Appendix — Halliwell v. Superior Court of California, Sonoma County (No. 09-172)
Supreme Court brief2009
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
GZ) Supreme Cour, US.
09-172 MAY 1 9 2000
No. 09-___ OFFICE OF THE CLERK
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
MICHAEL HALLIWELL & JAMES PARKER,
Petitioners,
v;
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SONOMA,
Respondent,
CHRYSANTHE PAXINOS,
Real Party in Interest
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorar1
To the California Supreme Court
APPENDIX, VOLUME I
Michael J. Halliwell & James F. Parker
Defendants in Propria Persona
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931
707-795-5526, halliwel@csulb.edu
May 18, 2009
ORDERS & CONTEXTS APPENDIX HIGHLIGHTS
(Complete Contents listed at start of each Section)
POR WC os ea a ee 2
C. Off-The-Record Funds Turnover Dispute.. 4
C-2 Circumvention of 11/21/07 Appeal on 11/26/07 . 9
D. Order of Examination (OQEX) Proceedings. 43
D-8. Judge Boyd’s 7/23/08 OEX Suspension Order 62
D-16. Judge Royd’s 1/20/09 OEX Hearing Minutes 88
D-18. Judge Boyd’s 3/17/09 OEX Contempt Order. 93
[D)-20. Judge Boyd’s 4/17/09 OEX Cancellation. .. 118
E. $20,720 Brief-Reading-Only Attorney Fee 119
E-2. Judge Rushing’s 5/6/08 $20,720 Fees Award 122
EK-7. 12/5/08 Order upholds $ZC 720 Fees Award. 135
E-8. Court of Appeal 1/2/09 Mandamus Denial. . 137
K-12. Supreme Court 2/18/09 Denial of Review. . 146
2
FOREWORD
The relief sought in Defendants’ May 18, 2009
Petition for Certiorari is protection of the federal
Due Process and Equal Protection rights violated by
a $20,720 attorney fees award — for simply reading
Defendants’ various briefs, with no connection to any
written (responding brief) or oral (discussion at trial
court or appeal hearings) work product, and having
no connection to any issue where Plaintiff had been
found to he the prevailing party.
This aspect of appeals which arose from Paxinos
v Halliwell & Parker is greatly complicated by the
off-the-record turnover of $10,118 of Defendants’
funds, at a time when the trial court had lost any
semblance of jurisdiction to act on this matter (and
which was not discovered by Defendants until three
months afterwards). The evasions and subterfuges
involved in this turnover are set forth in Section C.
The two-front squeeze on Defendants during most
of the 11-month time period where the $20,720 fees
award was considered in Superior Court and appeals
from this award, was further complicated by OEX
(Order of Examination) proceedings whcse purpose
was premature enforcemeat of the $20,720 award.
/
The cight OEX hearings which Defendant James
Parker was dragged through, and rulings by Judge
Robert S. Boyd (of July 23, 2008, January 20, 2009
and April 17, 2009) which belatedly admitted that he
had acted prematurely, are the focus of Section D.
The focus of Section E is the unexplained May 6,
2008 Fees Award by Trial Court Judge Elaine
Rushing, the various maneuvers leading up to the
unexplained upholding of this award by the Sonoma
County Superior Court Appellate Branch, and the
unexplained denials of discretionary review by the
California Court of Appeal on January 2, 2009 (in
A123622) and the California Supreme Court on
February 18, 2009 Gn S169634).
4
C. Off-The-Record Funds Turnover Dispute
1. Context of Directive to Sheriff disciosed 5/7/08 . 5
2. Circumvention of 11/21/07 Appeal on 11/26/07. 9
3. Detendants’ 1/22/08 complete Transcript filing . 10
4 Deferidants’'1/2#'08 petition re evasion of appeal 15
5. Appellants’ 2/4/08 petition re integrity of files. . 25
6. Appellants’ 4/1/08 plea re ignored 1/22/08 filing 28
7. Defendants’ 4/18/08 proof of gaps in Case File . 30
ry
8. Defendants’ 5/12/08 Memo to Sheriff Cogbill . . 35
rs
9
10. Defendants’ 2/1/09 petition re evasive tactics. 39
. Appellant’s1 1/19/08 filing re Sheriff's evidence 37
James Parker, Defendant pro se FILED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 NOV 21 2007
707-795-5526 jayfrank@myway.com # MCV 191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS.
Defendants
Michael Halliwell & November 21, 2007
James Parker Exemption Claim
Defendants/Appellants (How Circumvented)
Contemporaneous facts re 11/26/07 directive
There is no aspect of the case where precisely
what the court did 1s more important, than in the
turnover of $10,118 of Defendants’ money which the
Sheriff was holding for safe keeping, to Plaintiff
BEFORE we were able to enforce the automatic stay
required by Sectiom 916(a) California Code of Civil
Procedure. The key augmentation of a docket
printout is listed at the May 7, 2008 point in this
chronological listing (when a ccpy of this document
was provided to Defendants, after three months of
repeated requests). However, the rest of the
document is non-controversial and is reproduced
here.
The top line of the printout from the court
computer says:
“11/26/2007 14:24 707-521-6756 Dept 19 PAGE 17”
Spliced in just below (almost overlapping the top
line is:
‘MCV-191306 PAGE 1
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SONOMA
CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AS OF 11/21/2007
PAXINOS V PARKER
06/01/2007 _ Ae
HALLIWELL, MICHAEL (APPELLANT CIV DEFD)
PARKER, JAMES (APPELLANT, CIVIL DEFDNT)
PAXINOS, CHRYS. (JUDGMENT CRED, PLAIN)
(AT BLONSKI, KADIN)
(AT JENSEN, CHARLES T)”
In both the “Sheriff's version” and version
Defendants downloaded in preparation for the
November 20, 2008 hearing on the largest ($20,720)
of Judge Rushing’s fees awards, the text of the
Courtroom Minutes which comes next, is the same
(and have no suggestion of any activity by the court
after 11/20/2007). However. in the Sheriffs version
there is a large amount of white space at the bottom
of the page, where the following entries appear in
the more current version:
“11/21/2007, NOTICE OF APPEAL — 12/03/2007 at
8:00 am CCO, DESIGNATIONS AP HALLIWELL,
MICHAEL J; AP PARKER, JAMES; RS PAXINOS,
CHRYSANTHE E; PRO PER APPELLANT; NOT-
ICK DESIGNATING A REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT
— 12/07/2007 at 8:00 am CCO, COUNTER
DESIGNATIONS; AP HALLIWELL, MICHAEL J;
AP PARKER, JAMES. 11/26/07 OPENING BRIEF
FILED; RESPONDENT'S BRIEF DUE 12/17/06 —
12/18/2007 at 8:00 am CCO, BRIEFS; AP
HALLIWEI.L, MICHAEL J.”
There is a clear pattern in the sending out of
Notification of Filing of Notice of Appeal. When it
does not appear to have jurisdictional significance,
the Notification goes out almost immediately (on the
same day for 7/24/07; the next day for 8/29/07 and
10/17/07), but when the Notice of Appeal interferes
with Judge Rushing’s intended course of action it
goes out much later (6 days later for 9/26/07, so as to
leave the field clear for Charles Jensen’s 10/02/07
Writ of Execution; 6 days later for 11/21/07 so the
Sheriff will have time to turn over the money seized
8
by the Writ of Execution on 11/27/07). Judge
Rushing’s handling of her responsibility as
Supervising Judge of the Civil Division is about as
subtle as President Clinton's bombing a “terrorist”
aspirin factory in Sudan, on the day of a key
Impeachment vote in the House of Representatives.
£ven worse is Judge Rushing’s bogus docket cntry
for 11/7/07: “NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT,
SERVED 9/25/07” If Judge Rushing had not simply
signed her order and placed it in the file,
Defendants’ would have been too late with their
November 21, 2007 Notice of Appeal. But since a 90-
day deadline is applicable to unserved orders, Judge
Rushing is in the same position as a motorist who
speeds up when the light turns amber, and collides
with a couple of cars who are going through after
their light turns green. There is NO proof of service
{0 support Judge Rushing’s bogus 11/07/2007 claim,
which is one of the reasons why Appellate Branch
Presiding Judge Chouteau has stonewalled
Defendants’ File Integrity Appeal, and manipulated
appeal schedules to create two and three front
situations for Defendants.
Q
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY Courtroom 19
Date: November 26, 2007 Chris Reynoso,
Hon. ELAINE RUSHING, Judge Deputy Clerk
CHRYSANTHE PAXINOS, Action # MCV-191306
Plaintiff vs. DIVULGED MAY 07 2008
JAMES PARKER, (Correct Copy of Original on File)
et al, Defendants [SSUE: CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
PROCEEDING: 11/20/07 Law & Motion Calendar
Court’s previously published tentative ruling:
Appearance Required Counsel Charles Jensen is
present on behalf of Plaintiff Chrysanthe Paxinos.
Defendant James Parker, self represented party, is
present. Defendant Michael Halliwell, self represen
ted party, is present. Court notes that this motion
relates to Defendant James Parker only, and not to
Defendant Michael Halliwell. Also, the Court notes
that since Defendant Halliwell is not a licensed
attorney, he may not speak on behalf of Defendant
James Parker. Additionally, the Court states that
when a Court considers a claim of exemption, the
only documents that are under consideration with
regard to the motion are the claim of exemption
itself and the notice of opposition. Defendant Parker
raises issue with Court with regard to Defendant
Halliwell not being able to speak on his (Parker's)
behalf, alleging Mr. Halliwell has standing in this
action, and therefore should be allowed to speak.
Court DENIES Mr. Parker's motion (stating that
Mr. Halliwell is not a licensed attorney). Upon
conclusion of oral argument, Court orders the
following: Court DENIES Claim of Exemption of
Defendant James Parker. RECEIVED 2007 NOV26
(Elaine Rushing)(11-26-07)SonomaCounty Sheriff
HON. ELAINE RUSHING Civil Bureau 3:17 PM
10
James Parker & Michael Halliwell ENDORSED
Defendants in Propria Persona FILED
271 K. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 JAN 22 2008
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu No. MCV-191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysathe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS.
Defendants’ Complete
Michael Ilalliwell & Transcript Appendix
James Parker Pursuant to CRC Rules
Defendants/Appellants 8.706(C) and 8.766
{Since the Appellate Branch hearing was sched-
uled for January 24, 2008, it was obviously too late
on January 22, 2008 for supplemental briefing based
on the transcripts which Defendants filed here.
They argued in behalf of their appeals where these
is in support of full briefing and a separate hearing
erhaps on March 27t», April 24 2204 and
June 26'") for the aforementioned three later
appeals, and the one noticed on November 21, 2007,
which is in fact already slated for consideration on
June 26, 2007).
(Judge Rushing never served her Order of
September 25, 2007 and disregarded Defendants’
September 26, 2007 Notice of Appeal from her
September 25, 2007 bench ruling, which appears (at
CR-1841 to CR-1842) in the transcript filed here (at
175:27 to 476:2):]
The Court is deeming the matter submitted
at this time, is denying the request for a
continuance for the reasons already stated
and is ordering that the plaintiff may have
$10,00 in attorney’s fees against Mr. Parker
only.
Complete Transcript Appendix says (at CR-1809):
It is hard to understand on what basis Judge
Rushing provided a signed copy of her order for
$10,000 in attorney’s fees to Plaintiff's counsel only,
but she apparently did this to facilitate Charles
Jensen's “stealth” attempt to do an end run around
the governing precedent (Zrello v Superior Court
(1999) 75 Cal.App.4™ 651) barring enforcement of
fees-only judgments pending resolution of an appeal
(Judge Rushing operated even further “below the
radar’ in her handling of Defendants’ Claim of
Exemption re the $10,000 fees award. Defendants
did not find out how the $10,000 turnover had been
l2
accomplished, until May 7, 2008 when the Sheriff's
Department finally agreed to provide the document
Judge Rushing used (with nothing ever appearing in
the case file to indicate what she had done). It 1s
now clear that Judge Rushing acted in accordance
with Charles Jensen's instructions at the November
20, 2008 hearing (CR-1848), in this transcript
excerpt (482:13-28): Here, James Parker's testimony
is italicized, Charles Jensen's remarks are
underlined, and Judge Rushing’s are in bold type.|
JAMES PARKER: The August 30% appeal does
cover the $10,000 award of fees, and my name 1s
on that appeal.
JUDGE RUSHING: The order is September
25th,
CHARLES JENSEN: That is correct, Your Honor.
And it’s my understanding, and | believe I’m
correct, that you can’t file an appeal for anything
that may conceivably happen at some time in the
future.
JUDGE RUSIIING: Yes, lagree. So the Claim
of Exemption is formally denied at this
point.
CHARLES JENSEN: Your Honor, procedurally
madam clerk is to send a minute order to the
sheriff.
JUDGE RUSHING: Correct.
CHARLES JENSEN: Then no formal order will
be required of this Court.
JUDGE RUSHING: She will.
CHARLES JENSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
[Defendants Analysis notes (at CR-1815-1817).]
Charles Jensen at no point (not in his Opposition
to our Claim of Exemption as required by CCP Sec
703.560, not at the hearing on the Claim of Exemp-
tion, nor in any subsequent filing) alleged that the
bank account being levied was not exempt from
attachment for a judgment consisting solely of costs
and/or attorney's fees as provided in CCP Sec
917.1(d) as applied (see CR-1453 to CR-1457) by
Ziello v Supertor Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4 651
655; Nielsen v Stumbos (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 301,
3038; and Vadas v Sosnoski (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d
471, 474-475). CHARLES JENSEN’S BARE
STATEMENT THAT THE CITED STATUTE AND
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY “DO NOT APPLY TO
JAMES PARKER” ALSO CLEARLY FAILED TO
SATISFY HIS OBLIGATION UNDER CCP Sec
703.560(b) requiring that his opposition shall
include: “A statement of the facts necessary to
support the allegation.” Rather than seeking a
default judgment, pursuant to CCP Sec 7038.580(f on
account of Charles Jensen’s violations of CCP Secs
703.570(b), 703.560(a) and 703.560(b), Defendants
invoked the power of the Court to consider amend-
ments to filings, pursuant to CCP Sec 703.580(a) “in
the interest of justice.” This avoided requiring a
court which is faced by insufficient pleadings,
pursuant to CCP Sec 703.580(c), to “order the
hearing continued for the production of other
evidence, oral or documentary.”
As she has done on every occasion where black
letter law pushes her in a direction she does not wish
to go (JUDGE RUSHING NEVER CITED A SINGLE
SUPPORTING CASE FOR ANY OF HER CHAL-
LENGED RULINGS), Judge Rushing made up for by
being emphatic, what she lacked in supporting
authority. She continued: “Wrong. Wrong, sir.
Wrong. I just told you the only pleadings on a
claim of exemption are the claim of exemption
and the opposition and that’s it.” (‘'ranscript at
481:19-21)
Dated: this 22"4 day of January, 2008
Michael Halliwell
James Parker
James Parker & Michael Halliwell ENDORSED
Defendants in Propria Persona FILED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 JAN 28 2008
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu No. MCV-191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS.
Appellants’ Notice to
Michael Halliwell & Presiding Judge Boyd
James Parker re Circumvention of
Defendants/Appellants Claim of Exemption
Yhe January 24, 2008 Appellate Branch hearing
for Paxinos v Halliwell and Parker seemed to end on
a procedural high note, as the parties were informed
that disposition of the jury trial aspects of appel-
lants’ grievances would be by written opinion. What-
ever the substantive decision, this cannot help but be
of assistance to future litigants in avoiding the
procedural traps which have plagued proceedings in
this case. After some discussion of problems relating
to the unavanlability of transcripts for fees-related
hearings (until long after filang deadlines) it was
agreed that this aspect of the case would be reserved
for a later appeal. However, an answer by Charles
Jensen at the very end of proceedings gave rise to
concerns which have become ominous after further
investigation. When asked whether “the property
was still at issue” Respondent’s counsel answered
with words to the effect that “they never appealed
the judgment” which forced their eviction. This 1s
simply not true. Judge Rushing refused to consider
defendants’ motion for a mistrial or even allow it to
be filed. Judge Rushing also refused to take
cognizance of a more modest motion for a “stay of
execution” (which was referred to Judge Von Der
Mehden who denied it, based on a false affidavit
which asserted that James Parker posed a threat to
persons “identified at trial” who had lodged
complaints against him). However, the July 24,
2007 Notice of Appeal (which encompassed all relicf
denied to Defendants before, during and in the
immediate aftermath of the trial) does not apply to
James Parker (according to Charles Jensen) because
only Michael Halliwell signed the notice of appeal.
This informational notice deals with an insidious
and surreptitious application of Charles Jensen's
“divide and conquer” doctrine in the “second front”
(freezing and ultimately seizing $5,059 of Michael
Halliwell’s money and an equal amount of James
Parker’s money) he opened at a critical juncture in
pre-appeal briefing. (CR-1852:11-22)
Defendants felt that they had undone the damage
done by the false assertion that prior appeals from
Judge Rushing’s (unexplained) award of $10,000 in
fees to Charles Jensen “do not apply to James
Parker’ (CR-1179 to CR-1181) by filing a jointly
signed notice of appeal CR-1204) secking review of
the unserved orders on this subject by Judge
Rushing. (CR-1853:2-5)
There was not the slightest trace of activity by
Judge Rushing in the Case File after the November
21, 2007 filing of Defendant's Claim of Exempticn,
and the only activity by counsel for Plaintiff was
Respondent’s (December 17, 2007) response to
Appellants’ Opening Brief. (CR-1853:15-17)
Judge Rushing’s Courtroom Minutes (CR-1015)
indicate that she placed an order in the file estab-
lishing Chrysanthe Paxinos as judgment creditor in
the amount of $10,000 and James Parker as judg-
ment debtor in ike amount. Although no notice of
this action was provided to Defendants, on Septem-
ber 26, 2007 they appealed (CR-710) the award of
$10,000 in attorney’s fees to Charles Jensen on the
basis of Judge Rushing’s expressed intention Gin
order to facilitate the earliest possible preparation of
a transcript for the September 25' hearing).
