You are on page 1of 48
24 25 26 an 28 TANYA NEMCIK, Op 7 SUASPONTE/IN PRO PER Cy Coes, melas Ta Antioch, (635) 470-3860 AFR » 7 DS For Plaintiff elt ta. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION eee Case No.: 16 CV 0322 BLF ) ) Plaintiff. } } THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT vs. 5 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; Nee eee COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; } peanes Pate: May 11, 2017 STACEY STEVENS; THOMPSON }, udge/Magistrate: Hon. Freeman REUTERS; GARY KRIPPENDORF; BRIAN KRIPPENDORF; AND DOES. 3 ) ) ) Defendants. To All Parties of Real Interest, Plaintiff, TANYA NEMCIK, an individual and resident of California, hereby sets forth her complaint for damages and equitable relief. Exhibit A, B,C and D is the ‘Summary of Facts’ that pertain to this complaint for financial damages of lost wages and increased debt, severe emotional distress, and for other relief to ensure that similarly situated persons will not be harmed in the same manner as Plaintiff and her children. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 1 2 3 a4 15 16 uv 18 a9 Plaintiff has exhausted her state options, given the Defendants ample opportunities to resolve the problem, Defendants knew that a lawsuit likely to succeed was probable before Plaintiff knew of such relief, and the Defendants conduct has been constant and continual for over seven years. Exhibit A, pages A1-A1I lists the series of acts that collectively constitute as one unlawful practice by the Defendants to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights for the purpose of their financial gains, and Plaintiff has far exceeded any threshold amount of mistreatment that might have been viewed as acceptable. There was a rape case in Richmond High School with Ari Morales was sentenced 27 years in prison with seven others convicted of gang raping one high school girl on October 24, 2009 that started out as one person raping her and then many others joining in with as many as 20 witnesses. There is similar conduct in the superior courts, wherein one judge is allowed to do “unconscionable” acts to Plaintiff, and then every person, judge, subordinate, agency and attorney thereafter follow the same misconduct with witnesses and actors too aftaid to speak up, being bribed or coerced to join in, or acting in reckless disregard. To Plaintiff, every time she walks away from superior court room she feels violated, yet a sense of relief that she is still alive. Any reasonable person similarly situated would feel the same way. Exhibit A page A1 shows that June 9, 2009 Plaintiff had full custody of her children where both parents had due process. The four hearings that followed Plaintiff was denied due process by of the “off record” hearings that took place in the judge’s chambers. March 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint with Commissioner on Judicial Performance. ‘The next event was September 16, 2010 where the judge granted an Ex Parte motion removing all custody from Plaintiff without holding a hearing and without informing Plaintiff and denying due process. ‘The hearings that followed were “off record” in judge’s chambers. Plaintiff has not been provided a fair trial or due process! The court orders have gotten more unlawful each year, and the damages continue to grow. Plaintiffis currently on CalWorks (welfare food stamps and cash aid) and has $116,470 in child support arrears. The last ordered child support payment was set at $2,264 per month when Plaintiff was only making $1,200 per month at the time. These calculations and orders are malicious and purposeful to cause harm to Plaintiff. The more that th judges, attorneys and subordinates are not held accountable, the more damage they impose on Plaintiff with each year increasing in damages and intensity. In 2016, Plaintiff was threatened twice with incarceration, which started in April 2016 and continued to October 2016, THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT -2 10 u It seems that the California State Government now simply exists to damage my rights. The US Supreme Court noted an the Orwellian power of the state in such circumstances: “The State's ability to assemble its case almost inevitably dwarfs the parents’ ability to mount a defense. No predetermined limits restrict the sums an agency may spend in prosecuting a given termination proceeding. The State's attorney usually will be expert on the issues contested and the procedures employed at the factfinding hearing, and enjoys full access 10 all [public records concerning the family. The State may call on experts in family relations, psychology, and medicine to bolster its case. Furthermore, the primary witnesses at the hearing will be the agency's own professional caseworkers whom the State has empowered both to investigate the family situation and to testify against the parents. ... the State even has the | power to shape the historical events . . .” Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745, 763-764 (1982) Plaintiff has a disability under the Americans with Disability Act (hereafter: ADA) as she| has been suffering with severe post-traumatic-stress-disorder (hereafter: PTSD) from the extreme trauma of abruptly being separated from her children, the misconduct and disparate-treatment of Defendants and their employees and subordinates, and the continued retaliation and threats as Plaintiff has exercised her rights to petition the government for a redress of grievances. mM I. JURISDICTION & VENUE 1. This action arises under Title 42 U.S.C. $§1983, 12101, 12203, and 12132, Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by Title 28 U. S. C.§g1331 and 1343. The unlawful acts and practices alleged occurred in the Counties of Santa Clara and Contra Costa, which are in the Northern District of California. This Court has jurisdiction in the matter because jurisdiction is founded on 28U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343 as well as 42U.S.C. §1983, §1985, §1986 and §1988. 2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Pendent State claims pursuant t 28 US.C. 1367 because they are part of this same case and described by Plaintiffs’ Federal] claims and such claims may be raised concurrently in Federal Court. 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C.§1391(b) because the underlying acts and injuries upon} which the present action is based upon occurred in the Northern Distriet of California Mw THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 3 10 a az aa a4 15 mM 10. Mu. Ul. DEFENDANTS Plaintiff is in informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that any error or wrong doing. as alleged herein, principally would have occurred in California and within the Northern} District for all defendants listed in this complaint. Defendant COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA (hereafter: “CONTRA COSTA”) has 4 Board of Supervisors at 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (hereafter: “SANTA CLARA”) has the Board of Superivors at 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 10" Floor, San Jose, CA 95110. Defendant STACEY STEVENS (hereafter: “STEVENS”) is an attomney with The Stat Bar of California No. 222789 and has her office located at 158 W. Linda Mesa Ave in Danville, CA 94526 in Alameda County. Defendant THOMSON REUTERS (hereafter: “REUTERS”) has had James C. Smith aj President and Chief Executive Officer of Thompson Reuters since January of 2012, and his business location is at the corporate office at 3 Times Square, New York, New Yor 10036. Defendant GARY KRIPPENDORF (hereafter: Redwood City, CA 94065. Defendant BRIAN KRIPPENDORF (hereafter: “BRIAN”) works at WSGR (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati) at 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, and he lives a 1036 Colorado Ave, Unit 2-1, Palo Alto, CA 94303. GARY”) lives at 265 Monaco Drive. Il. CONTINUOUS TOLLING The fact that a series of discriminatory or otherwise unlawful acts is indeed a series, continuum, rather than a concatenation of unrelated acts, will delay the deadline for suin, with respect to the earliest acts in the series only if their character was not apparent whe! they were committed but became so when viewed in the light of the later acts." Moskowitz v. Trustees of Purdue University (7th Cir. 1993) 5 F.3d 279, 281-282 The THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 4 10 11 20 an 22 23 24 25 26 Moskowitz court viewed equitable tolling as the sole basis of the continuing violation doctrine. (Id. at p. 282.) The acts of misconduct are the same type of discrimination an connects them all in a continuing violation. The frequency has been constant, as Plainti has been in constant pursuit of a fair trial that provides her due process and with an ord that follows that rules and statutes, which Plaintiff has not been afforded. The ongoin, harassment, failure to accommodate Plaintiff's disabilities, and intentional harm inflicte on Plaintiff gives reason for the court to apply the continuing violation doctrine startin from the first act of misconduct that denied Plaintiff due process on August 20, 2009, an: the first acts of causing trauma to Plaintiff. Exhibit A, pages A1-A11 is a time line of thd constant misconduct of the Superior Courts and Defendants involved. One of thd requirements for being granted relief in Federal Court is exhaustion in the State Courts, which Plaintiff has clearly given the state courts every opportunity that she kno available to get resolution. Plaintiff has filed her complaints at the soonest possible timg that she knew that it was available. 