City & County of San Francisco Death Certificate for Leon Edward Salanave)

Defendant observes that defendant's father was killed at the intersection of 9th Avenue and Geary Boulevard - which is the same intersection at which the plaintiff's bank was located, at the time that the events occurred.

Given plaintiff's vicious, at the time, attack, upon defendant, defendant, not inexplicably, now wonders if plaintiff coincidentally encountered defendant's father outside of plaintiff's bank - defendant's father had just dropped a car off at the auto shop, next door - and said something which might have contributed to defendant's father walking into the crosswalk without looking, and getting struck by a car, and killed.

(Defendant suggests that such a circumstance would create a crushing load of guilt which would have no outlet other than avoidance - such as the avoidance that brings defendant before the Court, now - and wonders if this avoidance is an indicator of guilt, rather than fear - a different sort of 'threat' than the sort of threat that the Court is accustomed to handling.)

2.12 Post-Traumatic Shock Disorder (PTSD)

Defendant was unable to attain counsel or defend himself at the first trial as a result of his father's death, and burial - which occurred only two days before the trial.

Defendant was in such deep shock that he did not even tell the Court that his father had been killed, at the time of the hearing. (Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993)

2.13 Terminated By Employer

A few days after the hearing, defendant was terminated from his job by his employer.

Employer, Oracle Corporation, declined to explain why they terminated the defendant.

Defendant understand that it is illegal to terminate employees because they have been the subject of domestic violence restraining orders, but observes that without an enforcement mechanism, enforcement is left in the hands of the people whom have been terminated ... and these people tend to be notoriously low on funds.

(Defendant presumes that the State of California has no serious interest in enforcing these sorts of laws, that this is all window dressing for the masses, and that defendant is on his own.)

Defendant subsequently determined that an employment agency - which defendant was directed to, at the time, by defendant's brother's friend, in Oracle's human resources department - was actually a private security agency. (Exhibit 12, Query Result on 415 345 2727, showing multiple companies all associated with a single telephone number, located in Foster City, less than one mile from Oracle HQ)

Said private security agency misrepresented itself, under oath of perjury, as an employment agency, in court records related to the subsequent unlawful termination lawsuit filed by defendant.

Defendant has memorialized this information and experience at http://www.orafraud.org, for the benefit of other citizens who might make the mistake of believing that employment law is enforced by the State of California.

Defendant observes that within 72 hours of website http://www.orafraud.org going online, Oracle's Chairman of the Board, Larry Ellison, had resigned his position as Chairman, retaining only the position of CEO (which position Mr. Ellison occupies as a result of his retaining a controlling share of Oracle Corporation's shares).

Defendant observes that over a year has elapsed since website http://www.orafraud.org first went online and that no legal protest has been received from Oracle Corporation regarding its contents.

2.14 Denied A Fair Hearing

Defendant does not believe that defendant received a fair hearing, for a number of reasons.

The Court explicitly ignored several warning signs that this was not a normal TRO, and behaved in a prejudicial manner throughout the hearing. (Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993)

Defendant has since that time acquired the transcript from that trial and has discovered a number of disturbing defects in the record, suggesting incompetence or malice on the part of the court reporter.

Defendant encountered similar problems a few years later when defendant requested a rehearing on the matter. The Court appointed a judge whom had just resigned from the Alameda Family Court system under pressure from a family group, alleging prejudice.

(Defendant suggests that importing a guest judge from a neighboring county, where said judge has recently allowed themselves to be pressured into resigning for reasons of misfeasance is not the best guarantee of jurisprudence, and only guarantees more problems.)

Defendant recalls hearing, in the 1990s, that San Mateo Family Court was experiencing the same sort of complaints about Family Court records being surreptitiously altered, and was evaluating an audio-video tape system, to preserve statements being made in court from surreptitious editing by activist court reporters ... and surmises that this problem is widespread.

2.15 Compensatory Mechanisms

Defendant was left seriously traumatized by this sequence of events, starting with the abortion of his first son.

Defendant was helped to recover through becoming a court-appointed foster parent, where defendant gained confidence in his parenting ability. Defendant supported his foster daughter when she became pregnant, and urged her not to abort her child. Defendant has the strange pleasure of having been a grandparent before he was a parent.

Defendant is now the father of three small girls, aged 2, 4, and 6 - and lives in a town so small it only has two stoplights, where, defendant feels, his children are slightly safer than they might be in San Francisco.

Defendant and his wife have a fourth child on the way.

Defendant wants to teach all of his daughters how to shoot a rifle - preferably using the .22 that defendant inherited from defendant's grandfather - and notes that defendant will not be able to do this, if the Court engages in any draconian actions, such as lifelong restraining orders.

Defendant observes that if this comes to be, that the whimsy of one mentally and emotionally ill woman will have taken precedence over the welfare and family history of four other young women, and that this will no longer be an issue of women versus men - and it never should have been, in the first place.

2.16 Outrageous Conduct

Defendant is understandably outraged by his experience.

Defendant quotes, in his defense, Supreme Court Justice William Brandeis: "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

3. Answers

3.1 In Pro Per

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Your Lawyer) that she is acting "IN PRO PER".

Plaintiff alleges (DV-110, Temporary Restraining Order and Notice of Hearing, filed 19 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Your Lawyer) that she is acting "IN PRO PER".

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 05 October 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Your Lawyer) that she is acting "IN PRO PER".

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 02 November 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Your Lawyer) that she is acting "IN PRO PER".

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 02 December 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Your Lawyer) that she is acting "IN PRO PER".

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 17 January 2006, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Your Lawyer) that she is acting "IN PRO PER".

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 07 February 2006, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Your Lawyer) that she is acting "IN PRO PER".

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 03 March 2006, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Your Lawyer) that she is acting "IN PRO PER".

Defendant believes that this is not a true statement.

Defendant observes that plaintiff's declaration (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, pages 1-12) was processed using a word processor that provided legal forms not available to the general public, specifically line numbers along the left margin and automated whitespace between each line, which are specific to the legal industry.

Defendant believes that plaintiff is concealing the fact that she had expert assistance from one or more legally trained professionals or officers of the court whom had access to these sorts of special legal software packages not available to the general public.

Based on information and belief defendant believes that these unnamed persons are concealing their identity because their involvement in this case betrays that their actions are not based in good faith, but, rather, on helping plaintiff continue to conceal a crime from discovery, and prosecution.

Defendant requests that the Court compel plaintiff to identify each and every person whom assisted her in her composition and layout of each and every declaration attached in this matter - including topical heading selection, selection of text to render in a bold font, and selection of phraseology used by plaintiff to represent herself to the court.

3.2 "I asked plaintiff to leave me alone" (PERJURY?)

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, lines 9-10) that "I asked plaintiff to leave me alone for six months."

Defendant affirms that this would have been the period from October 1990, when plaintiff temporarily deserted the relationship and abandoned the lease she had cosigned two weeks before, through the end of March, 1991. (See History, above.)

Defendant observes that as of mid-November, 1991, plaintiff and defendant were still communicating amicably. (Exhibit 5, Letter From Plaintiff To Defendant, dated 18 November 1991)

Based on information and belief defendant believes that this is not a true statement.

Defendant requests the Court to dismiss this request on the basis of fraud.

3.3 "His harassment was worse during those six months" (PERJURY?)

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, lines 9-10) that "His harassment was worse during those six months than when we were together.."

Defendant affirms that this would have been the period from October 1990, when plaintiff initially deserted the relationship and abandoned the lease she had cosigned two weeks before, through the end of March, 1991. (See History, below)

Defendant observes that as of mid-November, 1991, plaintiff and defendant were still communicating amicably. (Exhibit 5, Letter From Plaintiff To Defendant, dated 18 November 1991)

Based on information and belief defendant believes that this is not a true statement.

Defendant requests the Court to dismiss this request for restraint, on the basis of fraud.

3.4 "He threatened to kill himself"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, lines 11-12) that "He threatened to kill himself and said I would find him bleeding out in front of my house."

Defendant observes that there is no reference to this allegation in plaintiff's initial filing of 22 January 1993.

Defendant observes that there is no reference to this allegation in plaintiff's testimony of 16 February 1993 (Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993).

Defendant observes that plaintiff has a history of attempted suicide and would like to distract and confuse the Court by suggesting otherwise in a preliminary and anticipatory fashion.

Defendant admits to having been depressed by the burdens of dealing with a mentally ill woman and by the lack of familial support mechanisms.

Defendant observes that defendant has never attempted suicide, in any way.

3.5 "my life would be miserable"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, lines 14-16) that "He was calling me and my parents, and he left me messages claiming that I had ruined his life and saying that if I did not reckon with him, that I would be miserable."

Defendant admits to having called downstairs in search of plaintiff when plaintiff did not answer upstairs but observes that this had been a protocol established over the previous ten years of intimate acquaintance.

Defendant observes that plaintiff had given the number to defendant for precisely this purpose.

Defendant observes that plaintiff's parents were explicitly removed from the original request for a temporary restraining order, with whiteout.

Based on information and belief, defendant believes that this was because they refused to participate in a legal prosecution that was based upon statements that they knew to be false, fraudulent and malicious.

Defendant observes that he did not at the time speak any Cantonese and would not have been able to communicate threats to either plaintiff's mother or plaintiff's father; nor would plaintiff's father or mother have been able to understand them.

Defendant observes that a casual perusal of restraining orders and even a search of the Internet reveals that the phrase "I would be miserable" appears to be commonly used by every restraining order clinic in the State of California and throughout the West Coast.

Defendant observes that for this reason the use of this phrase should be treated as a reflexive, and for that reason inaccurate, statement of events, made by political activists in pursuit of a politically charged agenda that may not be in the best interests of the electorate, as a whole - and not the true, sincere words of the plaintiff.

3.6 "I went to that hearing"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, lines 18-19) that "I went to that hearing on October 9, and Defendant's request was denied."

Defendant affirms that this is a true statement of events but adds that plaintiff apologized to defendant, off the record, outside the courtroom, after the hearing.

Defendant would like plaintiff to make her apology in writing so that it can be added to the record.

Defendant notes that an apology that is made in secret is no apology.

Defendant legitimately wonders why plaintiff would be sorry if plaintiff's action was solidly based in good faith and a genuine fear of her physical welfare.

3.7 "Most Recent Incidents Of Stalking"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, line 25) that plaintiff is experiencing "Incidents Of Stalking".

The American Heritage Dictionary defines 'stalking' as:

To pursue by tracking stealthily.

Defendant denies that he has pursued plaintiff. No testimony exists alleging otherwise.

Defendant observes that plaintiff has never made any attempt to evade defendant in any way.

Defendant observes that plaintiff has never made any attempt to convey plaintiff's distress over the state of affairs that plaintiff alleges to exist, to defendant.