Defendants also felt obliged to file an October 17,
2007 appeal relating to the integrity of court files
(CR-1059), and in the process of preparing their
designation of the record on appeal discovered the
order (CR-1094) which Judge Rushing inserted in
the file on September 25%. On October 25, 2007 the
Sheriff notified James Parker of a levy against his
bank account for $10,118 and his bank informed him
of this on the same date (CR-1096). James Parker
filed a claim of exemption on November 3, 2007
invoking CCP 917.1(d) and Ziello v Superior Court
(1999) 75 Cal.App.4t6 651 which preclude the
enforcement of money judgments consisting only of
attorney’s fees and costs until AFTER appeals from
such judgments have been resolved. (CR-1856:14 to
CR-1857:5)
Charles Jensen’s implication at the January 24,
2008 hearing (in his answer to Judge Hardcastle)
that the really important financial! issues had
already been settled, caused Michael Halliwell to
recall what he had written on January 10, 2008
about Judge Rushing’s attitude:
Judge Rushing made it clear what her trusted
source of information was, at the outset of
proceedings, in this frank admission of judicial
partiality. “I’ve never tried an unlawful detainer
case, a jury trial, so if there’s any difference of
what I’m saying, I expect Mr. Jensen to speak
up.” (Transcript at 163:23-25)
Judge Rushing slavishly followed Charles
Jensen’s lead on the alleged invalidity of Defendants’
August 29, 2007 appeal from the award of $10,000 in
attorney's fees to Mr. Jensen. Was it somehow
possible that Judge Rushing’s determination to
“deliver the goods” to Charles Jensen would cause
her to ignore Defendants’ appeal of November 21,
2007? James Parker used the contact number for
the Sheriffs Department (acquired in connection
with our Claim of Exemption filing) seeking to
confirm that Defendants’ $10,118 was still
sequestered in the Sheriff's special account. The
Sheriffs clerk who answered (but could supply no
details) told us that our money was GONE,
delivered to Charles Jensen on Tuesday November
27, 2007. Defendants’ timely joint appeal from the
Order of September 25t» completely eliminated the
“James Parker has no appeal” (Transcript at 479:11)
rationale for Judge Rushing’s November 20! ruling.
However, this made no difference to Judge Rushing,
as she simply did what she indicated she would do
on November 20th, (CR-1859:15 to CR-1860:9)
Because the rationale for ruling in Charles
Jensen’s favor had been eliminated by a timely and
totally unambiguous appeal by James Parker and
Michael Halliwell from the Order of September 25,
2007, Judge Rushing eliminated ANY reference at
all to the grounds for her decision from her
11/20/2007 Courtroom Minutes. Although the
Minutes start with this clear statement: “ISSUE:
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION?” only one of 22 lines in the
Minutes address this substantive issue, saying:
“Court DENIES Claim of Exemption of Defendant
James Parker.” (CR-1861:6-12)
When one Googles “Judge Elaine Rushing judicial
misconduct” [Defendants were led to] Commission on
Judicial Performance Inquiry #177 Decision and
Order imposing public censure.” (CR-1863:16-18)
[Inquiry #177 quotes include these passages: ]
Judge Rushing’s conduct violated the Code of
Judicial Ethics, canons 1 (failing to observe high
21
standards of conduct so that the integrity and
independence of the judiciary will be preserved)
and 2A (failing to comply with the law and failing
to act. in a manner that promotes public confi-
dence in the integrity of the judiciary), and con-
stituted prejudicial misconduct. (CR-1864:19-21)
When Firefighter Ramos found Judge Rushing
sitting in the driver’s seat, Judge Rushing falsely
told him that she had not been the driver. She
said that an unknown woman had been the
driver, and then that an unknown man had been
the driver. (CR-1865:3-5)
She said she had been sitting in the back seat
(even though the car had no back seat). When
Officer Hole-man asked Judge Rushing where the
keys to the car were, she first told him that she
thought they were in the car, and then said that
the male driver had taken the keys with him
when he and the woman had left the scene on
foot, walking back toward the friend's house.
(CR-1865:9-12)
Judge Rushing identified herself to Firefighter
Ramos by showing him her Sonoma County Court
Judge identification badge. When Judge Rushing
was asserting her false story that she was not the
driver to Officer Iloleman, she repeatedly told
him that she was a superior court judge in
Sonoma County. She also repeatedly requested
that Officer Holeman call her husband who, she
informed the officer, was an appellate court
justice. (CR-1865:21-23)
Judge Rushing then told Officer Holeman that in
her courtroom she goes against court policies for
CHP and other officers, and that he should
extend that courtesy to her. She persisted in
telling Officer Holeman that she was a superior
court judge and that her husband was an
appellate court justice. (CR-1866:12-14)
Judge Rushing’s conduct following her attempts
to drive while drunk is particularly egregious.
falsifying stories to persons seeking to offer early
assistance, and to emergency personnel and the
arresting CHP officers reflects poorly on Judge
Rushing’s integrity and without doubt seriously
negatively impacts the public perception of her,
and of the judiciary in general. Judge Rushing
left the scene after colliding with a residential
wall, lied to citizens offering her initial
assistance, and provided a fabricated story to
emergency personnel and the investigating
officers that she was not the driver. None of this
behavior can be reconciled with either canon 1 or
2A or with the standard set by the Supreme
Court in Kloepfer v Commission on Judicial
erformance (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 826, 865, that
honesty is a “minimum qualification” expected of
every judge. Judge Rushing also repeatedly
invoked her judicial office and that of her
husband in an effort to avoid arrest and
otherwise receive preferential treatment.
(CR-1867:16-23)
[But Judge Rushing “copped a plea” as follows:]
Judge Rushing’s veracity and integrity have been
seriously impugned. Her attempts to obtain pre-
ferential treatment, however, were unsuccessful.
There was no on-bench misconduct and there was
no direct adverse affect on the administration of
justice per se. Several people, primarily from the
legal community, have submitted letters in
support of Judge Rushing remaining in judicial
office. (CR-1868:6-18)
Bob Egelko reports in the June 9, 2006 Chronicle:
Rushing 58, was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson
in 1992 as the first woman on the Superior Court
bench in Sonoma County. She had practiced
business law since graduating with honors for UC
Hastings College of Law in 1979. She last
appeared on the ballot in 2004 and won a six-year
term. (CR-1868: 18-20)
[We also cited more judicial abuses (CR-1869:11-21):]
Section 1. Attorney’s-fees-only judgments
are not enforceable while an appeal is pend-
ing cites Nrelsen v Stumbos (1990) 226 Cal.App.
3d 301, 303-304; Vadas »v Sosnoshi (1989) 210
Cal. App.3d 471, 474-475; and Ziello v Superior
Court (1999) 75 Cal. App.4% 651, 655. Section 2.
Lacking any supporting legal authority,
Judge Rushing blocks Defendants’ case cites
People ex rel Dept. of Public Works v Malone
(1965) 232 Cal.App. 2d 531, 537; Gray v Justice's
Court (1937) 18 Cal.App. 2d 420, 423; Paradise v
Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 and Wilde
v Superior Court (1942) 53 Cal.App. 2d 168, 173.
Section 3. Judge Rushing’s effort to hide
behind initial pleading limitations to duck
issues cites the parts of CCP Section 703.520 et
seq. Judge Rushing ignored in her ruling. Sec-
tion 4. Judge Rushing’s probable method of
transferring funds on November 27, 2007
cites Judge Rushing’s announced intentions on
November 20, 2007, which she appears to have
followed (while leaving no trace in the official
record) in spite of legal obstacles she chose to
ignore
[Our plea to Judge Boyd ends (CR-1880:1-6):|
[s it really possible that a trial court judge would
knowingly try to vitiate Defendants’ legal rights in
these Circum-stances and resort to evasilons and
misrepresentations to conceal what she was doings?
for a judge without a record of violating judicial
canons of ethics, one would presume not. Consider
ing Judge Rushing’s actual history, in Paxinos
Halliwell and Parker and hefore that. the hest
approach may be that of Judge John Sirica in the
Watergate matter: Follow the evidence wherever
it leads.
Dated: this 28% day of January, 2008
Michael Ilalliwell James Parker
Defendant pro se Defendant pro se
James Parker, Defendant pro se SUBMITTED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 FEB 4 2008
707-795-5526 jayfrank@myway.com # MCV 191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent Filed 6/1/07
Vs.
Appellants’ Petition to
Michael Halliwell & Presiding Judge Owen re
James Parker Changed Appeal Record
Defendants/Appellants Designation Policy
The integrity of Court Files has been an issue
from the outset of this case. In proceedings before
Judge Gary Nadler, Plaintiff's Proofs of Service and
Form UD-150 were NOT in the Case File when
inspected, photocopied and initialed by window clerk
“C.O.” on June 11, 2007. These documents turned
up much later (inserted as if they had been filed on
June 6, 2007) and played a key role in Judge
Nadler’s denial of a continuance which was probably
the most decisive factor in our case. Because of this
history, Defendants were allowed to supply copies of
all documents marked with Case Record sequential
numbering for use in their appeals. Chronological
Index (Cl) 00460 to 00836. is our first such
Designation; Cl 01124 to 01260 is our second appeal;
Cl 01481 to 01725 1s for our third appeal; CI 01734
to 02014 18 for our fourth appeal. At the behest of
Judge Elaine Rushing, on November 27, 2007 the
County Sheriff turned over $10,118 of our money to
Charles Jensen not-withstanding our November 2),
2007 Claim of Exemption and the failure of Charles
Jensen to file any Opposition to our November 21°!
Claim. From the afternoon of November 21, 2007
through the afternoon of December 17, 2007, Defen
dants made several inspections of the Case File, and
found nothing related to this matter. We learned of
this turning over of our funds on January 25, 2007,
but the file was unavailable then and the docket
shows no activity not related to appeal briefing and
scheduling from 11/26/2007 to 1/22/2008. Our last
Designation concludes (CR-1358) with a Proof of
Deposit per Rule 8.706F of appeals documents to
Judge Elaine Rushing. By “direction of the judges”
court clerks refused to allow Defendants accom-
panying proffered Designation in lieu of a missing
Chronological Index. It appears that this policy
change may have been influenced by Assistant
Presiding Judge Nadler or by Supervising Civil
Court Judge Rushing, and thusly, it falls short of
minimum Due Process of Law standards. It should
be reversed forthwith, and appeals briefing should
be reinstated at once with respect to the integrity of
files issue.
Dated: this 4th day of February, 2008
Michael Halhwell James Parker
Defendant pro si Defendant pro se
James Parker & Michael Halliwell ENDORSED
Defendants in Propria Persona FILED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 APR 01 2008
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu No. MCV-191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
vs.
Appellants’ Petition to
Michael Halliwell & Presiding Judge Owen
James Parker for Rulings on Hearing
Defendants/Appellants Motions Filed 1/22/08
Formally, this is a request for a ruling on
Defendants’ petition for separate hearings on their
Notices of Appeal — a matter which has been pending
for ten weeks since this request was made (copy
attached) on January 22, 2008. Substantively, this
request asks that the Sonoma County Superior
Court honor the policy affirmed in the Appellate
Branch Order of February 5, 2008 (that the essential
supporting documents for an appeal be available
before the briefing process starts). At the January
24, 2008 hearing, the Court agreed that this was
NOT the case with respect to the attorney-fee-
related appeals Noticed by Defendants on August 29,
2007 and September 26, 2007. In any event, the
Sonoma County Superior Court should not
relinquish jurisdiction (by any action or failure to
act) until the transcript of the Appellate Branch
hearing of January 24, 2008 is available — and
Defendants have an opportunity to seek follow-
through on the Court’s commitments made at that
time.
Dated: this 31°t day of March, 2008
Michael Halliwell James Parker
Defendant pro se Defendant pro se
James Parker & Michael Halliwell Court of Appeal
Defendants In Propria Persona First District
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 FILED
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu JAN 2 2009
COURT of APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
Division Two Case # A123622
Michael Halliwell, et al, Sonoma County
Petitioners vs. Case # MCV 191306
Superior Court of Petition for Mandamus
California, County of
Sonoma, Respondent; Citing 4/18/08 Complaints
Chrysanthe Paxinos, re Condition of Case File
Real Party in Interest
Appellants’ January 2, 2009 Mandamus Petition
notes: Defendants point out in their April 18, 2008
Petition:
Ja) On October 22, 2007 Defendants filed their
“Petition to Appellate Clerk Supervisor Donald G.
Lewin Regarding the Case File” (CR-993 to CR-
1061) and Charles Jensen apparently responded
to this with his $10,188 assault on James Par-
ker’s bank account (thereby violating Zrello v Su-
pertor Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 651, because
judgments consisting only of attorney’s fees are
not enforceable during the pendency of an ap-
peal). Defendants responded with their October
29, 2007 Memoranduin on Charles Jensen's
Circumvention of Code of Civil Procedure Sec
917.1(d) (CR-1062 to CR-1080) and November 3,
2007 Exemption Claim and Supporting Affidavit
(CR-1081 to CR-1108). Charles Jensen may have
anticipated from his familiarity with the time it
takes (after having been notified that hearing
reporter’s transcripts have been completed) to
prepare a chronological index, that a briefing
order on Defendants’ appeal Noticed on July 24.
2007 would be forthcoming shortly Gt was filed on
November 5, 2007). His opening this “second
front” certainly had a disruptive effect on Defen-
dants’ ability to prosecute heir appeal.
7b) The substance of Defendants’ November 21,
2007 appeal seeking to enforce the Ziello decision
has yet to be considered by the Appellate Branch,
but it is greatly intertwined with the sweeping
scope of their affirmation order of March 6, 2008.
Charles Jensen’s further prosecution of the
“money grab” aspect of the case was certainly
designed to put maximum pressure on Defen-
dants during the three weeks they had to prepare
their Opening Brief pursuant to the November 5,
2007 briefing schedule. On November 7, 2007
Charles Jensen presented Defendants with his
Opposition to their Claim of Exemption which
said nothing at all to explain the following
statement of opposition “(1) CCP Section 917.1 et
seq, does not apply to JAMES PARKER (2) The
cited case, ZIELLO v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999)
75 Cal.App.4t*, 651, does not apply to Defendant
JAMES PARKER.” (CR-1112).
7c) In scheduling his Opposition for a November
13, 2007 hearing (CR-1111), Charles Jensen
flouted the requirement printed plainly on the
form: “A copy of this Notice of Opposition and
Notice of Hearing must be served on the
judgment debtor and other claimant at least 10
days before the hearing.” Both sides showed up
for the scheduled November 13, 2007 Exemption
Claim Hearing (which Judge Rushing cancelled
without notice to the parties, because she wanted
to move her normal Monday activity, pre-empted
by the Veterans Day Holiday, into this time slot).
Defendants had to use up whatever forbearance
from Judge Rushing they had left, by opposing
her insistence (supported by Charles Jensen) that
the hearing be moved to November 14, 2007, even
though this disrupted their plans and still did not
satisfy the 10 day notice requirement.
7d) At a rescheduled November 20, 2007
Exemption Claim hearing Defendant Michael
Halliwell was not allowed to speak at all (not
even to explain his standing to oppose the motion,
which cost him $5,059). Charles Jensen revealed
that his ground for Opposition was that neither
the August 29, 2007 or the September 26, 2007
Notice of Appeal was effective, contrary to the
clear mandate of Grant v List & Lathrop (1992) 2
Cal.App.4t 993, 997. However, because Judge
Rushing had never served her order of September
25, 2007 on Defendants, and Plaintiff had not
done so either (in spite of knowing that the order
was in the file, and acting on this fact), the time
limit in CRC Rule 8.751(a) (1) or (2) was not
appli-cable. Defendants were therefore able, on
November 21, 2007, to unambiguously perfect
their appeal from the September 25, 2007 order,
within the 90 day time limit under CRC Rule
8.751(a)(3). (CR-1204 to CR-1210)
7e) Immediately after filing their Notice of
Appeal, Defendants renewed their Claim of
Kxemption on the morning of November 21, 2007
at the office of the Sonoma County Sheriff, citing
the fact that they had cured the defect which was
the basis of Judge Rushing’s ruling announced on
November 20, 2007. Plaintiffs attorney never
filed an Opposition challenging the fact that his
(undisclosed until the November 20, 2007 hear-
ing) ground for asserting that Ziello v Superior
Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4t* 651, 655 did not
apply to James Parker, had been eliminated.
Charles Jensen's failure to renew his Opposition
also eliminated the possibility of any other
pround. Defendants therefore assumed that their
$10,188 was still in the Sheriffs holding account,
until a remark by Charles Jensen at the Appel-
late Branch January 24, 2008 hearing caused
them to suspect otherwise.
7f) What Defendants then learned from inquiries
at the Sheriffs Department is described in their
January 28, 2008 Appendix for Presiding Judge
Boyd re Circumvention of Their Claim of Exemp-
tion without Any Opposition Being Filed or Any
Recorded Judicial Authorization (CR-1869 to CR-
1880). The folowing summary should suffice to
demonstrate that this aspect of the case has
lurched into the domain of Appellants’ October
17, 2007 “Integrity of Files” appeal. i) According
to the Sheriffs representatives no action was
taken to initiate a release of the $10, 188 in
dispute to Charles Jensen until after the long
Thanksgiving Day weekend, and the Sheriffs
Department did not do so until November 27,
2008. 11) When Judge Rushing returned to work
on Monday November 26, 2007 she certainly saw
Appellants’ Endorsed Filed November 21, 2007
Notice of Appeal Relating to Judge Rushing’s
Order Facilitating Charles Jensen’s Seizure of
$10, 118 from James Parker and Michael Hall
well, which starts out: “Defendants James Parker
and Michael Halliwell hereby appeal Judge
Rushing’s Order of November 20, 2007 AND her
supportiiug Order of September 25, 2007 (which
has never been provided to the parties, but
simply signed and placed in the Case File.)” (CR-
1204:11-13) iii) The Sonoma County Sheriff's
staff does not send a Claim of Exemption to the
Court until after Opposition to such a claim has
been provided to them, but they informed Judge
Rushing of the existence of Defendants’ Novem-
ber 21, 2007 Claim of Exemption, when she
contacted them on November 26 or 27. As
inspection of the eleven entries in the electronic
docket in MCV 191306 later than 11/05/2007 and
before 12/07/2007 shows, Judge Rushing decided
to pretend that Defendants’ November 21, 2007
Claim of Exemption was never made, and that
she acted only to reject James Parker’s Claim of
Exemption recorded on 11/08/2007. There is no
trace of any action on this aspect of the case after
11/20/2007 in the electronic docket or the Case
File, and Judge Rushing certainly never informed
Defendants of whatever action she took by phone
or In writing (the Sheriffs staff refuses to say
which, saying only “check the Court File”). (CR
2146:15 to 2149:16) (id. at 60:1lto 61:25)
James Parker, Defendant pro se SUBMITTED
271 K. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 9493] MAY 12 2008
707-795-5526 jayfrank@myway.com # MCV 191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS. Defendants’ Memoran-
dum to Sheriff Cogbill
Michael Halliwell & re Circumvention of
James Parker 11-27-07 Exemption
Defendants/Appellants Claim
If one reads the electronic docket for the month of
November 2007 1n this case, it appears that there is
no connection between Defendants’ November 21,
2007 Notice of Appeal and Judge Rushing’s disposi-
tion of Defendants’ Claim of Exemption based on the
holding of Ziello u Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.