12, Exhibit A is a Summary of Facts Relevant to this complaint and the Defendants listed. Due to the ongoing misconduct of defendants, the overlap in the incidents relevant t multiple causes of action, and that there are other parties that have contributed to thd harm to Plaintiff, Exhibit A is a summary of hearings as evidenced in the register of actions for Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and Distric Court, In addition there are a few other facts relevant to the causes of actions that 4 reasonable person would easily be able to conclude that Plaintiff has never resigned t accept the orders created by the trial courts in case with Brian Krippendorf at Contrd Costa and Santa Clara (hereafter: Krippendorf case). Plaintiff has only been married ‘once, and that was to Jared Thompson, which her dissolution of marriage was finalized February 2017 in Contra Costa (hereafter: Thompson Case). Plaintiff also believed th Defendants would have eventually given Plaintiff a fair trial and permitted her to have all her witnesses could safely testify without fear of retaliation, threats or harm, but at th end of 2015 it was evident that they had no intentions of ever letting that happen THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 5 a2 13 u 15 16 n 18 19 20 au Plaintiff filed her complaint January 20, 2016 as that was the soonest that she could fil and she had only just learned of a complaint as a remedy to such extreme and shocking| circumstances. December 24, 2013 at 3:17pm, Christmas Eve, when Plaintiff was af Brian Krippendorf’s apartment at 3:00pm to pick up the children for her holiday court ordered time, Judge Fannin granted Brian Krippendorf a domestic violence restraining deny Plaintiff her holiday time with the children, and she based it on an email sent to thd children’s school and said “I believe you are threatening a lawsuit”. A lawsuit i domestic violence, so it really confused Plaintiff. However, a “threat” can only be valid if the it is likely to be true, so it is evident that the judge and attomeys knew that Plainti had a claim likely to succeed, but Plaintiff did not have any knowledge of a lawsuit af that time and believed it was just another frivolous unlawful excuse to create harmful court orders to Plaintiff as has been the ongoing and constant misconduct. Further] Defendants have high expertise in matters of the law, and knew Plaintiff would likely succeed in a lawsuit, which explains their extreme and aggressive unlawful maliciou: misconduct and colluding together to keep Plaintiff from bringing suit. They could have chosen an alternative to just give Plaintiff fair trial with no concealed false reports, and followed it up with orders consistent with the laws and rules of court. Mm IV. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS; 42 U.S.C. §1983(5) AGAINST COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 13. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the other causes of action, preceding allegations and as| stated and evidenced in Exhibits which are attached. 14. Parents possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest in both a custodial and companionship interest and society of their children. In Kelson v. City of Springfield 767 F2.d 651 (9" Cir.1985),the 9" Circuit held that the state’s interference with such either custodial or companionship liberty interest without due process of law is cognizable THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 6 an 22 23 24 26 a 28 Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, The Eighth amendment provides freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment's deliberate indifference standard can be used to assess the violations of Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment rights. “The Due Process Clause was intended to secure an individual from an abuse of power by government officials.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327(1986) 15. The doctrine of dual sovereignty apparently put no limit on the power of federal courts to enforce the Constitution against municipalities that violated it. 16, “It is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under section 1983.” Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of New York (1978) 436 U.S. 658,694 17, Under 42 U.S.C, § 1983, which provides that every “person” (a county is defined as a person) who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State subjects, or “causes to be subjected,” any person to the deprivation of any federally protected rights, privileges, or immunities shall be civilly liable to the injured party. 