Defendant observes that there is no indication of stealth in any of the actions that plaintiff alleges.

Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, defines stalking as:

the act ... of following another by stealth or the offense of following or loitering near another, often surreptitiously, with the purpose of annoying or harassing that person or committing a further crime such as assault or battery.

Defendant denies that he has ever followed plaintiff. No testimony exists indicating otherwise.

Defendant observes that plaintiff has never made any attempt to convey plaintiff's distress over the state of affairs that plaintiff alleges to exist, to defendant.

Defendant observes that there is no indication of stealth in any of the actions that plaintiff alleges - which involve delivering letters, and leaving.

Defendant denies that he has ever loitered near plaintiff, or plaintiff's home, or car. No testimony exists alleging otherwise.

Defendant denies having acted surreptitiously. No testimony exists indicating otherwise. Defendant observes that there is no indication of surreptitiousness in any of the actions that plaintiff alleges - which involve delivering letters, and leaving. Plaintiff's complaint is based upon the fact that plaintiff knows exactly whom is leaving plaintiff notes.

Defendant has never made any attempt to deny authorship of any note he has left plaintiff.

Defendant agrees that plaintiff might be annoyed by the reminder of a $4000 debt.

Defendant agrees that plaintiff might be annoyed by the reminder that plaintiff had violated the law, in order to get the domestic violence restraining order, in order to avoid paying the $4000 debt.

Defendant agrees that plaintiff might feel threatened by the existence of a $4000 debt.

Defendant observes that plaintiff is threatened by plaintiff's debt - not by defendant - and asks that the Court take the time to distinguish between these two subtly, but importantly, different uses of the word 'threatened'.

Defendant does not think that asking a person to communicate constitutes either a threat or harassment.

Defendant observes that attempting to collect a debt was and is a protected activity and that court rules prohibit the use of restraining orders to interfere with the collection of a debt.

Defendant has never indicated either interest or capacity for engaging in assault or battery upon anyone. No evidence or testimony exists indicating otherwise.

Plaintiff has never alleged either assault or battery to anyone. The total lack of substantive issues and the abundance of outrageously false claims used, on the part of the plaintiff, to qualify for a domestic violence restraining order, is outrageous and illegal.

Defendant asserts that defendant was and is innocent of any uncivil behavior.

Defendant asserts that plaintiff continues to engage in a coverup, to avoid being held responsible for plaintiff's $4000 debt, and to avoid being held responsible for the violations of the law plaintiff engaged in pursuant to plaintiff's desire to fraudulently acquire a domestic violence restraining order and avoid being required to pay the debt which plaintiff had, according to her own repeated testimony, abandoned.

3.8 "I threw away the flowers"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 2, lines 10-11) that "I threw away the flowers."

Defendant recalls that plaintiff called defendant, in early July, 2005.

Defendant recalls that plaintiff asked defendant if defendant was driving - to be sure that defendant would not have an automobile accident while talking to plaintiff - and that plaintiff thanked defendant for the flowers - which were yellow roses, believed by defendant to be plaintiff's favorite flower.

Plaintiff and defendant agree that plaintiff never expressed fear of defendant's intentions.

Defendant requests that the Court compel plaintiff to produce a witness from within plaintiff's family to whom, upon receiving flowers from defendant, plaintiff expressed fear of defendant.

Defendant suggests that when plaintiff alleges that plaintiff threw away the flowers that plaintiff is not making a true statement.

3.9 "I would like to treat your role in this story with sensitivity"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 3, lines 14-17) that defendant said, in writing to her, on or about 01 July 2005, that "I would like to treat your role in this story with sensitivity - but this is difficult to do long as you refuse to speak to me, and so I cannot guarantee that you will be pleased with the results, if you persist in denying me closure on some important matters."

Defendant observes that while plaintiff objects to the contents of defendant's websites, that defendant invited plaintiff to discuss the content and register her objections, explicitly, in July, 1995.

Defendant observes that plaintiff consistently refuses to discuss the material covered in the websites plaintiff objects to.

Defendant suggests that plaintiff is obsessed with NOT discussing, admitting, or recognizing the consequences of her fraud.

Defendant observes that so long as this state of affairs continues that plaintiff will continue to be insane - IE, unable to function - so far as this topic is concerned, and for that reason as much or more of a threat to the community than defendant might be.

Defendant suggests that plaintiff does not deserve the protection of the law if she cannot be bothered to communicate her objections directly, first.

Defendant observes that plaintiff seems to treat the legal power conferred upon her, as a woman, by the court, as an invitation to use it - first, not last - to resolve all of her problems, without even needing to speak to others, as equals.

Defendant observes that plaintiff has never been a mother - never mind a foster parent - and has done nothing to deserve the power and authority and trust that she has been the beneficiary of.

3.10 "I called defendant that evening"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 3, lines 24-25) that "I called the defendant that evening. I wanted to see what his state of mind was and if I could figure out what his intent was. We had a very short conversation, maybe two minutes."

Defendant objects to the description of the conversation as "maybe two minutes".

Defendant's recalls defendant's telephone bill as describing the conversation as having been approximately 5 minutes long. Plaintiff called defendant's 800 number, given to plaintiff for this purpose, and defendant was billed for the length of the conversation.

Defendant understood plaintiff to be guardedly interested in resuming some aspects of plaintiff and defendant's relationship but incapable of speaking to defendant in person.

Defendant asked plaintiff if plaintiff had a lover now whom would object to defendant contacting plaintiff.

Plaintiff denied having a lover.

Plaintiff then asserted that she had not had a romantic relationship since she had separated from defendant, fifteen years before.

Plaintiff did not sound happy about this state of affairs.

Plaintiff at no time indicated rejection of defendant's communications.

Plaintiff's own description of events reflects a significant lack of specificity on the part of plaintiff to communicate any distress with defendant's interest in plaintiff's welfare.

Defendant was left with the impression that plaintiff was not unhappy to have heard from defendant, after so many years of painful separation.

3.11 "she saw Defendant"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 4, lines 15-17) that "I called my mother, who lives downstairs. She looked out her window and told me she saw Defendant sitting on the bench outside my front door. She said he was just sitting there."

Defendant recalls plaintiff's mother turning on the light.

Defendant recalls sitting and waiting for someone to come and open the door, for about five minutes, after which the light was turned off.

Defendant suggests that plaintiff's mother expected plaintiff to open the door and speak to defendant - not to refuse to answer the door.

Defendant suggests that the five minute delay between when plaintiff's mother turned the light on, for plaintiff and defendant, and when plaintiff's mother turned the light off, at plaintiff's request, are an artifact suggesting a disagreement, between the plaintiff and the rest of her family regarding the plaintiff's treatment of the defendant.

(Defendant suspects that plaintiff's family were looking forward to seeing plaintiff move out of the house and start a new family, and that the past fifteen years have been a burden - as the plaintiff has occupied an entire two-bedroom flat, for 15 years, while she remained preoccupied with internal matters, during a time when the rest of the City has been scrambling to keep roofs over their heads.)

Defendant suggests that plaintiff's mother only reluctantly turned off the light, after a five minute delay, once she was convinced that plaintiff was unable or unwilling to speak to defendant in person.

Defendant requests that the Court request plaintiff's mother to testify as to whether plaintiff is actually frightened of defendant - of if she is frightened of something that defendant reminds her of ... such as love, or a family, or duty.

Defendant requests that the Court invite plaintiff's mother to testify as to whether plaintiff has ever testified to plaintiff's mother about any abuse that plaintiff received at the hands of defendant.

Defendant requests that the Court invite plaintiff's sister to testify as to whether plaintiff has ever testified to plaintiff's mother about any abuse that plaintiff received at the hands of defendant.

Defendant requests that the Court invite plaintiff's mother to testify as to whether plaintiff is instead frightened of the consequences of defrauding defendant of money and justice.

Defendant requests that the Court invite plaintiff's sister to testify as to whether plaintiff is instead frightened of the consequences of defrauding defendant of money and justice.

Defendant observes that at no time did plaintiff or any of plaintiff's family register any complaint suggesting that defendant was 'trespassing'.

Defendant inquires if plaintiff's response would be any different if defendant used the United States mail, instead of dropping off letters in person.

Defendant notes that most properties have mailboxes on the property perimeter for exactly this reason and that the only reason defendant has ever has to 'trespass' was because the mailboxes were located in a place that was inaccessible from the street.

3.12 "the letter, which I do not believe he read"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 9, lines 3-7) that "I left a note in a sealed envelope outside my door in the morning. I wrote 'Richard' on the envelope. ... I did not find any letter or flowers from defendant this weekend, and he did not pick up my envelope to him. I left the letter out there for the next week. In the letter, which I do not believe he read ..."

Defendant denies ever seeing such an envelope.

Plaintiff affirms (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 9, line 7) that plaintiff does "not believe" defendant read the note.

Defendant observes that plaintiff never delivered the note, preferring to leave the note in a place where plaintiff could then object to defendant's having trespassed in order to retrieve the note ... which letter defendant did not even know existed.

3.12.1 double-bind schizophrenic behavior

Defendant notes that plaintiff explicitly alleged that defendant was trespassing in the letter that plaintiff allegedly left defendant, although it was concealed from view - and would have been invisible, without trespassing to retrieve it.

Defendant observes that, given the plaintiff's request that defendant stay 100 yards away from plaintiff, that this aforementioned behavior, requiring defendant to pick up an unannounced letter, secreted somewhere about plaintiff's front door, is closer to being a classical example of double-bind schizophrenic behavior than it is a serious indicator of a legitimate concern about physical safety, or trespassing.

3.12.2 not in a position to assert ... property trespass

Defendant observes that plaintiff is not leasing the property plaintiff lives in, and that without an explicit transfer of responsibility from the owner to the lessor, that plaintiff is not in a position to assert that property trespass has occurred.

3.12.3 refused to use defendant's address

Defendant observes that if plaintiff was sincere in plaintiff's concern for plaintiff's safety or plaintiff's property rights, that plaintiff would have asked defendant for an address, and mailed this alleged note to the address that defendant would have provided plaintiff with, requesting a reply - instead of leaving the alleged note, unannounced, on plaintiff's 'shelf' (Exhibit 9, Photograph of Plaintiff's front door), where it would not be seen.

According to plaintiff's own chronology of events, plaintiff was provided with an address at which plaintiff could send letters to defendant, the very same day - 05 August 2005 -that plaintiff allegedly took her own letter back inside. (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 9, lines 15-18).

Defendant suggests that, by refusing to engage in simple social intercourse, and by refusing even to practice elementary literary skills, that, all the while, plaintiff was secretly harboring an intention to maliciously portray defendant as incompetent and a threat to plaintiff's well-being, and was nurturing the precedents which would allow her to portray herself as a victim.

