# Appendix — Halliwell v. Superior Court of California, Sonoma County (No. 09-172) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_0921%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 2009 ## 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 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_0921%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.