4th 651, 655 that during the pendency of an appeal
limited to a judgment awarding costs, including
attorney's fees, CCP Sec 917.1(d) bars enforcement
of the judgment. However, recentiy provided
documentation from the Sonoma County Sheriff
clearly shows that Judge Rushing took a series of
actions, which were based on ignoring the mandate
of California Rules of Court Rule 8.750: “A Notice of
appeal shall be liberally construed in favor of its
sufficiency” and then pretending that Defendants
Appeal of November 21, 2007 (which cured the
imagined defects of their prior appeals) did not exist
On November 26, 2007 Judge Rushing provided to
the Sheriff, Courtroom Minutes stripped of any
mention of the grounds of her decision (that James
Parker had not in fact appealed from the $10,000
award of attorneys fees against him) so the Sheriff
could not see from Defendants’ November 21, 2007
Claim of Exemption (which was accompanied by a
copy of their November 21, 2007 Notice of Appeal),
that there was no legal basis for Judge Rushing’s
ordering the Sheriff to turn over $10,118 of the
frozen assets of James Parker to Charles Jensen. To
provide legal cover for this mancuver, Judge Rush-
ing inserted a bogus entry into the 11/07/2007 elec-
tronic docket, “NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDG-
MENT, SERVED 9/25/07” to make it appear that
Defendants’ November 21, 2007 Notice of Appeal
was not timely. This document reviews the case
history, to place these actions in context. (CR-2396)
Dated: this 12 day of May, 2008
Michael Halliwell James Parker
Defendant pro se Defendant pro se
James Parker & Michael Halliwell Court of Appeal
Defendants In Propria Persona First District
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 FILED
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu NOV 19 2008
COURT of APPEAL FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
Division Two Case # A123226
Michae! Halliwell, et al, Sonoma County
Petitioners vs. Case # MCV 191306
Superior Court of Petition for Mandamus
California, County of
Sonoma, Respondent; Citing 1/24/08 Comment
Chrysanthe Paxinos, re ’yozen I’unds Turnover
Real Party in Interest
Appellants’ November 19, 2008 Petition for
Mandamus to require a rehearing analyzes appeal
bricting:
Respondent observes: “Respondent would point
out that Sheriff Cogbill to the best of our
knowledge was not personally involved with
Parker and associate.” Defendants engaged in
protracted conversation with employees of the
Sheriffs Civil Division immediately after they
began to suspect, as a result of a remark by
Charles Jensen at the January 24, 2008 hearing,
the existence of “below the radar” activity to
enforce a fees judgment, which should have been
held in abeyance pursuant to Ziello v Superior
Court (1999) 75 Cal.App. 46 651 and CCP
917.1(d). Defendants met again with Sheriffs
employees immediately after the May 6, 2008
hearing tc make sure there would be no
repetition of such action by Judge Rushing
(without informing Defendants). Civil Division
Bureau Manager Elizabeth J. Warren confirmed
the timing of the release of Defendants’ frozen
$10,118 to Charles Jensen. Our May 12, 2008
Circumvention” Memo also notes: “The Sheriffs
Department also provided all other records which
Defendants asked for with respect to this matter,
including a date stamped copy of our November
21, 2007 Claim of Exemption. Since the Sheriffs
Department has come down on the side of the
Rule of Law in this matter, and the empirical
facts are now documented in the record, the
process of evaluation of the handling of this
matter by the Sonoma County Superior Court can
now be undertaken by the Higher Courts of this
State (and 1f the Due Process Clause of the
Kourteenth Amendment be found to be
applicable, the United States Supreme Court).”
(id. at 28:7-14) After “all the dust has settled
insofar as action by the Sheriffs Office is
concerned, Defendants now agree with the
concluding sentence of Section P: “Moreover, the
Sheriff's Civil Bureau and all of tts employees
acted with the utmost professionalism and
followed all the applicable rules and procedures
governing their actions.”
James Parker & Michael Halliwell ENDORSED
Defendants in Propria Persona FILED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 FEB 02 2008
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu No. MCV-191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrvsanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent Filed 6/1/07
Vs
\ppellants’ Petition to
Michael Halliwell & Presiding Judge Owen
James Parker Citing Respondent's
Defendants/Appellants Appeal Opposition
Charles Jensen's Opposition to Defendant's
November 21, 2007 Appeal concedes: Appellant's 27
appears to be accurate as to how they discovered the
Sheriff's collection. Our November 19, 2008 Petition
for Mandamus notes
Charles Jensen would have had a very steep
hill to climb, were he to try to deny what he
admits in #27, after having been sent (on May
12, 2008) this information, in Defendants
Memo to Sheriff Cogbill re Circumvention of
Their 11-21-07 Claim of Exemption (at 27:11
to 28:6): “When Defendants contacted the
Sheriffs Department (immediately after a
remark by Charles Jensen at the January 24,
2008 hearing suggested that he might already
have Defendants’ $10,118), it was absolutely
impossible to come away with anything in
writing (in spite of a protracted conversation
with staff members who apparently spent
HOURS talking with their superiors and
Sonoma County Superior Court personnel).
What-ever higher official made the decision
was not disclosed by the Deputies at the
window, but the position was firm: ‘We don't
give out information to people in your circum-
stances, you have to check the court file.’ It
was with the greatest difficulty that we were
able to confirm WHEN the Sheriffs Depart-
ment acted in response to direction by Judge
Elaine Rushing (which Defendants needed to
know in order to determine WHERE in the
chronological Case File and Docket to check.)
The acknowledged fact that the process of
issuing a check to Charles Jensen (drawn on
our funds) did not begin until November 27,
2007 indicated that whatever the court sent to
the Sheriff to facilitate turning over our
$10,188 to Charles Jensen was almost certain-
ly not sent until at least five days after our
November 21, 2007 Notice of Appeal (and the
immediate renewal of Defendants’ Claim of
Exemption based on having thus eliminated
the ground for its denial on November 20,
2007.) The bottleneck was broken open on
May 7, 2008 when the Sheriffs Civil Bureau
Manager Elizabeth J. Warren agreed to
release a copy of what Judge Rushing sent to
effectuate turning over Defendants’ frozen
$10,118 to Charles Jensen. It turned out to be
a copy of the Courtroom Minutes of 11/20/2007
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED ON NOVEM-
BER 26, 2007. (Id. at 27:11] to 28:11)
Charles Jensen’s Opposition to Defendant's
November 21, 2007 Appeal proclaims:
#28 alleges a cover-up that never existed. No
response ts offered as none is warranted.
Appellants’ November 19, 2008 Petition for
Mandamus to require a rehearing notes:
Charles Jensen certainly does not agree with
the position of the Cahfornia Commission on
Judicial Performance that “Judge Rushing’s
conduct violated canons, 1, 2A (failing to act at
all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary.” However, he is in no position
to sweep aside such a finding with the sort of
ad hominem attacks, which he uses to try to
discredit Appellants’ charges (documented at
a level sufficient to justify the reopening of
Judge Rushing’s case by the Commission on
Judicial Performance).
The CJP summarized its findings: “None of
this behavior can be reconciled with either
canon 1 or 2A or with the standard set by the
Supreme Court in Kloepfer v. Commission on
Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 826,
865, that honesty is a ‘mini-mum qualification’
expected of every judge.” (CR-1867: 19-21, Cl
3170) The CJP report pointed out that “Judge
Rushing’s conduct violated canons, 1, 2A
(failing to act at all times 1n a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary).’ (CR-
1866:15-16, CI 3169) Ud. 2:2-21) In Section
V Respondent argues: “Appellant's 29 1s
insulting and no response will be tendered.”
Respondent is offended by the possibility that
Judge Rushing might have been telling the
truth, and actually believed in favoritism
when (according to a 2006 Report by the
Commission of Judicial Performance) she
made this admission: “Judge Rushing then
told Officer Holeman that in her courtroom
she goes against the court policies for CHP
and other officers, and that he should extend
that courtesy to her. She persisted in telling
Officer Holeman that she was a superior court
judge and that her husband was an appellate
court justice.” (CR-1866:12-14, CI 3169) (Id. at
28:19 to 29:17)
a)
Dated: this 1st day of February, 2009
Michael Ifalliwell
James Parker
Defendant pro se Defendant pro se
D. Order of Examination (OEX) Proceedings
1 Charles Jensen's 5/23/08 launch of OEX process 44
2. Judge Richey’s 6/30/08 first OFX hearing..... 45
3. Judge Boyd’s 7/14/08 second OEX hearing... .. 47
4. James Parker’s 7/18/08 affidavit re second OEX 49
D. Mike Halliwell 7/18/08 affidavit re second OEX. 51
6. Defendants’ 7/21/08 immediate caselaw update. 54
/. Defendants analyze 7/21/08 third OFX hearing. 58
8. Judge Boyd’s 7/23/08 OEX Suspension Order . . 62
9. Defendants designate 7/28/08 OEX Transcript . 65
10. Judge Chouteau’s 8/29/08 transcript exclusion 67
11. Defendants’ 12/12/08 OEX hearing delay plea. 69
12. Judge Boyd’s 12/15/08 fourth OEX hearing... 75
13. Judge Boyd's 12/19/08 fifth OEX hearing. .... 77
14. Judge Boyd’s 12/22/08 OEX Contempt Order. . 79
15. Judge Boyd’s 1/6/09 sixth OEX hearing...... 87
16. Judge Boyd’s 1/20/09 OEX Hearing Minutes . . 88
17. Judge Boyd’s 3/17/09 eighth OEX hearing... . 90
18. Judge Boyd's 3/17/09 OFX Contempt Order... 93
19 Defendant’s 3/20/09 plea to drop jail sentence 102
20. Judge Boyd’s 4/17/09 OFX Cancellation. ....118
14
Charles T. Jensen SBN 69044 ENDORSED
Kaadin Blonski SBN 244856 FILED
1622 4th St. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 MAY 23 2008
707-527-9911 Fax: 707-527-0908 No. MCV-191306
Attorney for Plaintiff C. Paxinos
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS. ORDER TO APPEAR
Michael Halliwell &
James Parker FOR EXAMINATION
Defendants/Appellants
1.TO (name): JAMES PARKER
2. YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR personally
before this court to a. furnish information to aid in
enforcement of a money judgment against you.
3. DATE: JUN 30 2008 TIME: 8:15 a.m, Dept 21 at:
3035 Cleveland Ave #200 SANTA ROSA, CA 95406
Before Judge: ROBERT S. BOYD
4. Judgment creditor. applies for an order requiring
(name): JAMES PARKER to appear, as stated in 2 a
5. The person to be examined: the judgment debtor
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
California that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATE: May 23, 2008 Print Name: Charles T Jensen
Signature: __
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, Date:
SONOMA COUNTY June 30, 2008
Hon. ANDRIA RICHEY, Judge Courtroom: 21
Deputy Clerk Stephen Berry Reporter: None
CHRYSANTHE PAXINOS, SERVED
Plaintiff vs JUN 30 2008
JAMES PARKER, et al, re OKX PROCEEDINGS
Defendant Action # MCV-191306
Counsel Charles T. Jensen is present on behalf of
Plaintiff; Defendant James Parker, self represented
party, is present. Defendant, Michael J Halliwell, is
also present. Oath is administered to JAMES PAR-
KER. Examination is held in the presence of the
Court. Court notes Defendant’s objection that a Re-
porter is not present. Court overruled Defendant’s
jurisdictional objection [in June 23, 2008 Exemption
Claim at 12:9-16:] Defendants’ Notice of Appeal re
May 6, 2008 Award of Attorney’s Fees (Filed May 27,
2008, and signed by James Parker and Michael Hal-
liwell) precludes the fees-only judgment enforcement
activity envisioned by a Hearing slated for June 30,
2008 before Judge Robert Boyd, pursuant to Nielsen
v Stumbos (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 301, 303:
“We are called upon to determine whether enforce-
ment of award of attorney fees, together with other
costs, is automatically stayed by taking an appeal.
Resolution of that question hinges on whether
attorney fees recovered pursuant to a contractual
provision are an element of costs when, as here,
respondent has not recovered money damages. We
conclude that in such a case the fees are costs, and
that filing a notice of appeal stays execution without
posting of an undertaking.”
During the Examination. defendant refuses to
answer question about his bank account, and
defendant refuses to provide his driver’s license.
Court orders Defendant to comply with its order to
provide requested information to Plaintiff.
ORDERED CONTINUED TO 7/14/08 OEX
HEARING FOR POSSIBLE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS.
|
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, Date:
SONOMA COUNTY July 14, 2008
Hon. ROBERT S. BOYD, Judge Courtroom: 21
Deputy Clerk Stephen Berry Reporter Eva Popovich
CHRYSANTHE PAXINOS. SERVED
Plaintiff VS JUL 17 2008
JAMES PARKER, et al, re OFX PROCEEDINGS
Defendant Action # MCV-191306
SPECIAL SET CALENDAR 7/21/08 OEX Hearing
Counsel Charles T. Jensen is present on behalf of
Plaintiff; Defendant James Parker, self represented
party, is present. Defendant, Michael J Halliwell, is
also present in court.
Court examines Defendant James Parker, [who pro-
tested:] “You are ignoring what the Court directed
me to do, what Judge Richey directed me to do. Do
we have a copy of that? We have a copy of the
minutes, and I will give it to you. He claims falsely
something that is not true.” (Transcript at 9:6-10)
{Charles Jensen rephed:] “While we are on the re-
cord, if I might — excuse me, Mr. Bailiff, Mr. Parker
— that will be my third appearance on a rather
simple OEX. [ would at that time be asking this
Court to consider the utmost of every possible
sanction. I want it clear on the record that this is
running the bill. It’s not being done for free to the
plaintiff, and [ am just a little fed up. And I apol-
ogize for my anger.” (Ibid at 9:22 to 10:2)
Defendant is advised of possible contempt sanctions.
[James Parker argued:]} “Judge Richey acted outside
her authority, I believe, but she also indicated only
two specific items I was to expose, if you will. He
claims she did otherwise, which is not true. I
objected because there was no court reporter there
on that day, on June 30, but she decided to go
ahead with her interrogation of me. But what
Charles Jensen says is false. She did not order me to
supply all of that information. I don’t know what
vou are reading, but that is not the Court minutes
and that is all we have to go on; and that’s all I
would refer to alt this time.” (Ibid at 7:22 to 8:5) [The
Court answered:] “I am looking at Mr. Jensen’s July
24 letter to you, sir, in which there are three
different items. It says additionally that the Court
ordered you to provide written answers to the ques-
tionnaire, as well as provide the following, and that
is those three topics.” (Ibid at 8:6-11)
documents: Written answers to the questionnaire,
and the (8) categories of documents as itemized in
Mr. Jensen's letter dated July 2, 2008: (1) Copies of
any bank statements that have your name on it, be
they savings, checking, or impound accounts: (2)
Copies of investment/retirement accounts, stock
accounts, IRA accounts (both Roth-IRA, and other
IRA), and/or 401K accounts: and (3) To provide your
current driver's license.
James Parker, Defendant pro se SUBMITTED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 9493] JUL 18 2008
707-795-5526 jayfrank@myway.com # MCV 191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS.
Defendants’ Affidavit re
Michael Halliwell & ISSUES RAISED in June
James Parker 30, 2008 to July 14, 2008
Defendants/Appellants OEX Proceedings
[Contempt threats without transcripts issues:]
There was no Reporter present at the June 30,
2008 OEX hearing (in spite of every advance
indication that in Paxinos v Halliwell & Parker, this
proceeding would not proceed in the informal way it
usually does).
Along with the July 18, 2008 affidavit of co-De-
fendant Michael Halliwell, this affidavit is submitted
in support of Defendants’ request that a Reporter be
present at the July 21, 2008 hearing.
My July 14th saying, without disrespect to the
court, that I intended “to preserve my Fifth, Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendment Rights” (Transcript at
1:11-12) isa reference to Jn re Oliver (1948) 333 U.S.
257, which affirms the applicability of the Bull of
Rights (via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment) to contempt proceedings, especially a
Defendant’s right to know the nature of the charges
against him in time to prepare an adequate defense.
Dated: this 18 day of July, 2008
James Parker
Defendant pro se
Michael Halliwell, Defendant prose SUBMITTED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 JUL 18 2008
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu # MCV 191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS.
Defendants Request
Michael Halliwell & Reporter for July 21, 2008
James Parker OFX Hearing and Filing of
Defendants/Appellants Transcripts and Affidavits
[Judge Boyd tried to force compliance with
demands by the prior OEX Judge, the Honorable
Andria K. Richey.]