3.12.4 invited to trespass by plaintiff

Defendant observes that by plaintiff's allegedly leaving a letter on plaintiff's 'shelf' - where it would certainly be invisible to all but someone who had been invited to come and pick it up - plaintiff was placed in a position of having to trespass in order to even see if such a hypothetical message, which defendant had no reason to even expect would be waiting, existed.

Defendant suggests that such a story is absurd and an insult to the intelligence of all whom read it.

3.13 "six photographs, five of him with children"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 9, lines 24) that defendant left "six photographs, five of him with children, and one of a child."

Defendant asks the Court how defendant sharing photographs of his children can be interpreted as a threat.

Defendant invites plaintiff to introduce these threatening photographs into evidence so that the Court can evaluate the threat level of these photographs directly.

Defendant observes that defendant can hardly be accused of attempting to engage in a sexual liason with a woman to whom he is showing photographs of his children.

Defendant invites the Court to take the time to appreciate the fact that plaintiff's desperation does not have any objective basis in fact.

Defendant invites the Court to take the time to realize the fact that plaintiff's desperation has another, deeper source, and that this desperation is related to plaintiff's relationship with her own unborn child, and the source of plaintiff's inability to face defendant's children without experiencing threat.

3.14 "Someone told me about this posting"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 10, lines 19-20) that "Someone told me about this posting and gave me a copy of it."

Defendant observes that someone other than defendant seems intent upon disturbing plaintiff's peace of mind.

Defendant observes that plaintiff did not threaten this unknown person with trespass or charges of domestic violence, despite the fact that this unknown person intruded, uninvited, upon plaintiff's otherwise tranquil and blameless life, and delivered an unwelcome and distasteful message.

Defendant requests that the Court compel the plaintiff to identify this unknown third party, whose identity is being deliberately concealed by the plaintiff, without cause.

3.15 "at least four web sites concerning me"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 10, line 23) that "I am informed and believe that Defendant has created at least four web sites regarding me and my 1993 Restraining Order against him."

Defendant objects to this description as false.

Defendant has created one website, which is associated with three domain names, which discusses the outrageous conduct, the injustice, and the legal violations observed by the defendant, during his prosecution, surrounding the case FL 00005153.

Defendant has created another website, which is associated with one domain name, which discusses the events that surrounded defendant's unlawful termination at Oracle Corporation.

Defendant notes that neither website identifies the plaintiff by name but only identifies the case number, describes plaintiff's actions, and the consequences of plaintiff's actions.

Defendant observes that if plaintiff does not wish plaintiff's actions to be discussed in public, that plaintiff would be better off refraining from such public actions, which have public consequences, and which are contained in public records, which are available to the public, as a matter of public record.

Defendant shares plaintiff's concerns about the contents of the public record.

Defendant wishes that whoever provided legal counsel to plaintiff in 1993 had done a better job and had kept plaintiff from steering the course that plaintiff insisted upon.

Defendant thinks that defendant should not be held liable for incompetent or malicious legal counsel received by plaintiff.

Plaintiff has consistently refused to discuss defendant's concerns, instead preferring to file another public complaint, alleging that defendant is discussing the previous public complaint, publicly - as if enforcement of public policy should be kept private.

Defendant observes that if plaintiff does not wish plaintiff's actions to be discussed in public, that plaintiff would be better off initiating communications, in private, with defendant to determine why he is so dissatisfied with the verdict, rather than oppressing defendant by seeking a second fraudulent restraining order, to keep defendant from discussing the first fraudulent restraining order.

Because plaintiff has consistently and now publicly refused to discuss defendant's concerns in private, defendant has no other recourse but to discuss his concerns publicly.

Defendant cites the United States Constitution, Second Amendment, which says:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Defendant argues that defendant's web server is an electronic press.

Defendant argues that defendant's website is a journal of personal experiences that happened to the defendant.

Defendant argues that defendant is, in this context, a journalist.

Defendant argues that the Internet is a peaceable assembly of people, as defined in the Constitution.

Defendant argues that defendant's journals detail defendant's ongoing attempts to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Defendant argues that forbidding the defendant to use the Internet to communicate with other citizens about grievances would be equivalent to denying defendant access to copying machines, in that it would be an intolerable burden upon his ability to seek representation for his legal concerns, now and in the future.

Defendant argues that such an action would further tilt an already outrageously tilted playing field further, leading to more outrageous acts of oppression and injustice.

3.16 "Someone told me about this website"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 11, lines 10,13,17) that "Someone told me about this website ..."

Defendant observes that someone other than defendant seems intent upon disturbing plaintiff's peace of mind.

Defendant observes that plaintiff did not threaten this unknown person with trespass or charges of domestic violence, despite the fact that this unknown person intruded, uninvited, upon plaintiff's otherwise tranquil and blameless life, and delivered an unwelcome and distasteful message.

Defendant requests that the Court compel the plaintiff to identify this unknown third party, whose identity is being deliberately concealed by the plaintiff, without cause.

3.17 "Defendant has been writing about me on the internet"

Plaintiff requests (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 12, lines 6-9) that "Defendant has been writing about me on the internet. ... I request that the Court make an order specifically prohibiting Defendant from publishing anything about me on the internet, on any website, or in any other forum."

Defendant objects to this description as false.

Defendant notes that none of the websites defendant administers, identifies the plaintiff by name, but only identifies the case number, describes plaintiff's actions, and the consequences of plaintiff's actions.

Defendant observes that if plaintiff does not wish plaintiff's actions to be discussed in public, that plaintiff would be better off refraining from such public actions, which have public consequences, and which are contained in public records, which are available to the public, as a matter of public record.

Defendant shares plaintiff's concerns about the contents of the public record.

Plaintiff refuses to discuss defendant's concerns, instead preferring to file another public complaint, alleging that defendant is discussing the previous public complaint, publicly.

Defendant observes that if plaintiff does not wish plaintiff's actions to be discussed in public, that plaintiff would be better off initiating communications, in private, with defendant to determine why he is so dissatisfied with the verdict, rather than oppressing defendant by seeking a second fraudulent restraining order, to keep defendant from discussing the first fraudulent restraining order.

Because plaintiff has consistently and now publicly refused to discuss defendant's concerns in private, defendant has no other recourse but to discuss his concerns publicly.

Defendant cites the United States Constitution, Second Amendment, which says:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Defendant argues that defendant's web server is an electronic press, that defendant's website is a journal of personal experiences that happened to the defendant, and that defendant is, in this context, a journalist.

Defendant argues that the Internet is a peaceable assembly of people, as defined in the Constitution.

Defendant argues that defendant's journals detail defendant's ongoing attempts to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Defendant argues that forbidding the defendant to use the Internet to communicate with other American citizens about grievances would be equivalent to denying defendant access to copying machines, in that it would be an intolerable burden upon his ability to seek representation or conduct public opinion campaigns for his public policy concerns, now and in the future.

Defendant observes that if plaintiff believes that plaintiff is being defamed, that there are other venues available to plaintiff, and that a domestic violence restraining order is not the appropriate venue for addressing concerns about slander or defamation.

Defendant suggests that if there are no good grounds for allegations of slander or defamation, there are no good grounds for restraining defendant's freedom of speech - other than to protect the reputation of those involved in the fraud surrounding FL 00005153.

3.18 "He is inappropriately invading my privacy"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 12, lines 6-8) that "He is inappropriately invading my privacy."

Defendant denies that he is invading plaintiff's privacy.

Defendant has not identified plaintiff or plaintiff's address.

Plaintiff has not provided guidelines on what is or is not appropriate or inappropriate.

Plaintiff has refused to respond to repeated requests from defendant for meetings to discuss exactly this question, in both a personal and internet-related context.

Defendant remains available to plaintiff; plaintiff has refused to make use of defendant's address and availability to communicate and discuss exactly these issues.

3.19 "He is coming onto my property"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 12, lines 6-8) that "He is coming onto my property."

Defendant observes that plaintiff has not established that she has any property rights where the address 459 16th Avenue, in San Francisco is concerned.

Defendant believes that plaintiff is not the owner of 459 16th Avenue, in San Francisco.

Defendant requests that the Court compel plaintiff to demonstrate to the Court that she is the lawful owner of 459 16th Avenue, San Francisco, and is in a position to ascertain who is or is not trespassing.

Defendant observes that plaintiff lives in the flat at 459 1/2 16th Avenue, San Francisco, and that defendant has never trespassed onto that property in defendant's entire life.

Defendant observes that plaintiff does not pay plaintiff's parents any monthly rent and for this reason her claim of control over the property does not merit consideration.

Defendant requests that the Court instruct the plaintiff to stick to the .facts.

3.20 "obsessing about a restraining order"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 12, line 11) that "He is obsessing about a restraining order I obtained against him 12 years ago ...".

Defendant notes that plaintiff is not a licensed psychotherapist and is not qualified to make medical or psychiatric diagnoses.

Defendant observes that 'obsession' is a clinical description of a clinically pathological behavior, and not a word for plaintiff to be throwing around carelessly, without medical qualifications.

Defendant observes that plaintiff is a former inpatient at a mental hospital and should know better than to allow herself to use clinical terms in a pejorative manner.

Defendant observes that this language is intended to be prejudicial and asks that the Court take note of the fact that plaintiff cannot make a strong case on the facts alone, and must resort to unsubstantiated personal attacks upon the defendant's mental and emotional stability.

3.21 "he is still angry"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 12, line 12) that "he [the defendant] is still angry".

Defendant notes that the act of being falsely accused of domestic violence is, by definition, outrageous conduct, and that, by definition, outrageous behavior is behavior that provokes outrage, on the part of all whom learn about it.

Defendant observes that the discovery of indicators suggesting forgery and criminal conspiracy are also outrageous conduct.

Defendant suggests that trying to contain the outrage by coercing citizens into remaining silent about fraud, within the Superior Court system, via legal coercion, is counterproductive.

Defendant observes that plaintiff has not once made any reference to exactly what it is that plaintiff is so angry about.

Defendant thinks that this is where the dialogue should start, not where the declaration should stop.

Defendant asks that the Court compel plaintiff to explain to the Court what happened, between August 20 2005 and 16 September 2005, other than the mysterious visit by an unidentified "Someone" (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 11, lines 10,13,17) ... which provoked plaintiff to file plaintiff's complaint, on 16 September 2005.

Defendant again observes that someone other than defendant seems intent upon disturbing plaintiff's peace of mind.

Defendant suggests that if there are legal activists whom wish to engage in legal activism, that they should emerge from the shadows and operate in the open, where they can be held accountable for their actions, like any other officer of the court.

Defendant suggests that this concealed "Someone" is behaving in a fashion suggestive of a desire to avoid accountability for their actions.

Defendant suggests that this apparent desire for a lack of accountability is suggestive of an intent to violate the law - it is analogous to a person hiding in the shadows, there is no good reason for this behavior - and for this reason it invites closer scrutiny.

Defendant rightly despises such individuals for manipulating mentally or emotionally ill and vulnerable people into positions of legal vulnerability while concealing and protecting themselves from the same sorts of risks.

Defendant observes that it is exactly this sort of lack of accountability which defendant found so outrageous in the previous, fraud-riddled hearings of FL 00005153.

Defendant again requests that the Court compel the plaintiff to identify this unknown third party, whose identity is being deliberately concealed by the plaintiff, without cause.

3.22 "I could not get the order served"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 05 October 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Section 4) that "I asked the judge to reissue the restraining order because: I could not get the order served before the hearing date."

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 02 November 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Section 4) that "I asked the judge to reissue the restraining order because: I could not get the order served before the hearing date."

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 02 December 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Section 4) that "I asked the judge to reissue the restraining order because: I could not get the order served before the hearing date."

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 17 January 2006, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Section 4) that "I asked the judge to reissue the restraining order because: I could not get the order served before the hearing date."

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 07 February 2006, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Section 4) that "I asked the judge to reissue the restraining order because: I could not get the order served before the hearing date."

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 03 March 2006, served 04 March 2006, page 1, Section 4) that "I asked the judge to reissue the restraining order because: I could not get the order served before the hearing date."

Defendant observes that by repeatedly neglecting to serve the process on the defendant in a prompt fashion, that plaintiff was actually accumulating a steadily growing pile of papers that misled third parties into misunderstanding the defendant to be avoiding service of process rather than the plaintiff willfully neglecting to attempt service of process.

Defendant observes that by repeatedly neglecting to serve the process on the defendant in a prompt fashion, that plaintiff was actually, through neglecting to communicate her dissatisfaction with defendant's communications, eliciting more materials from the defendant, for use in the (known only to the plaintiff, and to those whom were assisting her) trial - and that plaintiff was actually prolonging the situation, rather than attempting to bring it to an end.

Defendant refers to this as "passive-aggressive" behavior, and observes that such behavior is not normally associated with people whom enjoy good mental hygiene, and that, for this reason, there is again reason to question the mental hygiene of the plaintiff.

Defendant observes that as a result of plaintiff's neglectful service of process that when service of process finally occurred that defendant was so overwhelmed by the abundance of legal materials (87 pages, many of them printed on both sides) and was unable to absorb it within the requisite 72 hours.

Based on information and belief defendant believes that this was a deliberate strategy on the part of the plaintiff, guided by one or more individuals with prior knowledge of these procedures and the consequences of various alternative approaches to service of process.

Defendant observes that this is the sort of knowledge that a person working in a restraining order clinic or a family law office might be likely to possess.

Based on information and belief, defendant believes that it is inappropriate and perhaps illegal for an officer of the court to be covertly advising clients without serving notice on the Court that they are representing said clients.

Defendant requests that the Court compel the plaintiff to identify the person or persons whom advised her on her strategy towards service of process between August 2005 and March 2006.

(Defendant's capacity to absorb these materials was interrupted by defendant's car spinning out in the rain, going off of Highway 101, into an embankment, and into a ditch, late on the evening of 08 March 2006 (Exhibit 3, California Highway Patrol Collision Report Information, dated 08 March 2006). Defendant notes that this has never before happened to defendant, in over two decades of continuous driving. Fortunately, defendant was driving an old Mercedes.)

Defendant requests that the Court compel plaintiff to provide corroboration to this statement, that plaintiff "could not get the order served before the hearing date."

3.23 "I have been unable to have Defendant served"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 07 February 2006, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, lines 7-9) that "I have not been able to have him served."

Defendant observes that by repeatedly neglecting to serve the process on the defendant in a prompt fashion, that plaintiff was actually accumulating a steadily growing pile of papers that misled third parties into misunderstanding the defendant to be avoiding service of process rather than the plaintiff willfully neglecting to attempt service of process.

Defendant observes that by repeatedly neglecting to serve the process on the defendant in a prompt fashion, that plaintiff was actually, through neglecting to communicate her dissatisfaction with defendant's communications, eliciting more materials from the defendant, for use in the (known only to the plaintiff, and to those whom were assisting her) trial - and that plaintiff was actually prolonging the situation, rather than attempting to bring it to an end.

Defendant refers to this as "passive-aggressive" behavior, and observes that such behavior is not normally associated with people whom enjoy good mental hygiene, and that, for this reason, there is again reason to question the mental hygiene of the plaintiff.

Defendant observes that a result of plaintiff's neglectful service of process that when service of process finally occurred that defendant was so overwhelmed by the abundance of legal materials (87 pages, many of them printed on both sides) and was unable to absorb it within the requisite 72 hours.

Based on information and belief defendant believes that this was a deliberate strategy on the part of the plaintiff, guided by one or more individuals with prior knowledge of these procedures and the consequences of various alternative approaches to service of process.

Defendant observes that this is the sort of knowledge that a person working in a restraining order clinic or a family law office might be likely to possess.

Based on information and belief, defendant believes that it is inappropriate and perhaps illegal for an officer of the court to be covertly advising clients without serving notice on the Court that they are representing said clients.

Defendant requests that the Court compel the plaintiff to identify the person or persons whom advised her on her strategy towards service of process between August 2005 and March 2006.

Defendant requests that the Court compel plaintiff to provide corroboration to this statement, that plaintiff has been "unable to have Defendant served before the hearing date."

3.24 "a frosted cookie outside my front door"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 07 February 2006, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, lines 24-25) that "I found Defendant's business card and a frosted cookie outside my front door. On his business card, Defendant wrote, 'Wishing you a merry 12th Day of Christmas, and a Happy New Year ...'."

Defendant observes that a Christmas cookie is hardly a threat.

Defendant requests that the Court consider how disturbed plaintiff would have been if plaintiff had found the Christmas cookie on her back door, and requests that the Court consider the possibility that the plaintiff is somewhat oversensitive.

3.25 "a fabric crafts supply catalog"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 07 February 2006, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, line 27 - page 2, line 1) that "I found another note from Defendant, outside my front door, written on a post-it on a fabric crafts supply catalog. On the note, Defendant wrote, 'Dear Helen, If you'd like to try painting t-shirts again, or want to show some kids, I picked up an extra catalog.'"

Defendant observes that fabric crafts supply catalogs are hardly a threat, unless (a) one is a disobedient puppy, and (b) the catalog in question is rolled up.

Defendant requests that the Court to again consider how disturbed plaintiff would have been if plaintiff had found the Christmas cookie on her back door, and requests that the Court consider the possibility, again, that the plaintiff is just a bit ill in the head.

(Defendant notes, for interested court personnel with small children, that Dharma Trading Company, in San Rafael (http://www.dharmatrading.com) is a wonderful source for cotton clothing and all sorts of tinting and dyeing technologies.)

3.26 "He continues to edit"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 07 February 2006, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 2, lines 7-8) that "He continues to edit the prior postings to include new accounts of other domestic violence from the news."

Defendant objects that it is not illegal to provide reviews of the news or to discuss the recent events in the light of political trends.

Defendant observes that his material was quoted from daily journals and that plaintiff has provided no evidence suggesting that plaintiff has made any attempt to stifle daily journals from printing articles related to domestic violence.

Defendant suggests that his freedom of speech is being targeted by plaintiff and her supporters because defendant's comments on embarrassing circumstances such as the domestic violence accusations lodged against the San Francisco Chief of the Fire Department (who allegedly assaulted her husband with a pint glass and gave him two bumps on the head, but went un-prosecuted) cast the light of publicity upon domestic violence advocates and their methodologies, and that these advocates and their methodologies cannot stand exposure to publicity.

Plaintiff apparently wants to make it illegal for defendant to read aloud from the morning newspaper, while sitting at a table, against the possibility that plaintiff or any of plaintiff's friends are within, or might come within, earshot of defendant's voice.

Defendant asserts that he has a right to editorialize - and that plaintiff does not under any circumstance have a right to silence defendant.

Defendant notes that plaintiff states that she is "informed" but declines to inform the Court or the defendant as to exactly how she is informed.

Defendant asks the Court to compel plaintiff to identify the means through which she has remained informed of defendant's independent activities on the Internet.

Defendant observes that there seems to be more indication that plaintiff and plaintiff's companions are stalking defendant, over the Internet, than there is indication that defendant is stalking plaintiff.

3.27 "I want him to stop"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 07 February 2006, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 2, line 15), in reference to defendant's Craigslist postings discussing W.O.M.A.N. Incorporated, allegations of fraud, and domestic violence, that "He is still harassing me, and I want it to stop."

Defendant observes that these articles do not mention the plaintiff by name and do not discuss the plaintiff.

Defendant observes that these articles do discuss FL 00005153 explicitly and that this is defendant's right.

Defendant observes that defendant is not delivering the articles to the plaintiff.

Defendant asks: Who is delivering the articles to plaintiff?

Defendant asks the Court to compel plaintiff to identify the person or persons whom are continuing to harass plaintiff with repeated reminders, attempting to provoke a state of war between defendant and plaintiff, so that this person or persons can be held accountable for their legal activism, their surreptitiousness, their stealth, and their stalking of defendant's legitimate and legal use and enjoyment of the Internet.

3.28 "I have been unable to have Defendant served"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 03 March 2006, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, lines 7-9) that "It has been reissued a number of times because I have been unable to have Defendant served before the hearing date."

Defendant observes that by repeatedly neglecting to serve the process on the defendant in a prompt fashion, that plaintiff was actually accumulating a steadily growing pile of papers that misled third parties into misunderstanding the defendant to be avoiding service of process rather than the plaintiff willfully neglecting to attempt service of process.

Defendant observes that by repeatedly neglecting to serve the process on the defendant in a prompt fashion, that plaintiff was actually, through neglecting to communicate her dissatisfaction with defendant's communications, eliciting more materials from the defendant, for use in the (known only to the plaintiff, and to those whom were assisting her) trial - and that plaintiff was actually prolonging the situation, rather than attempting to bring it to an end.

Defendant refers to this as "passive-aggressive" behavior, and observes that such behavior is not normally associated with people whom enjoy good mental hygiene, and that, for this reason, there is again reason to question the mental hygiene of the plaintiff.

Defendant observes that a result of plaintiff's neglectful service of process that when service of process finally occurred that defendant was so overwhelmed by the abundance of legal materials (87 pages, many of them printed on both sides) and was unable to absorb it within the requisite 72 hours.