Defendant James Parker answered EVERY
question asked at the June 30, 2008 hearing by
attorney for Plaintiff Paxinos, Charles Jensen,
except for the two identified in the Minutes of this
proceeding. These included questions about major
asset categories such of ownership of a second
automobile (NO), Life Insurance policy (NO), real
estate holdings (NO), and outstanding judgments IN
FAVOR of James Parker (NO). Charles Jensen
already knows about Defendant's bank account (from
which he seized and appropriated $5,059 belonging
to James Parker and $5,059 belonging to Michael
Halliwell). Charles Jensen has personally served
papers on James Parker at 271 E. Cotati Ave in
Cotati, at a time when James Parker's car was
parked right next to this residence, with the address
clearly listed on the parking space. James Parker
has also provided his Driver’s License Number to
Mr. Jensen’s client, landlord Paxinos, and this
information is also readily obtainable by Mr. Jensen
from the Department of Motor Vehicles
Charles Jensen’s letter of July 2, 2008 (copy
attached) 1s the basis for Judge Boyd’s following in
Judge Rushing’s footsteps, when she said at the
outset of her portion of the case, “I’ve never tried an
unlawful detainer case, a jury trial, so if there’s any
difference of what I’m saying, I expect Mr. Jensen to
speak up.” (Transcript at 163:23-26)
The question which James Parker declined to
answer about his bank account, was a request for the
account number (which Charles Jensen already
had). Here is how Charles Jensen provides the basis
for what Judge Boyd would refer to as a question
topic: “copies of any bank statements that have your
name on them, be they savings, checking or impound
accounts.” THIS [S ABSOLUTELY VERBATIM
with Transcript at 3:22-24. Charles Jensen lays the
vyroundwork for Judge Boyd’s creating another
category where there was NO UNANSWERED
QUESTION: “copies of any investment retirement
accounts, stock accounts, [RAs, (both Roth-I[RA, and
other TRA), and/or 401K accounts.” THIS IS
\BSOLUTELY VERBATIM with ‘Transcript at 3:24
26. Judge soyd did depart from Charles Jensen's
)
letter in asking only for a copy of James Parker's
driver's license, instead of the license itself. (Tran
script at 3:27). Judge Richey made it clear on June
30'5 that, after James Parker had been advised of
the applicable legal requirements and penalties for
refusal, the judge would ask him the same questions
on July 14, 2008 which he had refused to answer at
the first Order of Examination (OEX). Charles Jen
sen’s letter of July 2, 2008 invents out of whole cloth
the notion that “the Court ordered you to provide
written answers to the attached questionnaire
Dated: this 18t* day of Julv. 2008
Michael Halliwell
Defendant pro se
James Parker, Defendant pro s« SUBMITTED
271 EK. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94981 JU, 21 2008
707-795-5526 jayfrank@myway.com # MCV 191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
vs
Defendants’ Ilmmediate
Michael Halliwell & Follow-Up re Issues Raised
James Parker during July 14, 2008
Defendants/Appellants OEX Proceedings
Defendants conducted an unbiased “CCP Sex
917.1(d)” search, to demonstrate whether our
interpretation of the scope of the automatic stay
provision of CCP Sec 916(a), is indeed well supported
by governing precedent. [tis. The results of this
search follow below
A website (http//w ww.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/)
LexisNexis search for <CCP Sec 917.1(d)> turns up
(<+> positive treatment is indicated) Gee v American
Realty & Construction Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4
1412, where (in the second paragraph) the Court of
Appeal quotes its own May 21, 2002 opinion
The judgment and order awarding defendants
costs and contractual attorney fees would be
automatically stayed on appeal without the
necessity of an undertaking. (See Code Civ. Prec.,
Sections 916 subd. (a), 917.1, subd. (d), 917.9,
subd. (a)(3); Bank of San Pedro v Superior Court
(1992) 3 Cal 4th 797, 800-801.)”
Gallardo v Specialty Restaurants Corp. (2000) 84
Cal. App.4 463 notes that in situations where
hondable and non-bondable costs are contained in
the same order (4s in its own case), a party may then
ask a court of appeal to disentangle the situation,
and apply the automatic stay provision to the
appropriate part of the judgment.
*Supersedeas is the appropriate remedy when it
appears that a party is refusing to acknowledge
the applicability of statutory provisions ‘auto-
matically’ staying a judgment while an appeal is
being pursued.” Nielsen v Stumbos (1990) 226
Cal.App.3d 301,303.)
{This Nielsen citation] squarely addressed the issue
that presents itself in Paxinos v Halliwell & Parker:
We are called upon to determine whether enforce
ment of the award of attorney fees, together with
other costs, is automatically stayed by the taking
of an appeal. Resolution of that question hinges
on whether attorney fees recovered pursuant to
contractual obligations are an element of costs
when, as here, respondent has not recovered
money damages. We conclude that in such a case
the fees are costs, and that filing a notice of
appeal stays execution without the posting of an
undertaking.
The Gallardo Court ts firm in its reading of the
plain language of CCP 916(a), that unless there is a
valid exception, the appeal itself says all proceed-
ings related to the judgment being appealed. Thus
immediately after the Nielsen v. Stumbos citation,
the Gallardo opinion continues:
Section 916, subdivision (a) provides: “Except as
provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.9... the
perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the
trial court upon the judgment or order appealed
from or upon the matters embraced thereby,
including enforcement of the judgment or order,
but the trial court may proceed upon any other
matter embraced in the action and not affected by
the judgment or order.”
stay provisions, much less a valid one.
Defendants do not suggest that there are no cases
where a motion for a stay without an undertaking
during an appeal, might not be appropriate, only
that there is no such case, which parallels the
circumstances of Paxinos v Halliwell & Parker.
HOW CAN IT BE THAT AN EXPERIENCED
UNLAWFUL DETAINER LAWYER, WHO INSISTS
ON “PLOWING AHEAD’ WITHOUT ANY
SUPPORTING AUTHORITY, BE PROPERLY
DEFERRED TO, IN THE FACK OF NUMEROUS
SUPPORTING CASES CITED BY TWO LIT!
GANTS IN PROPRIA PERSONA, WITHOUT ANY
BRIEFING ON THE MATTER IN DISPUTE?
Dated: this 21st day of July, 2008
James Parker
Defendant pro se
James Parker, Defendant pro se SUBMITTED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 JUL 25 2008
707-795-5526 jayfrank@myway.com # MCV 191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
Vs.
Defendants’ Appendix
Michael Halliwell & Analyzing Transcript
James Parker of July 14, 2008 OEX
Defendants/Appellants OEX Hearing
Defendants have received welcome news that the
Transcript of July 21, 2008 OEX hearing will be
available for pick up when Division 21 opens on July
22, 2008. [This Transcript quotes James Parker:]
If the award is for costs and attorneys’ fees only,
there is an automatic stay pending appeal, and
that is [why] this Court does not have jurisdic-
tion, because there is an automatic stay in place.
(Transcript at 7:13-16)
In Ziello versus Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.
App.4' 651, the appellate court was asked to rule
on whether an undertaking was required to stay
executicen of the judgment for costs pending
appeal. It decided it was not.
[ am not required to file for a stay, since an
automatic stay is in place because the judgment
which at this point isn’t enforceable anyway. It is
only for costs and attorneys’ fees. And that is
what, that in itself is what gives me an automatic
stay, Your Honor. (Ibid at 8:16-27)
Judge Boyd summed up key CCP stay provisions:
If we look at CCP section 917.1, it says, “Unless
an undertaking is given, perfecting the appeal
shall not stay enforcement.” Dropping down to
917.1(d): “However, no undertaking shall be
required pursuant to the section solely for costs.”
Why would that not apply, requiring an auto-
matic stay? (Ibid at 12:26 to 13:5)
Charles Jensen answered Judge Boyd’s question:
Because we are not seeking the costs, Your
Honor; we are seeking the attorneys’ fees. ([bid at
13:7)
The costs are no longer being sought in this OFX
or in the motion for attorney’s fees. Costs have
not yet been paid, and that would be, Your
Honor, the filing fee. (Ibid at 13:11-13)
»
|
Judge Rushing’s $20,720 award explicitly
includes the motion filing fee. Defendants point out
in their Analysis of the July 21, 2008 Transcript:
Actually, Charles Jensen was seeking both costs
and attorney’s fees in his motion granted by
Judge Rushing on May 6, 2008. In most cases
where Sec 917.1(d) is applicable, the non-fees
costs (such as for filing the motion, as with the
judgment Charles Jensen is trying to enforce) are
only a small fraction of the attorney fees being
sought. This was true of Ziello v Superior Court
(1999) 75 Cal.App. 4th 651, from which Charles
Jensen is trying to create a false distinction.
Charles Jensen probably brought a copy of the
order Judge Rushing signed on May 6, 2008 to
vive him every cent he sought, with him to Court
on July 21st. If he didn’t, the Clerk could have
easily located it for him on the Court’s computer.
Trying to win with this sort of bending the truth
may be only a small violation of Bus. & Prof Code
6068(d), because of the small amount of non-fees
costs involved in the Paxinos vu Halliwell &
Parker judgment at issuc, but it illustrates the
wisdom of Judge Richey’s giving James Parker
two weeks to think about it (and check out
whether he might be on sound legal ground in
refusing to answer) before the court again
demanded that he disclose the number of his
bank account and give up his driver’s license
number. (Id. at 19:7-15)
Judge Boyd asks: “You are saying attorneys’ fees
are not costs?” Charles Jensen replies: “That is
correct.” ([bid at 13:19-21) Defendants point out in
their Analysis of the July 21, 2008 Transcript:
In Nielsen v Stumbos (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 301,
303, the court squarely addressed the issue that
presents itself in Paxinos vu Halliwell & Parker:
“We are called upon to determine whether en-
forcement of the award of attorney fees, together
with other costs, is automatically stayed by
taking an appeal. Resolution of that question
hinges on whether attorney fees recovered
pursuant to contractual obligations are an
element of costs when, as here, respondent has
not recovered money damages. We conclude that
in such a case the fees are costs, and that filing of
a notice of appeal stays execution without the
posting of an undertaking.” (Id. at 7:16-20)
Dated: this 25 day of July, 2008
James Parker
Defendant pro se
Fon. Robert S. Boyd
Judge of the Superior Court
Courtroom 21, 3035 Cleveland Ave
Santa Rosa, CA 95403 FILED
Telephone: (707) 521-6725 JUL 23 2008
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SONOMA
Case No. MCV-191306
CHRYSTANTHE E. PAXINOS,
Plaintiff,
ORDER STAYING
Vv. ORDER OF
TXAMINATION
JAMES PARKER, et al., PROCEEDINGS
Defendants
_J
At the hearing of this matter conducted on July
21, 2008, plaintiff appearing through attorney
Charles Jensen, and judgment debtor James Parker
appearing in pro per, the court requested parties to
produce copies of the prior pleadings in which an
appeal was filed concerning the imposition of
attorney’s fees in the amount of $20,680 against
judgment debtor James Parker and in favor of
plaintiff, and the court now having received the
various documents provided by the parties and more
importantly reviewed the court file in this matter,
makes the following determination:
On May 25, 2008, defendants filed a notice of
appeal of the May 6, 2008, award of attorney’s fees,
the award by Judge Rushing of $20,680 in attorney's
fees and $40 in filing fees, awarded against
judgment debtor James Parker. The court further
understands that as to this particular appeal, the
appellate division is awaiting preparation of the
various transcripts so that this appeal can be filed.
The court is aware that there is already an appeal on
a separate matter set in this action for September
25, 2008. However that is a separate issue from the
appeal filed of the awarding of the $20,680 in
attorney's fees and $40 in filing fees. The hearing on
the appeal on this particular award of attorney’s fees
has not yet been scheduled and cannot be until the
transcript 1s prepared. The court understands that
court staff had hoped to consolidate this appeal with
the one already scheduled for September 25, 2008,
but does not feel it can do so given the time
eonstraints of having the transcripts prepared and
then a briefing schedule imposed.
The particular order of examination which forms
the basis of this decision is an attempt by Mr. Jensen
to collect the $20,680 in attorney’s fees he was
awarded on May 6, 2008. As it does appear that the
judgment debtor has filed an appeal of that award,
pursuant to the authority of Code of Civil Procedure
916, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in
the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed
upon. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
917.1(d) no undertaking is required when seeking a
stay of an enforcement for costs.
Therefore, the court will stay further proceedings
on the order of examination for purposes of
recovering the attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff of
$20,680 until after the appeal is heard.
DATED: July 23, 2008
ROBERT S. BOYD
Judge of the Superior Court
James Parker & Michael Halliwell ENDORSED
Defendants in Propria Persona FILED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 9493] JUL 28 2008
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu No. MCV-191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS. Defendants’ Ex Parte
Application Seeking
Michael Halliwell & Permission to Designate
James Parker OLX Hearing Transcript
Defendants/Appellants Analysis re Their Appeal
Noticed on May 27, 2008
Even [f the ORDER STAYING ORDER OF
EXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS issued by this
Court on July 23, 2008 is appealed by the Judgment
Creditor, Counsel for Plaintiff Paxinos has indicated
support (Hearing Transcript of July 14, 2008 at 9:22
to 10:2) for expedited consideration. Judgment
Debtors fully support expedited consideration and
feel that there is no reason to “reinvent the wheel
with respect to the substantial effort already put
into consideration of the proper scope of CCP Secs
916(a) and 917.1(d). Besides the jurisdictional!
question itself, there is an implementation problem
which might require an appeal by Defendants
arising out of the fact that on October 2, 2007 thi
Writ of Execution for the $10,000 fees judgment was
never served on Defendants (nor were the Courtroom
Minutes noting this Writ, nor was this part of the
Case File accessible to Defendants during the crucial!
time frame). This Writ of Execution was clearly
related to Defendants’ Notice of Appeal of September
26, 2007, and so the Court had no power to issue
anything to facilitate enforcement of the underlying
ailurneys fees judgment (nor to ignore Defendants
Appeal: see Khret Ichioka (1967) 247 Cal App.2d 637
640-641). Defendants see no reason why OEX
Transcripts could possibly prejudice anyone’s
interests
Dated: this 28» day of July, 2008
Michael Halliwell James Parker
Defendant pro se Defendant pro se
James Parker, Defendant pro se FILED
271 KE. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 9493] AUG 29 2008
(O07-795-5526 jayfrank@myway.com # MCV 191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
Vs Defendants’ Proposed
Order to Designate
Michael Halliwell & OEX Hearing Tran
James Parker script for Considera-
Defendants/Appellants tion re 5/27/08 Appeal
This Order hereby authorizes Appellate Clerks in
the Hall of Justice to accept and convey to Presiding
Judge of the Appellate Branch Rene Auguste
Chouteau, a copy of the accompanying “Defendants
Added Designation re Appeal Noticed on May 27,
2008 (OEX Hearing Transcripts and Analysis”) and
“Defendants’ Appendix Analyzing Transcript of July
21, 2008 Hearing.” The purpose of this Order is to
bring to Judge Chouteau’s attention the existence of
an ALREADY TRANSCRIBED Reporter's Transcript
of closely related OEX Proceedings. Defendants
argued
Since a transcript for the May 6, 2008 Hearing
where the $20,000-plus attorneys’ fees award was
granted is not yet available, designating the
accompanying July 21, 2008 OEX Hearing Tran-
script and Analysis cannot possibly produce any
delay. If Plaintiff appeals Judge Boyd's stay
order, the July 21st proceedings will be an
essential part of such an appeal. If the stay
remains in place, these proceedings will be an
essential part of Defendants’ case on the
underling judgment. No one wants an extra OFX
Appeal hearing. (Chronological Index #04787)
Copy to Charles Jensen via Box 170
Dated: this 28 day of July, 2008
Michael Halliwell James Parker
Defendant pro se Defendant pro se
Motion Denied
Dated: AUG 28 2008
Presiding Judge Choteau
Superior Court Appellate Branch
James Parker & Michael Halliwell "08 DEC 12
Defendants in Propria Persona 8:01 am
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 Sonoma County
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu Superior Court
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos No. MCV-191306
Plaintiff/Respondent Unlawful Detainer
vs Filed 6/1/07
Defendants’ Memorandum
Michael Halliwell & Citing Grounds for Vacat-
James Parker ing Proposed OEX Hearing
Defendants/Appellants of December 15, 2008
Charles Jensen has conceded that no undertaking
(appeal bon«) is appropriate in the current circum
stances (see accompanying bnief at 2:21-25) and CCP
Sec 916 plainly requires that in these circumstances
“the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the
trial court upon judgment or order appealed from or
upon matters embraced thercin or affected thereby,
including enforcement of the judgment or
order.” There is no doubt that the scheduling of an
OEX hearing (which took place on November 14,
2008) was a court action, as Charles Jensen has also
conceded
Our November 19, 2008 Mandamus Petition (at
78:3-7) quotes recent appeal briefing
In Section I Respondent commits a further
distortion of the procedural history of the case
“Appellants’ 11 again grants Mr. Jensen powers
he does not possess. Mr. Jensen doesnt set
hearings, the Court does.” In fact, the needs of
attorneys are taken into account when hearings
are set, and Judge Rushing gave priority to this
practice over the needs ot Defendants.
One_of the most important reasons that CCP Sec
916 stay provisions include not only the order itself,
but also matters “affected thereby during appeal
proceedings, 1s that this allows litigants to concen-
trate on making an effective case before the higher
court
At one stage in prior OEX proceedings, the Court
asked James Parker how he would respond 1f the
court denied his challenge to its jurisdiction, and he
cited the governing precedent which would be his
rext line of defense (relating to Due Process consid-
erations). In our analysis of this subject (at page 4)
in the accompanying brief, Cooper v Superior Court
(1961) 55 Cal 2d 291, 292, is cited dealing with cir-
cumstances where the order “was not a ‘lawful’ order
of the court (within the meaning of [the applicable
section of California’s Code of Civil Procedure] and
hence it was not contempt for him to disobey it
Our November 21, 2008 Mandamus Update (at
8:1 to 9:26) quotes James Parker:
In Clark v Millsap (1926) 197 Cal 765, 785, our
Supreme Court affirms: “Fraud or unfairness
on the part of the attorney will prevent him
from recovering for services rendered.”
In his response to my (James Parker’s) Opening
Briefs Conclusion, Charles Jensen’s Reply Brief
proclaims: “Counsel for respondent has never
been caught lying.” The specific le I (James
Parker) referred to in that brief was Charles
Jensen’s claim in Judge Rushing’s proceedings
that I had tried to conceal the presence of
Michael Halliwell at 1041 Copeland Creek Drive.
In fact, I first called Michael Halliwell’s residency
to Charles Jensen’s attention in a three-way
telephone conversation on April 12, 2007, well
before the trial started. But Charles Jensen
pretends that this conversation never took place.
Charles Jensen hung up on Defendants during
this April 12‘ conversation and immediately
severed all further communications with
Defendants. This was part of his strategy to
prevent us from calling other inconvenient facts
to his attention.