3.29 "Defendant is continuing to stalk me"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 03 March 2006, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, lines 11) that "As detailed below, Defendant is continuing to stalk me ....".

The American Heritage Dictionary defines 'stalking' as:

To pursue by tracking stealthily.


Defendant denies that he has pursued plaintiff. No testimony exists alleging otherwise.

Defendant observes that plaintiff has never made any attempt to evade defendant in any way.

Defendant observes that plaintiff has never made any attempt to convey plaintiff's distress over the state of affairs that plaintiff alleges to exist, to defendant.

Defendant observes that there is no indication of stealth in any of the actions that plaintiff alleges.

Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, defines 'stalking' as:

the act ... of following another by stealth or the offense of following or loitering near another, often surreptitiously, with the purpose of annoying or harassing that person or committing a further crime such as assault or battery.

Defendant denies that he has ever followed plaintiff. No testimony exists indicating otherwise.

Defendant observes that plaintiff has never made any attempt to convey plaintiff's distress over the state of affairs that plaintiff alleges to exist, to defendant.

Defendant observes that there is no indication of stealth in any of the actions that plaintiff alleges - which involve delivering letters, and leaving.

Defendant denies that he has ever loitered near plaintiff, or plaintiff's home, or car. No testimony exists alleging otherwise.

Defendant denies having acted surreptitiously. No testimony exists indicating otherwise. Defendant observes that there is no indication of surreptitiousness in any of the actions that plaintiff alleges - which involve delivering letters, and leaving. Plaintiff's complaint is based upon the fact that plaintiff knows exactly whom is leaving plaintiff notes.

Defendant has never made any attempt to deny authorship of any note he has left plaintiff.

Defendant agrees that plaintiff might be annoyed by the reminder of a $4000 debt.

Defendant agrees that plaintiff might be annoyed by the reminder that plaintiff had violated the law, in order to get the domestic violence restraining order, in order to avoid paying the $4000 debt.

Defendant agrees that plaintiff might feel threatened by the existence of a $4000 debt.

Defendant observes that plaintiff is threatened by plaintiff's debt - not by defendant - and asks that the Court take the time to distinguish between these two subtly, but importantly, different uses of the word 'threatened'.

Defendant does not think that asking a person to communicate constitutes either a threat or harassment.

Defendant observes that attempting to collect a debt was and is a protected activity and that court rules prohibit the use of restraining orders to interfere with the collection of a debt.

Defendant has never indicated either interest or capacity for engaging in assault or battery upon anyone. No evidence or testimony exists indicating otherwise.

Plaintiff has never alleged either assault or battery to anyone. The total lack of substantive issues and the abundance of outrageously false claims used, on the part of the plaintiff, to qualify for a domestic violence restraining order, is outrageous and illegal.

Defendant asserts that defendant was and is innocent of any uncivil behavior.

Defendant asserts that plaintiff has and continues to engage in a coverup, to avoid being held responsible for plaintiff's $4000 debt, and to avoid being held responsible for the violations of the law plaintiff engaged in pursuant to plaintiff's desire to fraudulently acquire a domestic violence restraining order and avoid being required to pay the debt plaintiff had, according to her own repeated testimony, abandoned.

3.30 "a metaphor for winter"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 03 March 2006, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 2, lines 18-23) that by quoting a scene from Walt Disney's children's classic, Pinocchio, that defendant is actually issuing a death threat:

A final falsehood causes all the leaves to turn brown, curl up and fall off, leaving the twigs, and nose, bare - a metaphor for winter, and death ...

I trust the metaphor is clear ... [emphasis added]

Here's the full text. Scary, isn't it?

I was watching a video, at home, with my daughters - the Disney classic, Pinocchio, borrowed from a local library - and I was reminded of a fundamental truth, by what is probably one of my favorite scenes in the movie.

Pinocchio is insistently lying to his fairy godmother, and, with each addition, his nose grows longer, and longer, sprouting leaves, twigs, blossoms and then a bird's nest, complete with eggs, that hatch into birds, which fly away.

A final falsehood causes the leaves to turn brown, curl up and fall off, leaving the twigs, and nose, bare - a metaphor for winter, and death.

His fairy godmother advises him that 'When you tell a lie, it grows and grows until it's as plain as the nose on your face'.

I trust the metaphor is clear ... if my children don't have any problems understanding it, then your inner child should not have any problem, either.

Plaintiff - or plaintiff's unlicensed, perhaps disbarred legal counsel, hiding in the shadows - has cut-and-paste this into an ellipse-riddled mess - which sounds like a death threat, but is not, if the Court fills in the missing pieces of the message - as was done, above.

Defendant points out that this is a metaphor about lying, and liars; if it's not obvious, defendant could show the video to a group of five-year-olds and take a poll, afterwards, and see what they think it's about.

Plaintiff objects to this sort of quoting out of context and undocumented redaction, requests that the Court read the original exhibits, and asks that the Court insure that the content and context are correct before reaching any conclusions about any particular aspect of this case.

4. Debts

4.1 Overdue Bill Led To TRO

Defendant notes (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 2, Item 6, Personal Conduct Orders) that plaintiff was and is using false allegations of domestic violence as a means to avoid paying plaintiff's debt.

Defendant observes that at the time plaintiff allegedly separated from defendant that she had just cosigned a one-year lease (Exhibit 13, Residential Lease for 800 41st Avenue) and that plaintiff's desire to interfere with defendant's freedom of conduct are directly related to plaintiff's abandonment of the lease, and defendant's attempt to collect the debt, already imposed on defendant, by plaintiff's abandonment.

Defendant observes that defendant's attempts to contact plaintiff are pursuant to a legitimate attempt to discuss and ultimately collect this debt, and that this was and is lawful and protected conduct.

In 1992, after considerable financial hardship as a result of the leased property, defendant moved to a new apartment, in the Sunset District. (Exhibit 6, Letter to Lessors, dated 10 July 1991)

Plaintiff learned of this new address when plaintiff called defendant and learned that the number had been changed. Defendant had no way of contacting plaintiff.

Plaintiff visited the new apartment, incidentally learning defendant's new address, at this time.

(Defendant observes that this can be proven to have occurred because plaintiff had the restraining order served to defendant at this new address, rather than the old address that had been shared by plaintiff and dependent, previously - and the only way she could have acquired it was from the defendant.)

Defendant believes that this incident was the seed for plaintiff's vivid, but lacking in details, complaint of domestic violence that decorated her original request for restraint, in 1993.

Defendant believes that plaintiff was not honest about when and where this incident had happened - at defendant's apartment, not at plaintiff's apartment, and over a year after plaintiff and defendant had lived together - because plaintiff knew that this would disqualify plaintiff for a domestic violence restraining order against defendant, and plaintiff was intent upon protecting herself, no matter who else it hurt - she was, in the language of her codependency group, "taking care of herself".

Defendant asked plaintiff to stay and plaintiff refused. Defendant did not interfere with plaintiff's departure. Plaintiff did not return.

4.2 PG&E Wanted $755.88

A few months after this event, plaintiff was contacted by Pacific Gas and Electric, regarding an unpaid balance on the bill for the house that plaintiff and defendant had leased together. (Exhibit 7, Pacific Gas and Electric closing bill for $755.88)

4.3 Plaintiff Wanted $755.88

Plaintiff contacted defendant regarding the balance but defendant refused to pay the bill, noting that defendant had paid the plaintiff's share of the rent, for the majority of the lease.

Plaintiff then contacted defendant's brother, Thomas Dallas Childers - who, incidentally, worked at the same company as defendant.

Plaintiff persuaded defendant's brother, Thomas Dallas Childers, through unknown means, to intercede for plaintiff.

Defendant's brother, Thomas Dallas Childers, called defendant and threatened to pay the Pacific Gas and Electric bill if defendant did not, insisting that a bill was a bill.

Defendant paid plaintiff's Pacific Gas and Electric bill. (Exhibit 8, Check to Pacific Gas and Electric for $755.88)

4.4 Defendant Wants $4290, plus interest

Defendant wishes to be compensated for the debt defendant incurred for plaintiff during her psychosis, abandonment, and desertion.

Defendant estimates the value of this debt as 11 months' rent, at $1170 a month, divided by three - which is $4290, not counting interest. (Exhibit 13, Residential Lease for 800 41st Avenue)

Defendant understands that as a result of plaintiff's mental illness that plaintiff cannot be held accountable for plaintiff's actions, until such time as plaintiff is no longer ill.

Defendant has a legitimate interest in knowing if and when plaintiff will no longer be ill, because plaintiff owes defendant $4290, plus interest.

4.5 Missing Salvador Dali sketch

Defendant observes that plaintiff has also retained a piece of defendant's personal property.

Defendant had purchased a sketch attributed to Salvador Dali, and left the sketch in the possession of plaintiff. Plaintiff never returned the sketch to defendant.

Defendant describes sketch as being perhaps 11 inches by 18 inches in size, an illustration of a suit of armor, holding a lance, with a rose blossoming out of the opening where a person's head would be, drawn in the specific shade of red ink which Salvador Dali preferred (Salvador Dali frequently sketched in a very specific shade of red, and a very specific shade of green.)

Defendant notes that there is some question as to whether this sketch is actually by Salvador Dali, as Dali's students used similar colors and styles and some confusion has occurred, which enabled defendant to purchase the sketch in the first place.

Defendant has not had the sketch appraised but notes that it is worth at least $1000, by now, regardless of its precise ancestry.

Defendant just wishes to get his sketch back; he does not wish to prosecute plaintiff for keeping it.

Defendant hopes that plaintiff has not sold or lost the sketch during the intervening time but describes the sketch in the hope that, if it is missing, it will one day located and identified by the authorities.

5. Death

5.1 "I would find him bleeding"

Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 1, lines 11-12) that "He threatened to kill himself and said I would find him bleeding out in front of my house."

Defendant observes that there is no reference to this in plaintiff's initial filing.

Defendant suggests that this is absurd.

Defendant observes that, unlike plaintiff, there is no record of defendant ever having attempted to hurt himself (or anyone else).

5.2 Pinocchio as Death Threat

Plaintiff alleges (DV-125, Reissue Temporary Restraining Order, filed 03 March 2006, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, lines 18-22) that by quoting a scene from Walt Disney's children's classic, Pinnochio, that defendant is actually issuing a death threat:

A final falsehood causes all the leaves to turn brown, curl up and fall off, leaving the twigs, and nose, bare - a metaphor for winter, and death ...

I trust the metaphor is clear ... [emphasis added]

Defendant introduces the original text, for purposes of comparison:

I was watching a video, at home, with my daughters - the Disney classic, Pinocchio, borrowed from a local library - and I was reminded of a fundamental truth, by what is probably one of my favorite scenes in the movie.

Pinocchio is insistently lying to his fairy godmother, and, with each addition, his nose grows longer, and longer, sprouting leaves, twigs, blossoms and then a bird's nest, complete with eggs, that hatch into birds, which fly away.

A final falsehood causes the leaves to turn brown, curl up and fall off, leaving the twigs, and nose, bare - a metaphor for winter, and death.

His fairy godmother advises him that 'When you tell a lie, it grows and grows until it's as plain as the nose on your face'.

I trust the metaphor is clear ... if my children don't have any problems understanding it, then your inner child should not have any problem, either.

Plaintiff - or plaintiff's unlicensed, disbarred legal counsel, hiding in the shadows - has cut-and-paste this into an ellipse-riddled mess - which sounds like a death threat, but is not, if the Court fills in the missing pieces of the message - as was done, above.

Defendant explicitly denies threatening plaintiff's life. Defendant has three small girls, the oldest in the first grade, and a fourth girl due in summer.

Defendant wishes he could share his happiness with plaintiff, whom defendant suspects is deeply unhappy.

Defendant has no demonstrated desire to hurt anyone. Plaintiff does have a demonstrated desire to hurt defendant.

6. Hearing

6.1 Death In The Family

Defendant was unable to attain counsel or defend himself at the first trial as a result of defendant's father's death, and burial - which occurred only two days before the trial. (Exhibit 10, City & County of San Francisco Death Certificate for Leon Edward Salanave)

Defendant was in such deep shock that defendant did not even tell the Court that defendant's father had been killed, at the time of the hearing. (Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993)

6.2 Judge Refused To Listen

Defendant does not believe that defendant received a fair hearing, for a number of reasons.

The Court explicitly ignored several warning signs that this was not a normal TRO and behaved in a prejudicial manner throughout the hearing.

One example of prejudicial behavior is ignoring defendant's allegation that the dispute was related to an attempt to collect a debt, not a domestic violence dispute. The Court literally said that it did not want to hear about any debts. (Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993, page 6, lines 11-23)

A second example of prejudicial behavior is accepting plaintiff's claim that defendant owes plaintiff $20, without proof, while refusing defendant's claim, that plaintiff owes defendant past rent. (Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993, page 4, lines 5-20)

5.3 Prejudicial And Outrageous

Defendant is understandably outraged at the prejudicial treatment defendant was and is a recipient of, on the basis of nothing more than hearsay evidence, delivered by a mentally ill woman.

7. Transcript

7.1 Incompetence, Or Malice?

Defendant has since that time acquired the transcript from that trial and has discovered a number of disturbing defects in the record, suggesting incompetence or malice on the part of the court reporter.

This is a difficult topic for defendant to discuss, insofar as it involves legal chicanery by people whom have been trained in legal procedures, and such discussion leads to other people, whom have been trained in legal maneuvers, misinterpreting a description of events in the past, as an accusation of chicanery, in the present.

7.2 Mediation

However, defendant affirms that during the hearing defendant asked if mediation was an option, and was told it was not.

Defendant finds no record of this transaction in the hearing transcript.

Defendant believes that the record was tampered with to conceal this transaction.

7.3 Polygraph

Defendant affirms that defendant indicated a willingness to take a lie detector test, and was denied the option. Defendant had mentioned the idea to others before the trial.

Defendant finds no record of this transaction in the hearing transcript.

Defendant believes that the record was tampered with to conceal this transaction.

7.4 Psychosis

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that defendant explicitly informed the Court that plaintiff had been recently diagnosed as borderline psychotic, and later found elements of the transaction to have been removed from the record.

Defendant clearly recalls informing the Court of plaintiff's illness, and watching the Court ask the plaintiff, "Is this true?" and the plaintiff replying, 'Yes".

Defendant was and continues to be disturbed by the fact that the Court's question and the plaintiff's answer, affirming that, yes, she had recently been diagnosed as having a borderline psychosis, were removed from the record of the proceeding. (Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993, page 5, lines 10-15)

7.5 Context

Defendant observes that if one interprets the existing record as a proof of fraud then there is a gap where the judge should have asked the question, which is not easily filled in.

Defendant observes that if one does not interpret the existing record as a proof of fraud then one is left with serious questions about the judge's competence and lack of bias.

7.6 Glass

Pursuant to preparing these materials defendant identified another disturbing inconsistency in the transcript.

Defendant described the small pane of glass, in his testimony - responding to defendant's allegation that a single pane of glass n plaintiff's front door had cost $20 - as having been a small pane, 4 inches by six inches in size.

(Exhibit 9, Photograph of Plaintiff's front door)

Reviewing the record, defendant observes that the description of the glass was recorded as a "four by six sheet", implying that it was four feet by six feet, not four inches by six inches.

(Exhibit 11, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Tuesday, February 16 1993, page 4, lines 10-12)

Defendant observes that this is an exaggeration of over 144 times as many square inches of broken glass.

Defendant suggests that the record was surreptitiously edited to create and maintain the illusion that a trivial matter had actually been a major conflict.

Defendant suggests that such an action could only have been part of a larger concerted action in common with the other inconsistencies observed in connection with San Francisco Superior Court personnel of the time, as the action does not make [as much] sense, alone.

8. Defamation

Defendant has experienced substantial defamation as a result of being the target of a false domestic violence restraining order.

8.1 Thomas Childers

Defendant's older brother, Thomas Childers, refused to provide defendant with any assistance whatsoever, even though defendant's brother admitted that he had never seen defendant strike plaintiff or any other person. (Exhibit 14, electronic mail from TCHILDER@us.oracle.com, dated Monday 29 March 1993)

8.2 Oracle Corporation

Defendant suspects that defendant's older brother informed defendant's employer at that time - Oracle - of the fact that defendant was the recipient of a domestic violence restraining order and that defendant's employer may have allowed this to provoke them into abruptly terminating defendant, without cause.

Defendant observes that when defendant's legal counsel attempted to subpoena Michael Satterwhite, at one time Manager of Human Resources at Oracle Corporation, that Mr. Satterwhite abruptly left on a vacation to France, about the time that the service of process began, and was never questioned on this matter.

8.3 Sybase Corporation

Over half a year later defendant applied for a job at Sybase, based on an internal reference from a friend. Sybase processed the application but then abruptly ceased communicating with defendant, refusing to even answer a certified letter asking the HR person, Liz Marin, why she had ceased communicating. (Exhibit 15, letter to Liz Marin, dated 05 September 1993, discussing the status of defendant's background check)

Perhaps coincidentally, defendant's older brother had just left Oracle and had just started employment at Sybase.

Defendant suspects that defendant's brother, upon learning that defendant was going to be employed at Sybase, informed defendant's employer-to-be of the fact that defendant was the recipient of a domestic violence restraining order, and that defendant's employer-to-be may have allowed this to provoke them into abruptly terminating defendant's employment offer and relationship with the company, without cause.

Defendant subsequently applied for another job at Sybase, several years later - this time with another internal reference, from a former coworker at Ingres - and was hired. The same HR person, Liz Marin, was involved. Ms. Marin never explained why she had broken off her previous employment contact, in 1993.

Defendant was legitimately afraid to ask, for fear that defendant would again lose his employment.

(Sybase initiated termination proceedings against defendant shortly after Oracle contacted Sybase, subpoenaing defendant's electronic mail in such a way as to insinuate that defendant was not mentally stable.)

Defendant has not spoken to his older brother since Christmas of 1993, when defendant's older brother goaded defendant into fisticuffs.

8.4 Paul Vixie

Defendant's best neighborhood friend, from childhood, Paul Andrew Vixie, refused to provide defendant with any assistance whatsoever, even though defendant's best friend admitted that he had never seen defendant strike plaintiff or any other person.

Based on information and belief, defendant's best friend, Mr Vixie, was at that time subject to a restraining order, himself, pursuant to a separation and custody battle that was occurring between Paul and his wife, in San Mateo County.

Between 29 and 30 January 1993 defendant's childhood friend, Mr Vixie, said:

i would like to attend your father's funeral. i did not know leon well, but as son number 5 I feel a need to be there, even if only for you and penny.

(Exhibit 16, electronic mail to vixie@vix.com, dated Saturday 30 January 1993)

On 16 February 1993, in response to defendant's request for legal assistance with Oracle, defendant's childhood friend, Paul Vixie, said:

anne mitchell is a world-class wonderful smart person, like an older version of becky on steroids. her e-mail is shedevil@vix.com. your oracle problem is not in her area of expertise but someone else in her office will be able to help you. her office is in redwood city.

(Exhibit 17, electronic mail to vixie@vix.com, dated Saturday 16 February 1993)

Defendant did, incidentally, meet with Anne Mitchell, at the offices of Knapp & Viola, at 441 1st Street, in San Mateo, and Anne Mitchell did introduce the defendant to Sean C. Hickey, attorney at law.

Mr. Hickey proceeded to listen to defendant's story, copy many of defendant's documents and even keep a few originals, promising to return them.

Mr. Hickey then stopped returning defendant's calls, and so did Anne Mitchell.

A few years later, defendant learned, by examining the court files in Redwood City, that Sean Hickey - and the law firm he worked for, Knapp & Viola - was representing Adelyn Lee, the woman who charged Oracle's former chairman of the board and current CEO, Larry Ellison, of sexual harassment.

In January 1995 defendant was terminated from his job, at RadioMail, in San Mateo, by his manager, after defendant asked for an explanation for why RadioMail sent him offsite for a few hours, at company expense, every time their consultant, Paul Vixie, came onsite.

Based on information and experience Mr Vixie had informed RadioMail management that he left 'threatened' by defendant's presence and refused to come onsite so long as defendant was present.

On Thursday, January 19 1995, defendant said to his immediate manager, in electronic mail:

Specifically, on Wednesday, 11 January 1995, you asked me, shortly after I arrived, to be prepared to leave by 1530 and not come back until I was paged.

The explanation I was offered was that Paul Vixie was coming to meet with you, and he did not want to meet me.

On Monday, January 16 1995, you approached me again and asked that I be prepared to arrive substantially later than is my normal, expected time of arrival, Wednesday, January 18, 1995. Again, the explanation was offered that Paul Vixie was coming to meet with you, and that he did not want to meet me.

(Exhibit 18, electronic mail to ross@radiomail.net, dated Thursday January 19 1995)

Defendant was immediately terminated for unspecified reasons.

On November 11, 1995 defendant's childhood friend, Mr Vixie, said the following to the defendant, in electronic mail:

if i ever see you i will call the police, swear out a complaint, and file for a restraining order. i have ample evidence that you are capable of violence and that you bear me much ill will.

(Exhibit 19, electronic mail from vixie@wisdom.vix.com, dated Saturday 11 November 1995)

8.5 My Family

The events described shattered defendant's immediate family.