Michael Halliwell’s November 5, 2008 Reply Brief
11:23 to 12:17) observes:
At the July 21, 2008 hearing, Charles Jensen also
sought to bolster the validity of his $20,720 fees
award by referring to an ex parte application to
stay enforcement of this award, which had
allegedly been denied by Judge Allan D.
Hardcastle. Defendants July 25 Analysis
quotes Charles Jensen’s explanation: “Ihe
proposed order that I did receive, an endorsed
filed copy, has handwritten across it — hand-
written — ‘Denied,’ dated and signed by Judge
Hardcastle. That is as much as | can teil the
Court.” (Transcript at 21:24-27) Charles Jensen
then claimed to recall two rulings on this subject.
Defendants’ Analysis quotes his July 21, 2008
statement: “The ex parte judge, which I believe
was Judge Nadler, but I could be mistaken — and
the quote ‘Petition’ was heard by Judge Hard-
castle. [t has been the same argument.” (Tran-
script at 22:9-12) Defendants Analysis continues
(at 39:23 to 40:7)
The only argument, written or oral heard by
Judge Kushing that the stay provision of
916(a) was allegedly not activated was
because no appeal had been perfected.
The ex parte action by Judge Nadler (or any
other judge) and the Petition rejection by
Judge Hardcastle are inventions by Charles
Jensen. As he noted earlier in his testimony,
“I get a copy of everything,” so it should have
been an easy matter for him to produce the
necessary documentation of an alleged ex
parte and Petition argument presented by
Defendants, which he says is so redundant.
Charles Jensen ventures further into Fantasy-
land: “It was raised in passing in the moving
papers; the three-judge panel as ts Appeals 1
through 4; it was addressed in Judge Chouteau’s
written opinion that it didn’t apply: and that, you
know, the first collection of monies for the
plaintiff were proper.” (Transcript at 22:13-17)
Charles Jensen admits 1n appeals briefing for
Appeals No. 5 and No. 6, that Defendants did not
find out that their money had been given to
Charles Jensen by the Shenff until AFTER the
January 24, 2008 Appellate Branch hearing, so
how could Defendants have said anything about
how this was accomplished in moving papers for
Appeals ° through 4, filed at least a month before
the hearing’?
Michael Halliwell’s November 5, 2008 Reply Brief
(at 13:6-15) observes:
Defendants Ju y 25'» Analysis of this episode
continues (at 44:18-24): “After Clerk Stephen
Berry had tried to locate the documents which
Charles Jensen was referring to, Charles Jensen
tried to help: ‘I would have to say, Mr. Berry, that
[I believe the petition was May or June. I believe
it was fairly recent. The denial was — I know the
denial was by Judge Hardcastle, and if.it is listed
that way, you may be able to find the petition and
whatever the headnote claim is. It was a petition
for stay, as I recall it.’ (Transcript at 26:18-24)
Judge Boyd responds: ‘Judge Hardcastle has been
in Juvenile Court for some time, so if he signed it,
he went to Juvenile Court I believe about October
07. (Transcript at 26:25-27) Charles Jensen
contirms: ‘I believe it was Judge Hardcastle.’
(Transcript at 26:28)”
Charles Jensen must be required to establish
that he is an attorney in good standing, before he is
to be allowed to further represent his client. An
essential part of this good standing is compliance
with Business & Professions Code Sec 6068(d) [A
member of the Bar “shall employ, for the purpose of
maintaining the causes confided to the member such
means only as are consistent with truth.”]. An
attorney cannot be allowed to win by cheating and
then to continue as if nothing has happened. If no
satisfactory basis for his prior assertions (relating to
documents which do not exist) 1s forthcoming,
Charles Jensen should be sanctioned and should
forfeit his right to any compensation for activities
“tainted with fraud.”
Dated: this 12th day of December, 2008
Michael Halliwell James Parker
Defendant pro se Defendant pro se
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, Date:
SONOMA COUNTY December 15, 2008
Hon. ROBERT S. BOYD, Judge Courtroom: 21
Deputy Clerk Stephen Berry Reporter Eva Popovich
‘CHRYSANTHE PAXINOS. ENDORSED FILED
Plaintiff Vs DEC 16 2008
JAMES PARKER, et al, re OEX PROCEEDINGS
Defendant Action # MCV-191306
SPECIAL SET CALENDAR © 12/19/08 OEX Hearing
Counsel Charles T. Jensen is present on behalf of
Plaintiff; Defendant James Parker, self represented
party, 1s present.
Court hears the arguments of the parties. [Judge
Boyd asks:] “Mr. Parker, just to review the matter
again, my understanding is that your are contesting
the ability of this Court to, you are asking to have
the OEX continued, and the basis of that is you have
filed a writ with the California Supreme Court and
you have not heard a response from the California
Supreme Court. And I understand the basis of that
writ 1s a request that the matter should not proceed
while they have yet to issue their writ, is that
correct, sir? [James Parker rephes:] “Yes. We are
also depending upon your order of what — was the
date? July 23 — stating that was the case, the OEX
wouldn't go forward until the appeals were finished.”
(Transcript at 2:14-26) [Judge Boyd responds:]
“Well, the Court — I recall the order you referenced,
and it is my recollection that I ordered this OFX was
to be stayed while your appeal with the Appellate
Division of the Sonoma County Superior Court was
pending. That hearing was held; an order was
issued on November 24th, 2008, and filed on Decem-
ber 5». So that is what the Court was saying by that
order.” (Ibid at 3:10-17) [James Parker objects:]
“Your Honor, respectfully, your order of — what was
that date? July 234 — did not say ‘the local appeals
court.’ It said, ‘until the appeal was heard.” You did
not stipulate in your order that it was what appeals
court it was.” [Judge Boyd responds:] “All right. Are
you prepared to answer the questions, sir? | am
ordering you to come forward, be sworn and answer
the questions of Mr. Jensen.’ [James Parker
responds:] “Well, Your IIonor, all I can say 1s we do
not believe that the Court has jurisdiction, based on
your own order.” (Ibid at 4:3-14)
am giving you — to be absolutely clear — a warning
that if you do not answer these questions today, you
are exposing yourself to a $1,000 fine and/or five
days in jail, including the possibility of both. I want
you to be clear that that is what you are exposing
yourself to.” (Ibid at 4:22-28)
Your Honor. I don’t want to go to jail; I don’t want to
pay a $1,000 fine. But I have no choice but to decline
to protect legal rights of due process.” ({bid at 5:1-4)
[Judge Boyd ruled:] “Well, the Court then finds this
to be a direct contempt in the view of the Court, a
civil contempt pursuant to CCP Sec 1209(a)(5),
disobedience of a lawful court order.” (Ibid at 5:5-8)
AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE is issued as to
Defendant, JAMES PARKER, to show cause why
Sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to
comply with a lawful Court order.
ROBERT S. BOYD
Judicial Office
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, Date:
SONOMA COUNTY December 19, 2008
Hon. ROBERT S. BOYD, Judge Courtroom: 2]
Deputy Clerk Stephen Berry Reporter Eva Popovich
CHRYSANTHE PAXINOS, SERVED —
Plaintiff vs DEC 22 2008
JAMES PARKER, et al, re OEX PROCEEDINGS
Defendant Action # MCV-191306
SPECIAL SET CALENDAR 1/6/09 OEX Hearing
Counsel Charles T. Jensen is present on behalf of
Plaintiff: Defendant James Parker, self represented
party, 1s present.
Defendant declines to be examined, saying: “Mr.
Jensen is not telling you that we filed the motion for
reconsideration. That has not yet been denied, and
the reason 1s has not been dented we don’t know.
[Brief interruption] If I may finish. And even though
he says it was denied from the bench, and I do agree
that it was denied from the bench, but even if it was
denied from the bench, the local appellate court that
denied it from the bench still has jurisdiction until
tomorrow. And that is back to CRC 8.708. So this
hearing is premature. Mr. Jensen knows that this
hearing is premature. Mr. Jensen set this hearing
even before tha’ November 20, 2008 appeal hearing
was heard.” (Transcript at 11:21 to 12:6) [Judge
Royd observes:] “You have confirmed that the bench
ruled, that the appellate division ruled from the
bench denying your petition.” ([bid at 12:23-25)
(James Parker replies:} “We did file a motion for a
re-hearing on that. The Court has not acted on that
as of yet.” (Ibid at 13:12-13) [James Parker explains
the extension of jurisdiction resulting from an
unanswered motion for rehearing:] “CRC 8.708
states the appeal court maintains jurisdiction for 30
days after they make a ruling. Whether it be from
the bench or if they back 1t up with a written ruling
that comes along later, they can decide that [their
pronouncement of decision was the written ruling,
so] it [their response deadline] is 30 days from that
(Ibid at 13:27 to 14:3) [James Parker adds:] “We are
in the middle of trying to prepare an appeal! to the
First District Court [of Appeal], and if need be, file
an appeal to the Supreme Court on the [decision
announced at] the hearing that took place on
November 20, 2008.” (Ibid at 14:14-17)
[Judge Boyd says to Defendant James Parker;] “]
want to give you another opportunity to consider
whether you are going to answer the questions.”
(Ibid at 21:13-14) [James Parker responds:] “If you
are going to try to force me into revealing my
resources at this point, I am going to respectfully
decline to do that. If you want to put me in jail you
can do that. [f you want to fine me, you can do that.”
(Ibid at 25:3-6) Court finds contemptor’s action is
contempt of court, and he is adjudged guilty of
contempt of court in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure section 1209(a)(5). James Parker, the
contemptor, ss aceekhiaeedl Ga Ae three days in the
County Jail. Execution of this sentence is stayed to
January 6, Z009, at 8:30 a.m., Courtroom 21.
Hon. Robert S. Boyd KILED
Judge of the Superior Court DEC 22 2008
Courtroom 21, 3035 Cleveland Ave, Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Telephone: (707) 521-6725
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SONOMA
Case No. MCV-191306
CHRYSTANTHE E. PAXINOS
Plaintiff
ORDER AND JUDG
\ MENT OF CONTEMPT
JAMES PARKER, et al
Defendants
On December 19, 2008 the court held a hearing
on an Order To Show Cause In Re Contempt which
had been noticed and announced in open court to
Defendant and Judgment Debtor James Parker on
December 15, 2008, ordering him to appear on
December 19, 2008, to show cause why he should not
be adjudged guilty of contempt and punished ac
cordingly for the willful disobedience of an order to
answer questions presented by counsel for Judgment
Creditor at a properly noticed and scheduled order of
Examination. [At the December 19, 2008 hearing
James Parker said:}
Now, the first hearing we had before the local
appeals court, the Sonoma County Appeals Court,
was held on January 24, 2008. And this is a re
sponse to an order on motion for reconsideration
and petition to resolve inconsistencies that we
filed with the Court based on that hearing. And |
wili point out to you, it says: ‘Appellant’s motion
for reconsideration and appellant's petition to
resolve inconsistencies are deemed to be a motion
for rehearing, which was denied by operation of
law on April 5*, 2008 pursuant to CRC 8.708.’
(Transcript at 4:2-12) [Parker continued:| This
hearing today is being held prior to the expiration
of the 30-day notice on a hearing that took place
on November 20th, So, | think that reinforces our
petition. (Ibid at 4:24-26) [The Court asked how
this applied to the current situation, and Mr.
Parker answered:| Because they are referring to
April 5%, 2008, which was 30 days after the
[decision]. The order was March 6“, and that
[April 5*®| 1s 30 days after the order of March 6"
that they issued in writing. (Ibid at 5:6-10)
| Parker explained:| This is just an example. I am
not saying what is going on today is based on the
January 24 hearing or the March 6 hearing. [|
was just demonstrating it as an example of the
fact that the local appeals court maintains
jurisdiction for 30 days after they issue a ruling.
And it is dependent upon whether it is a written
ruling or a ruling from the bench. [The Court
asked:| If Il accept what you say, what difference
does it make to what we are doing? [Mr. Parker
answered:| Here? Okay. The hearing for the
$20,000 judgment that was awarded to Mr.
Jensen was held on November 20 — that 30 days
of this year, 2008. And that 30 days has not
expired yet. Minimally, it would be tomorrow
that it expires, minimally. ([bid at 7:3-18) [James
Parker continues:| But they can even move later
if they choose, because we have filed a motion for
re-hearing with them. We also filed another
motion for rehearing which we filed yesterday,
and Charles Jensen has a copy of it, so they could
extend their jurisdiction from this appeal for re
hearing if they so chose. But minimally, it doesn't
expire until tomorrow, so this hearing Is pre-
mature. ‘lherefore, this Court does not have
jurisdiction. (Ibid at 8:9-17)
At the hearing on December 19, 2008, Mr
Parker, after arguing why this court did not have
jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing, arguing
that this hearing was premature, arguing that he
had a right to be represented by a non-attorney who
was present in the courtroom, and arguing that this
court had ordered a stay which was still in effect to
preclude the court from having the Order of
Examination continue, was ordered to be sworn as a
witness and answer the questions presented by
Charles T. Jensen, counsel for Judgment Creditor
[Charles Jensen cited the judgment tnvolved:|
$20,000 was the original order that was issued,
Your Honor, on May the 6°. [The Court asks] As
we sit here today, there is no stay on the enforce-
ment of that order that has been ordered by any
court? [Charles Jensen answers:| That's correct.
There has been no noticed motion, no noticed
hearing for petition. They are simply papers that
are filed — sometimes a motion, sometimes a
petition — with no hearing set, no filing fee and no
setting by the clerk and no stay order. [The Court
asks:| So there is no barrier to the enforcement of
that judgment today? [Charles Jensen answers: |
That is correct. [James Parker interjects:| We
disagree with that. [The Court responds:]| I heard
your argument, sir, and | disagree with your
argument. Now | want to move ahead, so what |
am going to do is ask you, because it 1s the
Court’s belief that you are required to answer
those questions that Mr. Jensen has, so, sir, |
have asked you to come around to the witness
chair, be sworn in and answer those questions
(Ibid at 4:24 to 15:16)
Mr. Jensen had previously, at the request of the
court, recited the very questions he wished Mr.
Parker to answer, and the court believes they were
appropriate questions to be asked and answered at
the examination of a debtor. Mr. Parker was warned
at least twice during the hearing on December 19,
2008, that if he refused to answer the questions, he
was exposing himself to a fine of up to $1,000, five
days in custody, or both. Mr. Parker refused to be
sworn and re-fused to answer the questions. A
transcript of the December 19, 2008 proceeding is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. [The transcript quotes
this discussion of the stay issue:|
This 1s a document filed July 23, 2008? [James
Parker confirms:| Yes. [The Court continues:] I
see now what you are referring to. That it was to
be stayed until after the appeal was heard, and
that was an appeal with our appellate division,
which has been heard. | James Parker responds:]}
We would disagree. That order doesn't say that.
It says “until the appeal is heard,” and any
reasonable person who is a non-attorney can
assume, since we have often heard the term, “]
am going to appeal up to the Supreme Court,”
and that would include an appeal up to the
Supreme Court. We could have reasonably con-
strued from that sentence that’s what you meant,
because you did not say, “until the appeal was
heard before Sonoma County.” You referenced it,
but that hearing that you are referencing hadn't
even been set when you wrote that order there, so
we could not assume in any way you were refer-
encing an appeal whose date hadn’t even been set
yet, so it is reasonable for us — we defendants
here — to assume you meant the entire appeals
process, up to and through the Supreme Court.
And yes, that would be the answer to your
question; that is how we interpreted that
document. (Ibid at 18:27 to 19:23) [The Court says
of its July 23, 2008 stay order:] this order this
was to be stayed until the appeal was over, and
that appeal is over. So, that would only apply to
the appeal discussed in the order. So, it takes us
back — The bottom line is, there is no stay on this
hearing. [James Parker reasserts:| Your Honor,
respectfully, I would object to your rationalization
of your own order. That may be your rationaliza-
tion, but that last sentence of that document
doesn't say “until that appeal is heard” it says,
“until the appeal is heard.” And it is reasonable
for people who are not attorneys to extrapolate
from that you mean the entire appeals process.
(Ibid at 20:6-21) [The Court replred:| If for some
reason you misunderstood it, I am telling you the
Court intended that to refer to that appeal.
Therefore, this order would not. be a stay to
proceeding today. I want to give you an-other
opportunity to consider whether you are
going to answer the questions. (Ibid at 21.9-14)
Mr. Parker, the contemptor, was notified
specifically that the court found him in contempt and
was in fact found guilty of contempt. The court heard
and considered the contemptor’s explanation and
reason for his refusal to answer the questions and
rejected the arguments because it had previously
been ordered in this matter that Michael Halliwell
was not allowed to represent Mr. Parker at the
hearing. The stay previously issued by this court
was specifically limited in its language to a hearing
to be held in the Appellate Division of the Sonoma
County Superior Court. That hearing has been held
and the contemptor’s appeal of the order of attor-
neys fees was denied. The court heard and consid-
ered the other arguments presented by Mr. Parker
challenging this court’s ability to proceed with this
hearing and rejected said arguments. There is no
stay of enforcement of the award in effect and the
hearing is not premature.
[Zhe Court moved forward with the OEX process:]
At this time, then, I am going to order you to go
to the witness stand and be sworn in as a
witness. [James Parker responded:| Your Honor, |
respectfully decline to be sworn in. I will be
happy to go sit up there and we can have a
discussion, but [ am not going to give up my
constitutional rights because you say so. I have a
right to do research on your reasoning and reply
to why your reasoning might be incorrect. [The
Court replied:| And you realize, sir, that your
refusal to answer these questions exposes you to
a monetary fine, time in jail or both? [James
Parker answered:| Well, I do not believe this
Court has any jurisdiction, frankly, to issue any
order at this time because of the reasons why I
explained. J hear what you are saying, but I do
not beleve you have the authority at this time to
do that. (Ibid at 26:9-26) [The Court explained its
ruling:| The Court has ordered you to answer the
questions, Mr. Jensen has. You have refused to
do so. You have told the Court you will not do
that, so the Court finds you in contempt. You
were warned about what would happen if you
refused to answer the questions. Your refusal to
answer those questions, which the Court judges
to be contempt of court, happened in the
immediate view and presence of the Court. You
have been given an opportunity to explain why
you are refusing to do it; any defense you have or
mitigating circumstances. Therefore, having
heard those arguments, the Court disagrees, and
therefore the Court finds you guilty of contempt.