8.5.1 Probate

When defendant's grandmother died, in 2000, defendant's older brother refused to assist with the matter - a dead woman, a living grandfather, and a three-story house filled to the attic with memorabilia, all of it 3000 miles away from San Francisco, on the East Coast ... not far from where defendant's older brother had been sent to college.

Defendant's mother was not able to cope with the burden of her parents either befor, or after, defendant's grandmother's death. Defendant, alone, had been visiting his grandparents, in the years prior to defendant's grandmother's death. Defendant, alone, did the majority of the cleaning and organization of defendant's grandmother's possessions.

Defendant and defendant's mother disagreed over defendant's mother's intention of abandoning defendant's grandfather in a hospital, on the East Coast, where he knew no one, instead of allowing defendant's grandfather to enjoy his last few years of life on the West Coast, where his children, his grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, were.

In retaliation for defendant's refusal to abandon defendant's grandfather - and to insure that defendant would not have sufficient funds to acquire legal representation and apply to become defendant's grandfather's guardian - defendant's mother reneged upon prior commitments to compensate defendant for the expenditures related to defendant's ongoing sole support of the probate process over the previous six months, and refused to pay defendant a penny.

In retaliation for defendant's refusal to abandon defendant's grandfather, defendant's mother surreptitiously arranged to have the locks changed, while defendant was traveling with defendant's family, to the West Coast - evicting defendant from the place where defendant and defendant's wife had clothing, possessions, telephone service, Internet access and other equipment.

Defendant's mother then proceeded to liquidate the entire contents of the house - without regard for prior written commitments she had made to allow defendant to retain certain heirlooms - sold the house, returned to the East Coast, and went on vacation.

Defendant believes that defendant's mother neglected to even give defendant's grandmother proper burial, surreptitiously burying defendant's grandmother's ashes beneath a family headstone, but neglecting to notify anyone, or even arrange for the headstone to be updated.

Defendant believes that defendant's mother had learned the wrong lessons from witnessing first, defendant's having been targeted by a fraudulent restraining order; second, a fraudulent termination at Oracle; third, a fraudulent spinoff termination at Sybase; plus other assorted indignities; and had drawn the wrong conclusion, and had lost respect for the law.

8.5.2 Eviction

When defendant returned home to San Francisco after six months of work on defendant's grandmother's estate - at defendant's expense - defendant was evicted from the home defendant had grown up in, and which defendant was then renting from defendant's mother - whom was now the sole owner, and in a vindictive mood.

Defendant's mother evicted defendant, defendant's wife, defendant's daughter (defendant's mother's first grand-daughter) and defendant's wife's parents, who were helping take care of the grandchild.

Defendant's mother also evicted defendant's brother - who has been homeless ever since.

8.5.3 Desertion

Taking courage from the fact that nobody who cared would be able to stop her, defendant's mother then abandoned her father in a nursing home, in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and never returned to see her father again.

Defendant's grandfather died in 2003, after three years, alone, barely able to get into a wheelchair ... only able to remember his home telephone number ... which had been disconnected ... with no way to contact anyone on the West Coast.

8.5.4 Liquidated

Defendant's mother sold the house she had evicted defendant and defendant's family from, without even making any improvements, and pocketed the proceedings, abandoning defendant and defendant's family - at a time when defendant had just returned from the East Coast and was unemployed.

Defendant believes that defendant's mother did this because defendant's mother had become aware that defendant's brother had withheld materials from subpoena, and was trying to protect defendant's brother from the consequences by economically sabotaging defendant and rendering him incapable of seeking legal assistance.

Defendant was forced to move 300 miles away from San Francisco and for this reason defendant suggests that defendant's mother was very successful.

8.5.5 Bad Penny

Defendant's mother now has three grand-daughters whom she has never met, with a fourth grand-daughter on the way.

Defendant observes that defendant's oldest grand-daughter is very angry with her grandmother, because she has another, Chinese grandmother who is very nice, and she knows, in theory, how nice grandmothers can be - they knit you sweaters and gloves and cook you food and give you baths and tuck you in at night.

Defendant's oldest daughter legitimately wonders where her other grandmother, and her Uncle Tom, are hiding ... and why.

Defendant predicts that she will soon have three small companions, also wondering.

Defendant feels sorry for his daughters - victims of mentally ill women's whims.

Defendant wonders if San Francisco Superior Court will be granting temporary restraining orders against children who want some answers from their grandmother, next, lest their grandmother feel 'threatened' by their demands for straightforward answers.

8.5.6 Bad Landlord

Defendant's first eviction led defendant to a poorly heated and rat-infested house, which led to a second lawsuit over habitability issues.

8.5.7 The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

Defendant cites this litany of cause-and-effect as an example of what can accrue from one woman's lie, if due diligence is not observed on the part of court staff and intermediaries.

(Exhibit 20, flowchart illustrating sequential relationship of successive legal matters defendant has been involved in)

Defendant believes that if court officials are seriously concerned about case load, that they should slow down and make sure that the service they are providing to the community is really justice, so as to avoid creating repeat customers.

9. Threats

9.1 Anonymous Letter

On November 18, 1993 defendant and defendant's mother, together, visited the San Francisco Superior Court Clerk's office and examined the case file for FL 00005153.

Defendant's mother memorialized the visit with a written memorandum. (Exhibit 21, Memorandum, Visit to California Superior Court - Case # FL 005153)

The next day, 19 November 1993, defendant received an anonymous letter, explicitly dated 16 November 1993, mocking his psychological stability with a cartoon:

"THIS CARTOON REMINDS ME OF RICHARD CHILDERS,A KNOW IT ALL WHO KNOWS VERY LITTLE"!

"SOME ONE NEEDS TO TELL THIS FOOL THAT HE NEEDS COUNSELING"


(Exhibit 22, Anonymous threatening letter, dated 16 November 1993)

Based on information and belief defendant believes that the anonymous letter defendant received may have been provoked by defendant's visit to the San Francisco Superior Court Clerk's office, to examine the case file for FL 00005153, on 18 November 1993.

Defendant observes that defendant has never before and never since penetrated into court chambers when the court was in recess in order to examine the court calendar.

Defendant observes that defendant has never before and never since received any other anonymous threatening letters.

Defendant believes that it is reasonable to suggest a connection between these two facts.

Defendant notes that at the time of the hearing, in 1993, there was a United States Post Office within the precincts of the San Francisco City Hall, itself, where the original hearing on FL 00005153 was held.

9.2 Telephone Harassment (SFPD case# 930587794)

In late 1993 or early 1994 defendant began to experience telephone harassment. Someone would call defendant, listen to defendant say 'hello?' and then hang up.

Defendant contacted San Francisco Police Department (Exhibit 23, Reportee Follow-Up, case number 930587794) and Pacific Bell (Exhibit 24, Authorization For Line Identification And Disclosure To Law Enforcement Personnel) and arranged for reverse traces to be employed. Defendant was instructed to press *57, wait, and then press 1 to confirm that the previous call was to be tracked, and to immediately contact Pacific Bell on the next business day to arrange for the trap to be emptied and the contents logged.

Defendant made these arrangements with a person named Stacy or Stacey, who said she was reachable at 545-1824 or 545-1985.

9.2.1 Started Just After TRO

On 31 March 1993 at 1617 Pacific time defendant received a call to 753-3345.

Defendant confirmed with 'Stacey' that the call had been trapped and logged.

9.2.2 Plaintiff's Birthday is 03 July

On 27 June 1993 at 2012 Pacific time defendant received a call to 753-3345.

Defendant confirmed with 'Brian' that the call had been trapped and logged.

On 20 July 1993 at 1836 Pacific time defendant received a call to 753-3345.

On 28 July 1993 at 1428 defendant confirmed with 'Sherry' that the call had been trapped and logged.

On 30 July 1993 at 1738 Pacific time defendant received a call to 753-3345.

On 04 August 1993 at 1010 Pacific time defendant discussed this case with 'Nikki', who referred defendant to 'Wanda', which turned out to be Wanda Hicks, the manager, and whose number was 510-355-2824.

9.2.3 In Winter, One Thinks Of One's Loved Ones

On 06 October 1993 at 1858 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-3345.

Defendant confirmed with 'Christine' that the call had been trapped and logged.

On 09 October 1993 at 0023 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-3345.

Defendant confirmed with 'Christine' that the call had been trapped and logged.

On 06 November 1993 at 2049 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-3345.

On 10 November 1993 at 2000 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-3345.

On 11 November 1993 at 1755 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-3345.

According to defendant's notes, on 12 November 1993 someone identifying themselves as James Jones called defendant and told defendant that the Pacific Bell case had been dropped, for lack of activity, and that they needed a new case number.

On 13 November 1993 defendant left a message for Wanda Hicks describing the problem that defendant was encountering attempting to log the harassing calls.

9.2.4 Starts Again Just Before 1st Avviversary of TRO

On 25 January 1994 at 2132 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-3345.

On 25 January 1994 at 2203 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-3345.

On 01 February 1994 at 1420 Pacific time defendant confirmed with 'Nancy' that the data had been trapped and logged successfully.

9.2.5 Starts Again Right After Plaintiff's Birthday

On 09 July 1994 at 1104 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-3345.

On 20 July 1994 at 1554 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-3345.

On 21 July 1994 at 1310 Pacific time defendant confirmed with 'Medina' that both data had been trapped and logged successfully.

On 09 August 1994 at 1041 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-3345.

On 23 September 1994 at 0928 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-6971.

Defendant confirmed with 'Sharon' that the call had been trapped and logged.

9.2.6 In Winter, One Thinks, Again, Of One's Loved Ones

On 04 November 1994 at 0906 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-6971.

Defendant confirmed with 'Lillian' that the call had been trapped and logged.

On 29 November 1994 at 0951 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-6971.

Defendant confirmed with 'Kim' that the call had been trapped and logged.

On 02 December 1994 at 1100 Pacific time defendant received a hang-up call to 753-6971.

Defendant confirmed with 'Mary' that the call had been trapped and logged.

9.2.7 SFPD Declines To Get Involved

At some point, defendant spoke with operator 'Christine' whom confirmed that all of these calls had been traced and logged.

At another point a few days later defendant spoke again with operator 'Christine' whom confirmed that the telephone company had successfully collected enough data to transfer the case to law enforcement.

Defendant then spoke with Pacific Bell representative Wanda Hicks, who confirmed that they had a successful case and were ready to release the case to law enforcement.

Wanda Hicks provided me with her telephone number, 510-355-2824, referred me to case # 1993 07000907, and told me she had already spoken with an Inspector Lawson of the SFPD.

At some point in time defendant met with Inspector Lawson. Defendant believes that this was in late 1994 or early 1995. (Exhibit 25, note to Inspector Lawson, and Inspector Lawson's business card, from our first meeting)

Inspector Lawson declined to investigate or prosecute the case.

Defendant believes this is because defendant had told investigator that a restraining order had been filed against defendant, as part of explaining defendant's suspicion that it was plaintiff whom was harassing the defendant, via telephone.

Defendant requests that the Court compel San Francisco Police Department to complete this investigation and to provide results to all interested parties.

9.3 Defendant's Family Is Stalked

9.3.1 Drive-By Stalking

Defendant admits to having periodically contacted plaintiff pursuant to unresolved financial and personal concerns.

Shortly after defendant delivered a letter to plaintiff, in spring of 2000 - probably informing plaintiff of the birth of defendant's first daughter, in November of 1999 - defendant was playing in the front yard of the house defendant was renting from defendant's mother, Eleanora Penny Salanave, with defendant's daughter.

Defendant quotes defendant's notes:

2000, June(?): While out front, playing with the baby, with my wife and mother-in-law, I notice a woman drive by in a black car, probably a VW [Volkswagen], probably a Cabriolet; she catches my eye because she is wearing an orange blouse.

9.3.2 Walk-By Stalking

Defendant quotes defendant's notes:

A few minutes later, she walks past the house, walking back; she is wearing cream-colored pants and looks familiar; in fact, she looks like the woman whom assisted Helen Wong in her TRO. She walks to the corner and turns and walks downhill, out of sight. I describe this sequence of events to Rebecca Myers, later that week.

9.3.3 Telephone Stalking

Defendant quotes defendant's notes:

2000.09.14 @ PM: Towards the end of KALW's 'Your Legal Rights' I call up and complaint about the show having as a guest, lawyers whom represent employers, when the majority of their audience is composed of employees; I also note, in response to his constant advertising of the SF Bar Association's Lawyer Referral Service, that the last time I used that service, the lawyer I had been referred to had refused to accept my payment and had apparently claimed that I had never shown up, to the referral service ... probably because it involved judicial misconduct.

2000.09.22 @ 0912: call from "Out Of Area" from woman asking for my wife in Cantonese; when I answered the phone, saying 'Hello' in English, she said (somewhat triumphantly, to my ear) 'So you don't speak Chinese!'; when I asked what this was all about, she hung up. It's not clear why someone would be calling for my wife, on that phone line; would be able to speak both English and Chinese; and yet, be unable to articulate what it is they wish to speak to my wife about.

2000.09.22 @ 0943: they call again. No message.

2000.09.22 @1013: they call again. No message.

2000.09.22 @ 1046: they call again. No message.

2000.09.22 @ 1119: they call again. No message.

2000.09.22 @ 1149: they call again. No message. Clearly a pattern of someone trying every thirty minutes to get in contact with someone in my house other than myself, for a sustained period of time; half of a business day, in other words. Clearly it is very important to someone that they speak to my wife, directly ...

2000.09.23 @ 0845: discussing this with my wife, we wonder how they could have leaned her name. Our marriage record is [supposed to be - it's in San Francisco City Hall, who knows who's got it now] confidential. My wife suggests that they could have accessed the birth certificate, as Grolier Books [bottom feeders who contacted us with a line of overpriced, low-quality children's books about 30 seconds after our first daughter was born] appears to have.

2000.09.27 @ 1003: another call from 'out of area'; no message.

2000.09.27 @ 2012: another call from 'out of area'; no message.

2000.09.28 @ 1227: another call from 'out of area'; no message.

2000.09.28 @ 1923: another call from 'out of area'; no message.

Defendant requests the Court ask itself who, exactly, is harassing and stalking my family, in this sequence of events.

10. Pro Bono

10.1 Citizens for a Better Environment

In 1994 and early 1995 defendant did some volunteer work for an organization called Citizens For A Better Environment, or CEB, through an acquaintance who also volunteered at Rainforest Action Network.

CEB was a nonprofit law firm run by a lawyer named Richard Toshiyuki Drury.

As a result of defendant's acquaintance with Richard Drury, defendant asked Mr. Drury to review a legal matter involving "a friend" of defendant's.

10.2 Domestic Violence Stigmata

Defendant was too ashamed and traumatized to admit to Mr. Drury that the matter involved the defendant.

Defendant had already experienced, repeatedly, the prejudicial and stigmatic effect that admitting one was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order, inevitably led to.

When Mr. Drury reviewed the matter and discovered that the matter involved the defendant, Mr. Drury expressed outrage and betrayal at the defendant's failure to properly inform him, in full, of the matter ahead of time.

Defendant and Mr. Drury had a discussion in the cab of defendant's truck, where defendant, weeping, made his case for why he believed that he had been required to use subterfuge in order to elicit Mr. Drury's cooperation.

Mr. Drury grudgingly agreed to go back up to the Office of the Court Clerk and look at the matter and describe what he saw.

Defendant accompanied Mr. Drury in his examination of the materials.

10.3 Flashlight and Hand Lense

Defendant recalls that there may have been more than one trip necessary, as Mr. Drury did not have with him the required materials - a flashlight and a hand magnifying lense - required to ascertain where in the original paperwork, whiteout had been applied, and what was beneath the whiteout.

Defendant recalls that during this process Mr. Drury became seriously ill, and was unavailable for around a week.

10.4 The Drury Declaration

At the end of this week Mr. Drury contacted the defendant and informed him that he had completed the work and that the declaration was available for the defendant's use.

(Exhibit 2, Declaration of Richard Toshiyuki Drury, 08 February 1995)

Mr. Drury requested that the defendant provide Mr. Drury with prior notice before the declaration was used.

The defendant has done his best to fulfill this commitment over the past decade. Defendant most recently located Mr Drury, via the State Bar website, at a firm in South San Francisco, and sent him electronic mail, so that he would be aware that he might be contacted.

11. Rehearing

11.1 Reversed or Vacated

In 1996, after the original three year long temporary restraining order had elapsed, defendant requested that the legal counsel which defendant was employing, in the matter Childers v Oracle, assist the defendant in getting FL 00005153 reversed or vacated.

11.2 Started in February, 1996

Defendant observes that this process began in February 1996, over half a year before the date of the trial was set for 07 October 1996.

During this time defendant not only provided legal counsel with a certified copy of the Drury Declaration, but also elicited and collected declarations from defendant's mother and defendant's childhood friend, Rebecca Myers.

11.3 Drury Declaration Omitted

Defendant did not know that defendant's legal counsel had omitted to include the Drury Declaration in defendant's filing.

Defendant's lawyer alleged to have given this document to the trial judge during the trial but there is no indication in the record of this having taken place.

Defendant was present at the trial but did not know that defendant's legal counsel had omitted to include the Drury Declaration in defendant's filing.

Defendant had grown legitimately concerned about the integrity of San Francisco Superior Clerk office staff, as a result of previous experience.

11.4 Drury Declaration Missing

Some days or weeks after the hearing, defendant went to the Superior Court Clerk's office, on defendant's own initiative, without notifying defendant's legal counsel of defendant's plans.

At the San Francisco Superior Court Clerk's office, defendant reviewed the file for FL 00005153 and was disturbed to discover that the Drury Declaration was not included in the file.

Defendant called defendant's legal counsel from the pay telephone in the lobby immediately outside of the Superior Court Clerk's office, making the telephone call with a Pacific Bell calling card so that the [local] call would register on defendant's telephone bill, as corroboration.

Defendant demanded that defendant's legal counsel locate and replace the missing Drury Declaration in the folder for FL 00005153.

11.5 Drury Declaration 'Replaced'

Defendant's legal counsel, Gerald Lynn Ross, subsequently alleged to defendant that defendant's legal counsel's employee, John Linneball, had been dispatched to the Superior Court and had allegedly located the missing Drury Declaration in the room where the hearing had been held, several days or weeks before.

Defendant's legal counsel, Gerald Lynn Ross, and John Linneball, both, subsequently alleged to defendant that defendant's legal counsel's employee, John Linneball, had replaced the paper in the file for FL 00005153.

11.6 Evidence Was Concealed

Defendant now observes that the Drury Declaration has a filing date of 06 November 1996, nearly one month after the rehearing, which was on 07 October 1996.

(Exhibit 2, Declaration of Richard Toshiyuki Drury, 08 February 1995)

Defendant observes that the evidence suggests that defendant's lawyer was not telling the truth when he alleged to defendant that the Drury Declaration had been filed, with the rest of the materials, in September 1996.

Defendant surmises that the Drury Declaration was included in the materials that defendant examined and signed but that the Drury Declaration was removed afterwards, intentionally.

Defendant suggests that defendant's lawyer and unknown other third parties would not have gone to so much trouble to conceal and suppress the Drury Declaration if it did not contain information that needed to be concealed and suppressed.

11.7 New Evidence, New Trial

Defendant requests that the Court consider the Drury Declaration as new evidence and order a new trial in the matter of Wong v Childers, case FL 00005153.

Defendant observes that he was charged $1000 for the legal services related to this specific case.

Defendant requests that the Court order Gerald Lynn Ross and John Linneball to return these funds immediately.

Defendant requests that the Court consider temporarily disbarring John Linneball and Gerald Lynn Ross from the practice of law in the State of California while this matter is investigated.

11.8 Covert Operator

Defendant observes, in closing, that there was a single woman sitting in the rear of the courtroom, monitoring the rehearing.

Defendant recalls defendant's counsel pointing out to defendant, the woman in the rear of the courtroom, identifying her as a San Francisco family lawyer, and identifying her by name.

Defendant recalls looking up the name of the lawyer identified to defendant by defendant's counsel and also recalls being surprised to learn that this lawyer's office, at 16th Avenue and Taraval Street, was only a few blocks away from defendant's home address, which was near 17th Avenue and Quintara Street.

Defendant understands that coincidences happen but also observes that defendant has never received any explanation for why defendant's lawyer pointed out the other lawyer to defendant, or the other lawyer was even monitoring the rehearing of FL 00005153.

12. Transcript

Although I referred to another separate transcript in the table of contents, I did not include it. It was an oversight. I had intended to include the transcript from the rehearing - but I could not find it, and, in the heat of the rush to file before the deadline, I neglected to remove the reference to a non-existent section of the Answer.

No one in the San Francisco Superior Court system noticed its absence.

From this, it can be inferred that no one in the San Francisco Superior Court system actually read the Answer; and that the hearing was a sham ... and the verdict, predetermined.

Powered by FreeBSD Powered by Apache Includes OpenSSL

© Copyright 2006, 2007 Richard A Childers · All Rights Reserved
$Id: DV-120-Item-19-My-Answer-To-Statements.html,v 0.2 2007/01/19 04:39:15 root Exp $