The Court will at this time impose three days
county jail. (Ibid at 27:5-18)
After due consideration, the Court found that,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the contemptor’s
action was in contempt of court and he was adjudged
suilty of contempt of court in violation of Code of
Civil Procedtre § 1209(a)(5). James Parker, the
contemptor, is sentenced to spend three days in the
County Jail. Execution of this sentence is stayed to
court. James Parker, the contemptor, is ordered to
return at that date and time. If James Parker, the
contemptor, is willing to answer the questions of
counsel for Judgment Creditor at that time, the
court will vacate the three-day in custody sentence
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 22, 2008
ROBERT S. BOYD
Judge of the Superior Court
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, Date:
SONOMA COUNTY January 6, 2009
Hon. ROBERT S. BOYD, Judge Courtroom: 21
Deputy Clerk Stephen Berry Reporter Eva Popovich
CHRYSANTHE PAXINOS, SERVED
Plaintiff vs JAN 8 2009
JAMES PARKER, et al, re OEX PROCEEDINGS
Defendant Action # MCV-191306
SPECIAL SET CALENDAR 1/20/09 OEX Hearing
Counsel Charles T. Jensen is present on behalf of
Plaintiff; Defendant James Parker, self represented
party, 1s present.
Parties address the Court. [James Parker explains
California Supreme Court filing rules, which allow
Defendants to file within 10 days of the First Circuit
Court of Appeal January 2, 2009 denial of their
Petition for a Writ of Mandate, 20 days after that for
opposing parties to answer, and 10 days for the
Petitioner to reply to any new points raised by the
opposing parties. |
Court believes the current appeal is still pending,
and there should be a stay of this proceeding. Court
STAYS the imposition of (3) THREE DAYS County
Jail sentence, in light of the pending Writ. before the
California Supreme Court. CONTINUED FROM
1/6/09 TO 1/20/09.
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, Date:
SONOMA COUNTY January 20, 2009
Hon. ROBERT S. BOYD, Judge Courtroom: 21
Deputy Clerk Stephen Berry Reporter Eva Popovich
CHRYSANTHE PAXINOS, SERVED
Plaintiff vs JAN 21 2009
JAMES PARKER, et al, re OEX PROCEEDINGS
Defendant Action # MCV-191306
SPECIAL SET CALENDAR 3/17/09 OEX Hearing
Counsel Charles T. Jensen is present on behalf of
Plaintiff; Defendant James Parker, self represented
narty, is present.
Parties address the Court. [James Parker says:]
“This is the sixth time we hav. been here... it just
seems to us that this is the most efficient way to do
this, so this Court can decide if Mr. Jensen’s argu-
ment is meritorious [about] jurisdiction.” [Judge
Boyd rephies:]} “All the creditor has to do is file a
notice requesting a hearing date, and there is no
procedural requirement that the creditor explain
why that date is appropriate.” (Transcript at 6:18 to
7:3) [Charles Jensen replies:] “I feel that a continu-
ance without noticed motions and all the other
folderal he requested is inherently within the Court
to set, reserving all prior order for contempt, etc.”
(Ibid 8:9-12)
Defendant files motion to vacate hearing without
prejudice re rescheduling after Supreme Court
relinquishes jurisdiction Court vacates the finding o
Contempt: “So now that I am beginning to get a
clearer picture of the whole story, not just this
—>
Court’s role, which was enfc cient of the
judgment, I believe that the Court was
premature in the finding of contempt. At this
time I am going to vacate the finding of
contempt, as that matter of enforcement of the
$20,000 is on appeal.” (Transcript at 18:2-8)
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, Date:
SONOMA COUNTY March 17, 2009
Hon. ROBERT S. BOYD, Judge Courtroom: 21
Deputy Clerk Stephen Berry Reporter Eva Popovich
CHRYSANTHE PAXINOS, SERVED
Plaintiff vs MAR 17 2009
JAMES PARKER, et al, re OEX PROCEEDINGS
Defendant Action # MCV-191306
SPECIAL SET CALENDAK 4/21/09 OEX Hearing
Counsel Charles 'T’. Jensen is present on behalf of
Plaintiff; Defendant James Parker, self represented
party, is present.
Defendant submits written statement, and states
this proceeding is premature, [James Parker
argues:] “The first-and-most-clear-cut reason why
enforcement of the $20,720 fees judgment is still
premature and the defendants have a right to appeal
to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we intend to exercise
that right. At the bottom of the first page of our
March 12, 2009 letter to [California] Chief Justice
George is U.S. Supreme Court Rule, which provides
90 days after the denial of discretionary review for
defendant to file a petition for certiorari in the U.S.
Supreme Court. The March 9, 2009 letter from
Senior Deputy Clerk of the California Supreme
Court list potential starting dates for this 90-day
period. The earliest due date for our petition for
certiorari is 90 days after January 21*t, 2009. If we
file a petition consolidating our two adverse fees
judgments, the deadlines for submission would be
April 20‘, 2009. If we file a separate petition for the
$20,720 fees judgment, it would be due 28 days later,
90 days after February 18, 2009 or May 18, 2009.
OEX proceedings sooner than these filing deadlines
would interfere with preparations of our petitions for
certiorari. The earliest that the $20,720 judgment
would be enforceable would not be until several
months after these deadlines, if the U.S. Supreme
Court declined to review our case. Therefore, Your
Honor, we feel that these — this hearing 1s still
premature.’ (Transcript at 3:19 to 4:18) [Judge Boyd
asked for Charles Jensen's response; he said:]
“Removal to federal court requires that it be done in
the beginning so that you preserve your right. The
beginning of this case is now roughly a year and a
half old. There are grounds if a removal or — of
course not in front of the Court, so I won’t get in-
volved in the claims of federal rights.” (Ibid 4:21-27)
Defendant refuses the Oath to be examined by
counsel. [James Parker explains:] “The law requires
we expend our State court rights of appeal before we
go to the U.S. Supreme Court, Your Honor. This 1s
what we are in the process of doing. Therefore, we
do have the right to appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court as the right — as our right of due process to
protect ourselves. So, therefore, if you insist that
this is not the case, we do not feel that having me
testify would be a lawful order and, therefore, |
would decline at this time.” (Ibid at 7:10-19)
Court advises Defendant his refusal to be examined
would be found to be contempt of a Court Order.
[Judge Boyd asks:] “Are you willing to provide the
requested bank statements, et cetera, requested by
Mr. Jensen?” (Ibid at 11:5-7) [James Parker replies:]
“lam not at this time, Your Honor, because,
respectfully, I feels that’s an unlawful order
Because we're in the middle of our appeal process,
which is our due right to spend all appeals.” (Ibid at
11:8-12) [Judge Boyd restated to Defendant:] “The
Court has ordered, just for clarity, sir, simply to
make it abundantly clear, [| am ordering you to
answer the written questic.is, provide the requested
bank statements, provide the requested investment
account information, and provide a copy of your
driver's license. Are you willing to do that?” (lbid at
12:13-19) [James Parker responded:] “Sir, | would
ask that if I again wish not to do that, that you give
us a stay to file an immediate appeal. If not that, at
least a day’s stay for me to enter jail, if that’s what
youre going to require me to do.” (lbid at 12:21-25)
[Judge Boyd continued:] “Now having heard this
Court order you to provide that information, are you
willing to do so?” (Ibid at 12:26-28) [James Parker
answered:] “I am not, sir.” (Ibid at 13:1)
Defendant, having failed to be examined, is found in
Contempt of Court in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure section 1290(a)(5). Court sentences
Defendant James Parker to serve three (3) DAYS in
the Sonoma County Jail. Defendant is ordered to
turn himself in to the Main Adult Detention Facility
at 7:00 p.m. on Friday, March 20, 2009. Defendant to
be held in custody without bail for three DAYS. If
Defendant complies with document request and
examination by 3:00 p.m. Friday, March 20, 2009,
Court to vacate the execution of this sentence.
Hon. Robert S. Boyd FILED
Judge of the Superior Court MAR 17 2009
Courtroom 21, 3035 Cleveland Ave, Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Telephone: (707) 521-6725
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SONOMA
Case No. MCV-191306
CHRYSTANTHE E. PAXINOS
Plaintiff,
ORDER AND JUDG
\ MENT OF CONTEMP'I
JAMES PARKER, et al
Defendants
This matter came on regularly for hearing on th
Order of Examination on March 17, 2009, at 8:30
a.m. before the Hon. Robert S. Boyd, Judge
Presiding. Counsel Charles Jensen wa: present on
behalf of Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor
Defendant/Judgment Debtor James Parker wa
present Ln pro per
[The Court summarized the information beu
sought:|
The appeal review now having been denied, the
appeal comes back to the Court. So at this tim:
Mr. Parker, are you willing to answer the qui
tions posed by Mr. Jensen, including turning ove
the bank records, filling out the written
questionnaire, wanting the — reflecting bank
records, and providing a copy of your California
driver's license? (Transcript at 3:1-8) [James
Parker replied:| “Well, Your Honor, we still feel
that the hearing is premature.” ({bid at 3:9-10)
[Charles Jensen disagreed with Defendant:] “The
($20,720 award] has been fully adjudicated. And,
as the Court recalls at the last hearing here, they
said, ‘Well, because it’s pending at the Supreme
Court, we shouldn't go forward.’ The Court
accepted that. The Supreme Court has ruled on
it. ‘hat matter is dead.” (Ibid at 5:4-10) [Charles
Jensen explained:| “We were continued to today’s
date because the State appeal was still pending
as of the last hearing. The California Supreme
Court ruled. It ruled. It had been denied. We
are prepared to go forward.” (Ibid at 5:17-21) [The
Court ruled:| “I’ve not read the materials just
handed to the Court, but at this time, the Court
is not aware of any pending appeal or pending
stays of the enforcement of the judgment. There-
fore, the Court believes it appropriate now to
proceed with enforcement. The intention to file
an appeal has no bearing upon this Court's
ability or the appropriateness of this Court, of
course, having to go ahead and provide the
judgment.” (lbid at 5:22 to 6:3)
In the immediate view and presence of the court,
defendant/judgment debtor James Parker appeared
before this court pursuant to an order or
examination of a debt owed by defendant/judgment
debtor to plaintiff/judgment ereditor. Mr. Parker
was placed under oath and the court ordered him to
answer the written questions provided by counsel for
plaintiff/judgment creditor, provide copies of the
requested bank statements, copies of statements on
investment accounts, and his California driver's
license. Mr. Parker refused to answer the questions.
Mr. Parker was then warned by the Court that if he
refused to answer the questions, he was exposing
himself to a finding of contempt and the imposition
of a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not
exceeding five days, or both. Mr. Parker, acknow
ledging that he had heard this warning, again
refused to answer the questions ordered by the court
to be answered. A full transcript containing this
occurrence will be prepared and will be attached and
made a part of this order and judgment as soon as
available
| Defendants comment in their March 19, 2009
U/pdate:|
On January ZO, 2009, the Honorable Robert 8S.
Boyd (acting on information from the California
Supreme Court that the status of Defendant's
appeal from a $20,720 tees award, 5169634,
would be decided no later than March 11, 2009)
set a March 17, 2009 resumption date for OEX
proceedings, whose focus is the enforcement of
this $20,720 judgment. However, in part due to
circum-stances set forth in our February 17, 2009
Mandamus Petition [S$171792], the procedural
posture of Defendants’ case is not nearly as clear-
cut as we and Judge Boyd hoped it would be at
this juncture. (California Supreme Court filing re
OEX Interference with Ongoing Appeal of Fed-
eral Issues at 1.)
The Court heard and considered Mr. Parker’s
explanation and reason for refusing to answer the
questions. The court rejected such explanation and
excuse because it was premised on Mr. Parker's
statement he intended to file a writ of certiorari in
the United States District Court attacking the
validity of the judgment that the obligation to
answer these questions was therefore premature
| Defendants’ March 19, 20092 Update comments:|
We DO NOT believe that Judge Boyd has a
dismissive attitude toward the Federal Due
Process and Equal Protection guarantees
set forth in the Bill of Rights and the Four-
teenth Amendment. However, Judge Boyd
ireated Defendants’ attempts to seck enforce
ment of these rights vis a vis the $20,720 fees
judgment, as being of little consequence (perhaps
because he misconstrued our effort, as intending
to start an inevitably time consuming action in
Federal District Court, when in fact, we plan a
direct appeal tothe U.S. Supreme Court pur
suant to 28 U.S.C. Sec 1257, which has a 90 day
filing deadline atter denial of discretionary
review by a State’s highest court). (Id.at 2.)
The debt forming the basis of the order of
examination is one of three judgments for attorney's
fees ordered against Mr. Parker pursuant to his
unsuccessful defense of an unlawful detainer action
in 2007. A lengthy series of appeals of that court
judgment, beginning with the Appellate Division of
the Sonoma County Superior Court, and proceeding
then to the First Appellate District of the Court of
Appeal and then to the California Supreme Court,
have all resulted in denials of petitions for review.
The three California Supreme Court case numbers
are $163276, S168827 and S169364. At this time
there 1s no pending appeal nor stay issued against
this court prohibiting it from hearing enforcement
actions on the underlying debt.
The history of this matter is the following:
On April 14, 2008 [Judge Boyd probably means
July 14, 2008], defendant James Parker was ordered
by the court to answer written questions and provide
copies of bank statements, investment accounts, and
a copy of his California driver's license. The matter
was then continued to July 21, 2008, for an Order to
Show Cause in re compliance with the court order.
On July 21, 2008, Mr. Parker's refusal to answer
the questions was taken under submission and on
July 23, 2008, an order was issued by the court
staying the pending enforcement action on the debt
to allow resolution of the Court of Apreal actions.
[Judge Boyd in fact argued when OEX proceedings
resumed, that his order DID NOT cover discre-
tionary review by the Court of Appeal or Supreme
Court.]
On December 15, 2008, Mr. Parker again
declined to answer the questions. He was found in
contempt pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 1290(a)(5) and an Order to Show Cause was
set for December 19, 2008, for a hearing on why
sanctions should not be imposed.
On December 19, 2008, Mr. Parker was found in
contempt and ordered to serve three days in the
county jail stayed to January 6, 2009.
On January 6, 2009, the imposition of the jail
sentence was stayed until January 20, 2009.
On January 20, 2009, the finding of contempt was
vacated based upon the pending appeals in this
matter. The matter was put over to March 17, 2009,
for further proceedings.
On March 17, 2009, Mr. Parker was again
ordered to answer the questions and declined to do
so. The court offered Mr. Parker an opportunity to
present an explanation or excuse for his conduct
which, as discussed above, the court found insuffi
cient to provide a basis for refusing to answer the
questions. All appeals have concluded with the
denial of petitions for review. Therefore, the court
finds Mr. Parker guilty of contempt of court 1n vio-
lation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290(a)(5).
Mr. Parker is sentenced to serve three days in the
county jail. [The Court provided this alternative:}
One other thing I want to say. If the Court is
advised by Mr. Jensen that between now and 5:00
p.m. on Friday, when the Court closes for the
weekend, that you have changed your mind and
agreed to provide the information, the Court will
release vou from the obligation to serve the jail
sentence. I want to give ycu every opportunity to
provide the information and not to put yourself in
jail. So I will be here until 5:00 o'clock on Friday.
And if | hear from Mr. Jensen that you have
comphied, | will release you from the obligation to
go to jail. (Ibid at 13:17-28)
Mr. Parker is ordered to turn himself in to the
Main Adult Detention Facility at 7:00 p.m. on
Friday, March 20, 2009. [James Parker said he
would seek reconsideration: |
Would your Honor accept a motion for a stay on
Friday morning? [The Court asked:] “A motion for
a stay?” [James Parker confirmed:] “Right.” [The
Court replied:| “It would entirely depend t .0n the
basis of the motion --” [James Parker continued:]
“But you would be willing to accept —” |The Court
answered:| “If you can convince the Court that
there 1s a reason for the sentence to be stayed,
the Court would review it. But you need to — [I’m
not sure what that would be.” (Ibid at 15:13-24)
Mr. Parker 1s to be held in custody without bail
for three days. |[Dcfendant’s Affidavit re Issues
Raised in March 17, 2609 and March 20, 2009 Order
of Examination Proceedings affirms:]
At the Tuesday, March 17, 2009 OEX hearing,
after imposing a contempt finding and three day
jail sentence on James Parker (to start at 7 PM
on Friday, March 20, 2009), Judge Boyd agreed to
consider any last minute arguments Defendants
were able to put together on Friday morning
March 20, 2009. While we cannot quote Judge
Boyd's exact words (because the transcript is not
yet available), there is nothing in what he said to
indicate that he would not allow oral argument as
part of his process of consideration. When Judge
Boyd acted, he treated our March 20, 2009
motion as an Ex Parte submission, and denied it
without comment (without allowing Defendant
Parker any opportunity to learn his reasons
much less discuss them. (Id. at 1:11-18)
[TIS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 17, 2009
ROBERT S. BOYD
Judge of the Superior Court
James Parker & Michael Halliwell ENDORSED
Defendants in Propria Persona FILED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 MAR 20 2008
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu No. MCV-191306
CALIFORNTA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS. Defendants’ Memorandum
Citing Grounds for Vacat-
Michael Halliwell & ing Finding of Contempt
James Parker and James Parker’s Three
Defendants/Appellants Day Jail Sentence
The main focus of today’s Defendants’ motion to
vacate 1s related to our upcoming filing of a Petition
for Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court,
but is more limited than the motion we offered on
March 17, 2009. In this motion we seek only to
protect our ability to research and prepare this
Petition without interference, even though we
continue to feel that it would be appropriate to await
the outcome of this Petition, before undertaking any
enforcement action relating to the $20,720 fees
judgment (which our Petition will show is violative
of our Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights).
This matter is squarely within the ambit of our
ce
Extra Front Squeeze” complaint raised in our
February 17, 2009 Petition for Mandamus
(S170538), even though the impetus for this Petition
was interference with our appeal rights by Judge
Rushing, not this Court’s OEX proceedings. See
Varian Medical Systems (Appendix H, Note 21.161).
[. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
Appendix H (at 40-41) give the full text of this
Court's Order of July 23, 2008 (in its context of
ongoing devclopments in the case). The most
important line in that Order states: “the court now
having received the various documents provided by
the parties and more importantly reviewed the court
file of the matter.” In its previous contempt findings
(which were vacated because the court granted De-
fendants’ motion challenging jurisdiction “pursuant
to the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section
916”), this Court considered the statutes and casclaw
cited by Defendants, and called them back to find
out if we were determined to stick to our position
that the Court's order was unlawful (as is EVERY
order issued by a court that acts outside the limits of
its jurisdiction)
Moreover, this Court had a transcript in hand
which clearly stated its original questions Defendant
Parker declined to answer, before the questions were
repeated at the next session and the possibility of
issuance of a contempt finding was raised. Here,
everything is combined into a single proceeding, and
the Court’s Order of March 17, 2007 says (1:28 to
2:2): “A full transcript of this proceeding containing
this occurrence will be prepared and will be attached
and made part of this order and judgment as soon as
available.” Defendants believe that a finding of
transcript, not issued in anticipation of a transcript,
but supported at the time of issuance only by the
Court’s memory (in a context where the actual words
are very important). The Court’s order of March 17,
2009 says (3:3-5): “On January 6, 2009, the
imposition of the jail sentence was stayed until
January 20, 2009. On January 20, 2009, the finding
of contempt was vacated based upon the pending
appeals in this matter.” We still have a pending
appeal (S170538) which may be procedurally
relevant to any proceedings which may interfere
with our exercise of our Federal appellate rights (as
will be explained in the closing section). However,
regardless of all other considerations, we believe
that the two weck interval allowed by the Court
before taking its most recent action is essential to
achieving justice AND saving time for all concerned
in the long run.
Before proceeding further, we offer a line-by line
analysis of the March 17, 2009 Order.
Il. ANALYSIS OF STATEMENT OF CASE
AND COURT'S FINDINGS
A. Opening Statement of the Order of March
17, 2009
This matter came on regularly for hearing on the
Order of Examination on March 17, 2009, at 8:30
a.m. before the Hon. Robert S. Boyd, Judge Pre-
siding. Counsel Charles Jensen was present on
behalf of Plaintiff/ Judgment Creditor; Defen
dant/Judgment Debtor James Parker was present
in pro per. (Transcript at 1:14-17)
Co-Defendant Michael Halliwell was also pre
sent, and must reimburse Defendant Parker for any
fees he pays, according to a long standing agreement
that is as binding as any contractual fees obligation
that James Parker may be thought to have under
the rental agreement (see Nelson v Adams paralle!
in Note 10.74, in Appendix H). But in accordance
with the Court’s continuing policy, Defendant
Halliwell was silenced and not even allowed to sit at
the Defendants’ table. This exclusion was appealed,
and our December 22, 2008 Notice of Appeal was
acknowledged by the Appellate Branch that same
day. Since a court cannot (consistent with CCP Sec
916) take action on any aspect of a case covered by
an appeal, it cannot continue to conduct proceedings
in a manner violative of Defendants’ right to conduct
their own case (see Gray vu Justice’s Court citation in
Note 7.45 of Appendix H).
B. Scope of Parker’s Refusal to Answer
Questions
In the immediate view and presence of the court,
defendant/judgment debtor James Parker
appeared before this court pursuant to an order
of examination of a debt owed by defendant/
judgment debtor to plaintiff/judgment creditor.
Mr. Parker was placed under oath and the court
ordered him to answer 1)? the written questions
provided by counsel for plaintiff/judgment
creditor, 2) provide copies of the requested bank
statements, 3) copies of investment accounts, and
4) his California driver’s license. Mr. Parker
refused to answer the questions. (Ibid at 1:18-24)
1)? There have been several attempts by Charles
Jensen to force Defendant James Parker to answer
his questionnaire, which Defendants feel has no
official status, and therefore requires an item-b\
item authorization by the court. Most recently
Charles Jensen tried to set the ball rolling’ on thi
matter at the conclusion of proceedings on January
20, 2007, but the Court suggested he defer his effort
until the scheduled March 17, 2009 hearing. There
was no court reporter at the first OFX hearing
(conducted by Judge Andrea K. Ritchie), but Jame
Parker answered numerous financial questions
(including his income) until he drew the line at
questions which had no real connection to his ability
to pay, but werc only designed to harass and degrade
him. Charles Jensen falsely claimed that Judge
Ritchie required James Parker to answer his
questionnaire, but Judge Ritchie’s Courtroom
Minutes do not back up that claim. At one point
Judge Boyd’s Courtroom Minutes reflected Charles
Jensen’s claim that the Court had ordered James
Parker to answer his questionnaire. However, this
inaccuracy was rectified as soon as the Transcript
came out (which showed that it was Charles Jensen
and not Judge Boyd, who had tried to force Jam:
Parker to answer the questionnaire)
aring James
a car Gandlord Gu
»>number) and
Parker admitted
Paxinos already ha
a bank account
Charles Jensen already
\ppare ntly
en is able to
information on the amount of funds 1n th
account, because he referred to ut
( leaned Out
as having been
at the first OFX
hearing)
is reflected in her Courtroom Minut
Judge Ritchie as
Parker only two
which he refused to :
wer (about hi
bank account
number)
which Judge Boyd required Jamé
nalty of a contempt
overed no fres
iat Charles.
on information lh
James Parker
eek
no right to
already
h is no reason to
thing from Charl
tionnaire ad by Judge
record as part of his «
ontempt warning. ‘Thi
.(and many
Bovd into
March 17") erv out for a delay until the hearing
transcript is available, the parties have had a chance
to analyze the transcript, and to submit the result
of their analysis to the court for its consideration
C, Judge Boyd Warns re a Possible
Contempt Finding
Mr. Parker was then warned by the court that if
he refused to answer the questions, he was
exposing himself to a finding of contempt and the
imposition of a fine not exceeding $1,000, or
imprisonment not exceeding five days, or both
Mr. Parker acknowledging that he had heard thi
warning, again refused to answer the questions
ordered by the court to be answered. A full
transcript of this proceeding containing thi
occurrence will be prepared and will be attached
ind made part of this order and judgment as soo)
as available. (Ibid at 1:24 to 2:2)
James Parker asked several times whethe)
could be ordered back to jail again if he still refused
LO give answers to questions he felt were bevond the
cope of the courts authority, but Judge Boyd did
not give a clear answer. A talr warning to a
Vefendant facing a contempt finding, should explan
the total penalty he face An important part of
contempt procedures 1s the lawfulness of the order
the court 1s seeking to enforce: ind 1t 18 not fair to
nda person (wl e 10! tuation does not make the
weekend favorable) to jail on late Friday, Saturday
and Sunday, when there ts limited access to court
where the person being jailed might seek to
challenge the legality of his sentence. It is also
difficult to see why, when the maximum penalty ts
five days in jail, the seriousness of James Parkers
offense warrants a three day sentence
D. Minimizing Reasons Parker Refused to
Answer
‘The court heard and considers d Mer. Parker's
explanation and reason for refusing to answer th
questions. The court rejected such explanation
and excuse because it was premised on Mr
Parker's statement he intended to file a writ of
certiorari in the United States District Court
attacking the validity of the judgment that the
obligation to answer these questions was
»
therefore premature. (Ibid at 2:3-7)
The Defendant James Parker made it entirely
clear (by calling the Court's attention toa spe cine
Suprem Court rule which set the di adline, and
throughout his discussion of the matter that he
intended to Ippe al to the United States SUPREME
Court. It was Charles Jensen who raised the
possibility of filing an action in Federal District
Court, when he (falsely) claimed that the only way to
ecure federal review of Defendants’ federal!
grievances would have been to seek transfer to a
Federal District Court, at the outset of lhtigation
The statement in the Order of March 17' ignores
the complicated matter of the proper application of
California Supreme Court rules. If Defendants are
successful (this matter is likely to be resolved soon)
in showing that the 60 day period of California
Supreme Court jurisdiction, starting with the filing
of the last petition for Certiorari (on January 12,
2009), has been unfairly shortened by a court clerks
error, they would be eligible for corrective action
which might extend the High Court’s jurisdiction up
to thirty more days (under CRC 8.512(b)(1). When
Judge Boyd asked the California Supreme Court
how long it might take for it to decide on whether to
review S169634, he was told (and announced 1n open
court) that it might be as long as March 11, 2009.
(The remaining 48 hours until the 60 day limit, are
apparently reserved for action under the High
Court's power set forth in CRC 8.512(c)(2) to act sua
sponte to reverse a denial of review. If the High
Court were to consider the March 6, 2009 and March
12, 2009 materials (resubmitted on March 19, 2009
as part of our Mandamus Update in $170538) to be
sufficiently persuasive, they could use their broad
mandamus power to reopen the question of review,
and use their power to remand to another court
(such as the First District Court of Appeal) to reopen
the $20,720 attorney’s fees issue (or even take the
unlikely step of reviewing this matter themselves).
The order of March 17 also ignores Defendants’
third basis for claiming that immediate resumption
of OEX proceedings would be premature (interfere-
ence with other aspects of the case with overlapping
schedules of consideration). How to deal with this
situation is the focus of our Mandamus appeal
(S170538), and is the focus of Defendants’ motion in
Section III.
EK. Fairness requires letting Defendants run
their case.
The debt forming the basis of the order of exam1i-
nation is one of three judgments for attorney's
fees ordered against Mr. Parker pursuant to his
unsuccessful defense of the unlawful detainer
action in 2007. A lengthy series of appeals of that
court judgment, beginning with the Appellate
Division of the Sonoma County Superior Court,
and proceeding then to the First Appellate
District of the Court of Appeal and then to the
California Supreme Court, have all resulted in
denials of petitions for review. The three
California Supreme Court case numbers are
$163276, S168827 and $169634. At this time,
there is no pending appeal nor stay issued
against this court prohibiting it from hearing
enforcement action on the underlying debt. (Ibid
at 2:8-16)
The fact that Defendant Halliwell provided
nearly all of the unsuccessful defense of the unlawful
detainer action in 2007, makes it especially
inappropriate for disallowing him from participation
in fees issues which arose from this defense, and our
inextricably intertwined with it. The repeated
adjournments and restarts in OEX proceedings are a
direct result of the edict requiring defendants to
“change horses in the middie of a stream,” and have
definitely been a hindrance (see Note 7.45 in
Appendix H) to Defendant Parker's handling the
defense all by him self, thereby satisfying the third
prong of the Powers v Ohio test for jus tertit Gandirect
injury standing). The other two prongs of the
Powers criteria, are closeness of relationship (being
evicted together) and injury in fact (no one disputes
the reality and long duration of Defendants’ cost
sharing agreement). As of 4:30 PM on March 19,
2009, when Defendants made their Update filing at
the California Supreme Court in San Francisco,
S170538 was still pending.
F. As July 23, 2008 Order held, OEX was
premature
The history of this mater is the following: On
April 14 2008, defendant James Parker was
ordered by the court to answer written questions
and provide copies of bank statements, invest-
ment accounts, and a copy of his driver's license.
The matter was then continued to July 21, 2008
for an order to show cause in re compliance of
with the court order. On July 21, 2008, Mr. Par-
kers refusal to answer the questions was taken
under submission and on July 23, 2008, an order
was issued by the court staying the pending en-
forcement action on the debt to allow resolution
of the Court of Appeal actions. ([bid at 2:17-24)
This court fully understands that state court
rulings at any level can be overturned by an order of
the United States Supreme Court. Don’t Appendices
G and H show that there are an abundance of
federal aspects relating to the fees issues in dispute?
Why isn’t this sort of resolution given the same
respect, by this court, as a ruling by the California
Supreme Court?
G. On January 20, 2009 OEX was STILL
premature
On December 15, 2008, Mr. Parker again
declined to answer the questions. He was found
in contempt pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 1290(a)(5) and an Order to Show Cause
was set for December 19, 2008, for a hearing on
why sanctions should not be imposed. On
December 19, 2008, Mr. Parker was found in
contempt and ordered to serve three days in the
county jail stayed to January 6, 2006. On
January 6, 2009, the imposition of the jail
sentence was stayed until January 20, 2009. On
January 20, 2009, the finding of contempt was
vacated based upon the pending appeals in this
matter. The matter was put over to March 17,
2009, for further proceedings. (2:25 to 3:7)
Would it be fair to say that all the ordeal that
James Parker was put through by premature OFX
proceedings, was on account of contempt of Stacute
and Caselaw on the part of Sonoma County Superior
Court jurists? Why ts it fair to attribute a contemp-
tuous attitude to James Parker, rather than give a
fair examination to his reasons for believing that the
law is on his side, in spite of all the judges on the
other side? Whatever happened to the decent
respect for the opinions of mankind which is pro
claimed in the American Declaration of Indepen-
)
dence? Why not continue the process of examining
the underlying legal issues in an orderly way,
instead of a rush to justice which implicitly blames
dames Parker for all the past delays?
H. What governing precedent supports this
ruling?
On March 17, 2009, Mr. Parker was again
ordered to answer the questions and declined to
do so. The court offered Mr. Parker an opportu
nity to present an explanation or excuse for his
conduct which, as discussed above, the court
found insufficient to provide a basis for refusing
to answer the questions. All appeals have
concluded with a denial of petitions for review.
Therefore, the court finds Mr. Parker guilty of
contempt of court in violation of Code of Civil
Procedure section 1290(a)(5). Mr. Parker is
sentenced to serve three days in the county jail.
Mr. Parker is ordered to turn himself in to the
Main Adult Detention Facility at 7:00 p.m. on
Friday, March 20, 2009. Mr. Parker is to be held
in custody without bail for three days. [TIS SO
ORDERED. (Ibid at 3:8-19)
ill. DEFENDANTS’ STAY MOTION
As nonlawyers, Defendants have to discover the
law as they go along. Even so, they have put
together a Petition for Mandamus that has survived
since February 17, 2009 in the California Supreme
Court. Compare this to the SAME day rejection of
Defendants’ Mandamus Petition to the First District.
Court of Appeal, in what became 5169634. It would
certainly appear that there is something worthy of
consider-ation here, and Defendants hereby seck
postponement of further OFX proceedings, while
5170538 remains alive in the California Supreme
Court. Their authority for this motion is Varian
Medical Systems, Inc. v Delfino (2005) 35 Cal 4t 180,
190:
A trial court proceeding also affects the effective
ness of an appeal if the possible outcomes on
appeal and the actual or possible results of the
proceeding are trreconcilable. ..... Finally, a
proceeding affects the effectiveness of the appeal
if the very purpose of the appeal is the avoid the
need for the proceeding. In that situation, the
proceeding itself is inherently inconsistent with a
possible outcome on appeal and must therefore be
stayed under section 916, subdivision (a).
Dated: this 20th day of March, 2009
James Parker
Michael Halliwell
Defendant pro se Defendant pro se
Hon. Robert S. Boyd FILED
Judge of the Superior Court APR 17 2009
Courtroom 21, 3035 Cleveland Ave, Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Telephone: (707) 521-6725
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SONOMA
Case No. MCV-191306
CHRYSTANTHE E. PAXINOS,
Plaintiff,
ORDER VACATING
V. HEARING ON
APRIT. 21, 2007
JAMES PARKER, et al.,
Defendants
This court, on its own motion, hereby VACATES
the hearing scheduled for April 21, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
in Courtroom 17, as premature and unnecessary.
The creditor is to initiate further proceedings in
this matter if desired.
ITIS SOQ ORDERED
DATED: April 17, 2009
ROBERT S. BOYD
Judge of the Superior Court
EK. $20,720 Brief-Reading-Only Attorney Fee
1. Defendants’ 4/30/08 plea to delay fees hearing. 120
2. Judge Rushing’s 5/6/08 $20,720 Fees Award... 122
3. Defendants’ 5/27/08 fees award Appeal Notice. 123
5/6/08 Hearing Transcript available on 9/15/08 125
5.Defendants 10/14/08,11/5/08 re 2-front squeeze 129
». Evasions preceding the 11/20/08 fees hearing . 133
7. 12/5/08 Order upholds $20,720 Fees Award... 135
8. Court of Appeal 1/2/09 Mandamus Denial... . 137
9. Appellate Branch 1/5/09 Rehearing Denial... 138
10. Appellants’ 1/12/09 judicial evasions protest . 139
11. Appellants’1/12/09 concealed censure protest 142
12. Supreme Court 2/18/09 Denial of Review... .. 146
James Parker & Michael Halliwell "08 APR 30
Defendants in Propria Persona 1:02 pm
271 I. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 Sonoma County
707-795-5526 halhiwel@csulb.edu Superior Court
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos No. MCV-191306
Plaintiff/Respondent, Unlawful Detainer
VS. Filed 6/1/07
Defendants’ Petition to
Michael Halliwell & Presiding Judge Owen to
James Parker Postpone May 6, 2008
Defendants/Appecllants Attorney’s Fees Hearing
This Petition seeks postponement of all motions
and appeals concerning attorney fees until serious
impediments to Defendants’ ability to respond (rela-
ting to the status of the Case File are removed). The
major obstacle facing Defendants is the prolonged
delay in consideration of their Appeal of November
21, 2007, for which they seek clarification and some
follow-through on a commitment which they received
from the Chief Appeals Clerk (that a Chronological
index would be prepared as soon as possible, and
that a revised briefing schedule would be promptly
sent out).
Defendants unsuccessfully sought a copy of a
February 5, 2008 Appellate Branch ruling which
formalized the under-standing with the Chief
Appeals Clerk, but the Case File was unavailable
(due to preparation of the Chronological Index, so all
they could obtain on this subject was the attached
titie listing of ORDER VACATING NOTICE OF
TIME AND PLACE TO FILE BRIEFS (FILED
1/14/08) printout from the computer)
Dated: this 30% day of April, 2008
Michael Halliwell James Parker
Defendant pro se Defendant pro se
Charles ‘I’. Jensen SBN 69044 ENDORSED FILED
Kadin Blonski SBN 244856 MAY 6 2008
1622 444 St. Santa Rosa, 95404 Attorney for Plaintiff
707-527-9911 Fax:707-527-0908 Chrysanthe Paxinos
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos) Case No. MCV-191306
Plaintiff, vs. } (Unlawful Detainer Case)
James Parker et al. ) JUDGMENT AFTER MOTION
Defendants. )
Plaintiff CHRYSANTHE E. PAXINOS'’s motion
for attorney's fees came on for hearing, Tuesday May
06, 2008, in Department 19 of the above court, the
Honorable ELAINE RUSHING, Judge presiding. A
tentative ruling was issued and the Defendant
requested oral argument. The Plaintiff was
represented by Kadin W. Blonski and Charles T
Jensen, the Defendant JAMES PARKER
represented himself. After oral argument, decision
was given in open court, the above parties present.
The Plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees for
Plaintiff CHRYSANTHE E. PAXINOS as to
Defendant JAMES PARKER only is granted in the
amount of $20, 680.00 and $40.00 for filing fee.
Dated: May 6, 2008 Pers a
Honorable ELAINE RUSHING
Judge of the Superior Court
James Parker & Michael Halliwell ENDORSED
Defendants in Propria Persona FILED
271 Kk. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 MAY 27 2008
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu No. MCV-191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS.
Defendants’ Notice of
Michael Halliwell & Appeal re May 6, 2008 Fees
James Parker Award and Analysis ot
Defendants/Appellants Specific Billing Items
Defendants James Parker and Michael Halliwell
hereby appeal the May 6, 2008 award of $20,680 in
attorney's fees and $40 for filing fee by Judge Elaine
Rushing, on both procedural and substantive
erounds. Since Charles Jensen’s successful motion
seeking this award was an across-the-board chal-
lenge to Defendants’ filings, the only effective re-
course in the present circumstance is an across-the-
board defense. (See specific quotations infra from
every one of the documents which Respondent dis.
misses as “whimsy, dribble and nonsense.”) Charles
Jensen did not file ANYTHING as a result of the
reading for which he seeks payment, which is alloca-
ted proportionally by $ amounts following each Case
Record (CR) citation. Nor did he say ANYTHING
related to these filings at the January 24, 2008
Appeal Hearing. (Sce accompanying January 24,
2008 Hearing Transcript Appendix.) Charles
Jensen's basis for seeking payment 1s: “Defendant's
forced plaintiffs counsel to read all his papers.
Unfortunately counsel was not in a position to
assume they were alla joke. An old Irish saying
states ‘even a blind pig can find a truffle every now
and then.” Serrano v Unruh (1982)32 Cal 3d 621,
635 holds that “[A party's obligation to pay fees
should not produce] a ‘Hobson’s choice’ designed to
prevent their voicing legitimate objections.” At the
May 6, 2008 hearing Charles Jensen refused to
identify ANYTHING in Defendants’ filings which did
not fit within this “safe harbor.” Accordingly,
Charles Jensen, WHO DID NOT SEEK ANY COM-
PENSATION IN HIS SUPPORTING MOTION FOR
HIS OWN PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS, is
NOT entitled to any fees at all for his work in
the appellate proceedings in this case.
Dated: this 27t» day of May, 2008
Michael Halliwell James Parker
Defendant pro se Defendant pro se
James Parker & Michael Halliwell TRANSCRIPT
Defendants in Propria Persona FILED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 SEP 15 2008
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu No. MCV-191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS.
Michael Halliwell & Defendants’ Analysis
James Parker of May 6, 2008 Hearing
Defendants/Appellants Transcript
Trial Court and Court of Appeal Fees Evasions
Because Judge Rushing’s $20,720 fees award
cousists entirely of a reading fee (there is absolutely
no work product claimed, nor any attendance at
hearings) all the issues in her first fees award
reappear as Charles Jensen now demands to be paid
for reading briefs primarily directed at trying to get
the fees adjudication process properly on track. Just
how far a field from normal standards of awarding
attorney’s fees Charles Jensen and Judge Rushing
are, 1s clear from this “closest approach” to the
merits at the May 6, 2008 fees hearing. James
Parker analyzes Charles Jensen’s charges:
I want to read a quote here and —in a March 26th
document which was the perfunctory opposition
to reconsideration, Charles Jensen had a very
dismissive tone, and he’s always had a very
dismissive tone to us as though we're nothing and
nobody. Let me read this, if | may, Your Honor.
Charles Jensen’s dismissive tone continues in his
March 26t» 2008 perfunctory opposition to recon-
sideration where he refers to defendants’
completely accurate quotations and citations,
which are cross-indexed as thoroughly as time
permitted us to be able to do as, quote “whimsy,
dribble and nonsense,” unquote.
He continues: “Nowhere were there or are there
cohesive legal thinking and conclusions based on
law and the facts of this case,” end quote. In his
effort to justify $20,000 in additional fees for this
sort of work product, Charles Jensen’s recent
motions without proof of service declares without
a semblance of any supporting examples — one
last sentence and then a question. And this is
what he wrote: “Defendants forced plaintiff's
counsel to read all of his papers. Unfortunately,
counsel was not in a position to assume they were
all a joke. An old Irish saying states: ‘Even a
blind pig can find a truffle every now and then.’
These were not easy papers to read either. The
arguments, and the term is used loosely, we
First of all, defendants resent being likened to
pigs finding a truffle. This has been his attitude
towards us all along, that we were nothing but
scum, but that’s neither here nor there. But the
point is he’s never — he’s never controverted with
law any of the citations that we have — that we've
briefed — briefed him on. All he has said is
they're “dribble, nonsense and whimsy” so |
would like to ask the Court to ask him what
percentage of those citations that we issued
what fraction are “whimsy, dribble and
nonsense?” (Transcript at 16:9 to 17:14)
Judge Rushing answered: “I’m not going to ask
that question.” (Transcript at 17:15-16) James
Parker rephed: “One last thing, then. Okay. I would
just like to ask one more question. Can he now cite
any one citation that’s “whimsy, dribble and
nonsense?” Judge Rushing said: “I’m not going to
force him to do that.” (Transcript at 17:20) James
Parker resumed: “Defendants take exception to that
because — all his argument is it’s all garbage. He’s
never controverted a single one of our citations, and
they are scholarly, and they're well documented.”
(Transcript at 21-24)
Defendants haven't had the slightest success in
dislodging the First District Court of Appeal from its
posture of total silence in the face of Judge Rushing’s
flimsy and evasive process of adjudication of the fees
issue. Here is what Defendants say on the Face
Sheet of their November 19, 2008 Petition for
Mandamus (in A123266):
If for any reason a Superior Court 1s permeated
with animus toward htigants in propria persona,
no one would doubt that its Appellate Branch
would be easily able to run circles around even
the most intensive effort by Pro Per defendants to
defend their rights. (Self represented plaintiffs at
least are able to choose their own tegal ground.)
Defendants who are assaulted by an unethical
attorney in an unlawful detainer case have very
little opportunity to learn what they must quickly
enough to make tenants’ rights a living reality.
Their first line of defense must be a trial judge
committed to the rule of law. If instead their case
is assigned to a judge who has been censured for
her dishonesty by the Commission on Judicial
Performance (who has admitted to favoritism in
her courtroom as part of a plea bargain to avoid
consideration of the possibility of her removal
from the bench), they are utterly at the mercy of
an Appellate Branch whose intent is to provide a
musk ox style stockade defense for a wounded
colleague. That procedural evasions are the order
of the day, not any sincere belief by the Appellate
Branch that the rulings of the trial court are
legally proper, should be evident from comparing
the history of the case (Summarized in Parts I, II
and II], infra) with the refusal to confront Appel-
lants’ charges that comes across so clearly in
Respondent’s evasive Opposition Brief. The only
effective remedy in the present circumstances is a
writ of Mandamus ordering the Appellate Branch
to vacate its unexplained Order of October 7,
2008, and also directing the Presiding Judge of
the Sonoma County Superior Court to make ar-
rangements for a replacement hearing conducted
in accordance with Due Process of Law.
James Parker & Michael Halliwell TWO-FRONT
Defendants in Propria Persona SQUEEZE
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 OCT/NOV 2008
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu No. MCV-191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS.
Michael Halliwell & Defendants’ Overload
James Parker from Overlapping Time
Defendants/Appellants for Brief Preparation
Defendants’ February 2, 2009 Petition to Presid-
ing Judge Owen protested an ongoing “two/three
front war” involving $10,118, $20,720 fees and OEX
proceedings. Appellants’ January 2, 2009 First
District Court of Appeal Mandamus Petition
complains: Judge Chouteau stalls when it hurts
Defendants, acts swiftly when it hurts them.
Defendants’ November 5th Appendix re May 6, 2008
Transcript (5:8-14) states:
In his October 27, 2008 Reply Brief (LNT at 9:18-
19) Charies Jensen asserts: “There has been no
intent on the part of counsel to rob these litigants
of due process.” This is a reference to James
Parker’s protest at the May 6, 2008 hearing that
Charles Jensen “brought a two-pronged attack
against us” in deliberately timing his $20,720
fees motion so that it would reach a critical
juncture when defendants faced crucial filing
deadlines with respect to Judge Rushing’s earlier
award of $10,000 in attorney’s fees (Transcript at
6:8-10). Plaintiffs co-counsel Kadin Blonski
responded “we’re under no obligation to time our
motions to go along with whatever they have
going on.” (Transcript at 9:18-20) Mr. Blonski
also added this false statement in support of his
two-pronged tactic: “There’s been no motion at all
for a continuance other than what was just made
orally.” (Transcript at 9:14-15) Charles Jensen
knew this to be false because he received a copy
of Defendants’ April 30, 2008 Petition to Postpone
May 6, 2008 Hearing on Attorneys Fees (CI 3710-
3714). (See Item #8 of Transcript Analysis.)
Our Motion for Rehearing re Order of December
5, 2008 (25:16 to 26:8) says: Our October 14, 2008
Petition for Proper Briefing Prior to Appeal Rulings
says:
Since litigants in pro per must learn the law as
they go along, it is very difficult for them to “keep
their heads above water” when they are forced to
fight a two (or three) front war. The scheduling
of a $20,000-plus attorney’s motion so that its
briefing and hearing (March 25, 2008 to May 6,
2008) overlapped the filing deadlines for higher
court review of their July 24, 2007 appeal of pre-
trial and trial issues and briefing on Judge
Rushing’s off-the-record transfer of $10,118 of
Defendants’ funds to Charles Jensen. This con-
fluence of deadlines did not have to occur. a) It
took until November 5, 2007 for a briefing order
to be issued for Defendants’ July 24, 2007
131
appeal.[1] b) The listing in the Chronological
Index for the 1/14/2008 briefing order which
originally set a June 26, 2008 hearing date for
Defendants’ November 21, 2007 Appeal has the
correct date, but it also lists this order as “Notice
of Time and Place for Filing Griefs.”
This briefing was aborted on account of a dispute
over a missing Chronological Index, noted in
Judge Chouteau’s order of February 5, 2008 (CI
03412). It took until May 13, 2008 to get the
Chronological Index updated and bricfing re-
instated. (For some reason this briefing order is
not included in a later edition of the Chronologi-
cal Index up through 8/29/08.) c) Judge Chouteau
took no action for more than two months on De-
fendants’ February 4, 2007 “Petition to Presiding
Judge Knoel Owen re No-Notice Change in Policy
Allowing Copies of Filings in Record Designa-
tions’ (C] 03198), which had been referred to
him. (The Court Clerks would not say who they
meant by “the judges don’t like it” with respect to
disallowing the use of CR numbering by
Defendants, but Supervising Judge of the Civil
Division Elaine Rushing bears responsibility for
this decision, and her file manipulation was the
reason why Defendants felt obliged to institute
their CR numbering.) On April 18, 2008 Judge
Chouteau signed an order saying: “Appellants
Petition re No-Notice Change is denied.” (CI
03991) However, this order was not filed and
served on the parties until May 23, 2008. d) On
April 30, 2008, in full comphance with everything
the window clerks asked of them, Defendants
filed their “Petition to Presiding Judge Knoel
Owen to Postpone May 6, 2008 Hearing on
The window clerks informed
Defendants to check Box 73 in the Hall of Justice
for a response. They checked Box 73 repeatedly
up until the May 6, 2008 hearing was upon them,
but no action was apparently taken on this
(Id. at 62:2 to 63:5)
Attorneys Fees.”
motion.
James Parker, Defendant pro se HEARING
271 EK. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 NOV 20 2008
707-795-5526 jayfrank@myway.com # MCV 191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS.
Michael Halliwell & Interlocking Attorney
James Parker Kees Maneuvers Used
Defendants/Appellants against Defendants
Evasions leading up to 11/20/08 fees hearing
The Appellate Branch went from one evasion to
another in its effort to avoid squarely addressing the
fees issue. After it decided that “reaching out’ to
deal with this issue before the underlying tran-
scripts were available for briefing, would not pass
the “smell test”, it decided to try to undermine
Defendants’ motion directed against their October 7,
2008 written Ruling After Appeal, by treating its
September 25, 2008 bench ruling as being the linch-
pin for the allowable period for petitioning for a
rehearing. This is proclaimed in its November 17,
2008 Ruling on Petition for Rehearing: “The
Petitions For Rehearing (erroneously titled Motion
For Reconsideration) is denied. The decision became
final on October 24, 2008 and any motion for rehear
ing is deemed denied as of that date. Alternatively,
the petition lacks merit and is denied on that basis.”
This November 17, 2008 Ruling was delayed so that
it was impossible to challenge it in the First District
Court of Appeal before the deadline for appeal there,
and this Ruling was cited ky Respondent as grounds
tor establishing Res Judicata for the $10,118 fees
award (and for justifying the $20,720 reading-only-
fee device used to penalize Defendants for
documenting and analyzing this aspect of the case,
to try to preserve the possibility of effective upper-
level state and federal review).
FILED
DEC -5 2008
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SONOMA
APPELLATE DEPARTMENT
CHRYSTANTHE PAXINOS,
a
) No. MCV-191306
Respondent/Plaintiff, —)
ORDER
)
)
)
JAMES PARKER, et al.,
)
Appellant/Defendant )
)
This matter was set for oral argument on the
appellate calendar of November 20, 2008. Seated en
banc were the Honorable Rene Auguste Chouteau,
presiding, the Honorable Dana Beernink Simonds
and the Honorable James Bertolli. Charles Jensen,
Esq. was present on behalf of the plaintiff/
respondent. James Parker and Michael Halliwell
defendants/appellants in pro per were present
The trial court’s attorney fee Order is
AFFIRMED. De novo review indicates that an
award of attorney's fees was proper and review of
the record under the abuse of discretion standard:
indicates that the amount of attorney's fees is also
proper
Dated Nove m be r 24 ZOOS
Per Curiam
RENE AUGUSTE CHOUTEAU
Presiding Judge Appellate Dept
DANA BEERNINK SIMONDS
Judge of the Superior Court
JAMES BERTOLI
Judge of the Superior Court
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE
PIRST
MICHAEL HAL
Petitione
SUPERIOR COl
STATE OF CALLFORNIA
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ‘TWO
FILED
JAN 2 2009
AWE TI, et al
Y" 1123622
RT OF CALIFORNIA, )
COUNTY OF SONOMA
Respondent
CHRYSTANTHE PAXINOS ’
Real Party in Interest
BY THE COURT
‘The petition fe
Sonoma County
Superior Court
No. MCV-191306
r writ of mandate 1s denied
Duted Jan 2 2009 KLINE PJ
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SONOMA FILED
APPELLATE DEPARTMENT JAN 5 2009
CHRYSTANTHE PAXINOS) No. MCV-191306
Respondent/Plaintiff, ) RULING ON DEFEN
) DANTS/APPELLANTS
) MOTION FOR RE-
HEARING RE DENIAL
JAMES PARKER, et al., )OF THEIR MAY 28
) 2008 APPEAI
Appellant/Detendant
Defendants’ petition filed December 5, 2008 for
the appeal heard by the Appellate Panel on
November 20, 2008 1s DENIED
Dated: December 31, 2008
Per Curjam
RENE AUGUSTE CHOUTEAI
Judge of the Superior Court
DANA BEERNINK SIMONDS
Judge of the Superior Court
JAMES BERTOL!
sudge of the Superior Court
James Parker & Michael Halliwell ENDORSED
Defendants in Propria Persona FILED
271 E. Cotati Ave, Cotati CA 94931 JAN 12 2009
707-795-5526 halliwel@csulb.edu No. MCV-191306
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SONOMA COUNTY
Chrysanthe Paxinos Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiff/Respondent, Filed 6/1/07
VS.
Michael Halliwell & Appellants’ Authorities
James Parker Supporting Reversal of
Defendants/Appellants First District 1/2/09 Order
Defendants’ Petition to Review (S169634) the
$20,720 reading fee award (at 15-16), cites Appel-
lants’ January 2, 2009 First District Court of Appeal
Mandamus Petition. Gamet v Blanchard (2001) 91
Cal.App.4'® 1276, 1283, grants Gamet relief:
We conclude there was an abuse of discretion
because of a combination of events. Nowhere in
the record 1s there any indication the trial judge
gave any consideration to Gamets alleged
personal and family traumas. The judge’s
comments that he could “jam” Gamet and that he
wanted to “kcep the heat on,” when combined
with the unexplained judgment dismissing the
action shortly thereafter, seemed arbitrary and
created the appearance of substantial unfairness.
While keeping cases moving through the court
system and preventing unreasonable delay is
certainly an important goal, it is a goal meant to
serve justice by resolving disputes as speedily as
140
possible. When disposing of cases becomes an
end in itself, justice and fairness can easily fall by
the wayside, and it appears that is what hap-
pened here. (CR-755:21 to CR-756:9) (id. at 37:10-
16)
Appellants’ January 2, 2009 First District Court
of Appeal Mandamus Petition cites their November
5, 2008 Appendix re May 6, 2008 Transcript (at 7:3-
17), noting:
In his October 27, 2008 Reply Brief (LNT at 5:4-
5) Charles Jensen justifies Judge Rushiny’s
$20,720 ruling in his favor, which described in
detail who attended the May 6, 2008 Hearing but
said NOTHING AT ALL about the underlying
merits: “The order, as written completely out in
appellant’s opening brief is more than sufficient
under the law.” (See Item #14 of Transcript
Analysis.) After Judge Rushing ordered James
Parker to desist from speaking further, the bailiff
moved in very close behind Mr. Parker and Judge
Rushing rejected Defendant’s protest at this
intrusion into his personal space, saying: “He can
stand wherever he likes.” Judge Rushing gave no
reason at all for her decision, saying: “I’
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.