18. The Court’s treatment of the liberty of familial relationships has a relatively principled doctrinal basis. The Court has held that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, Any regulation which affects the ability to form, maintain, dissolve, or resolve conflicts within a family is subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1928) CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT 19. Cruel and unusual punishment includes, but is not limited to, the following: a. Separation from Children: September 16, 2010 Plaintiff was abruptly and without warning separated from her children that were under her custody and care| every day since birth. There is not a more severe emotional trauma that a mother ‘can endure than the loss of her children. This unlawful act interfered with THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 7 10 a a2 a3 u“ 15 16 1" 18 19 20 23 2a 25 26 Plaintiff's custody and companionship with her children, and the continual unlawful misconduct has continued to do so, . Supervised Visitations: Exhibit JJ shows the wide range of cost to her children. from $100 to $340 for two hours. As detailed in Exhibits, the supervisors advertise on the court website a lower cost than what they charge Plaintiff. In addition, Plaintiff has been threatened to follow unconstitutional rules including but not limited to, don’t tell the kids “I love you”, don’t pray with children, don’t ask about their bruises or injuries, don’t give them gifts, and don’t take pictures o the children. When the children have spoken up about mistreatment by their father, then supervisors have yelled at the children and threatened them that they ‘would not see their mother if the continued to speak about what their father does to them. There were a couple of supervisors that did report what the children said and then Brian Krippendorf would not allow Plaintiff to use that supervisor again. Further, when a parent has a real legal reason that is justified by real evidence to not be left alone with their child, then the judge looks to the parents to find a family member or friend to supervise the visitations called “unprofessional” supervised visits. This has never been allowed with Plaintiff. No legal justification has ever been provided for her to be on supervised visitations. . Excessive Child Support: Exhibit LAA is the initial child support order in which Judge Fannin imputed income at $4,000 for her husband which was twice the income he made (See Exhibit MM367). Plaintiff was on unemployment benefits of $1,200 (Exhibit 1). Plaintiff had no ability to pay the $1,522 per month of court ordered child support. Then when Plaintifi’s income dropped 86%, the commissioner increased the child support payment by 36%. |. Excessive Fines: Judge Fannin set Plaintiff $21,241 in arrears the day she set child support. In addition, 10% interest was imposed on it. Plaintiff has had no ability to pay any of the arrears since the first day it was created. Now the interest] is $708 and Plaintiff is $116,470 in arrears (See Exhibit QAA). Currently, THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 8 10 aL 2 33 4 a5 46 av ae 19 20 a 23 24 25 26 28 Plaintiff is on CalWorks (welfare food stamps and cash aid) and clearly has no ability to pay any child support or any arrears, which continues to increase. It is not a crime to have a child, and it certainly should not be treated as punishable with excessive fines and incarceration. Exhibit VAA and WAA clearly show that child support in California has been a problem that Contra Costa knew about in 2003, and probably sooner. They have chosen to exploit the it instead of fix it. VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS 20. The violations of due process are the significant cause for unlawful cruel and unusual punishment forced on Plaintiff. There are four types of violations that meet the Eighth Amendment's Deliberate Indifference Standard, which can be used to assess that there was a violation. Even though the Court of Appeal already decided that Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, by meeting the Monell elements for each. type of violation it demonstrates that the violations have been constant and continual since August 20, 2009. In Re: Monell, see Mabe v. San Bernardino County, 237 F.3d 1101-11 (9" Cir.2001) 21. The four Monell elements to meet the Eighth Amendment's Deliberate Indifference Standard are as follows : a. Underlying constitutional violation b. Existence of alleged improper policy or custom c. Policy or custom amounted to deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights d._ Policy or custom was moving force behind constitutional violation 22. In Plaintif’s case, the Fourteenth Amendment is the underlying constitutional violation that is the same for the first element on Monell in all three types of denied due process. 1.Denied Hearing or “Off Record” Hearing: 23. The first type of denied due process is in the form of “off record” hearings or denied hearing. As stated in Exhibit E, actions of Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Fenstermacher’s shocked the conscience of California State Court of Appeals as stated in THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 9 26 21 28 their decision of June 25, 2013 regarding her actions from September 16, 2010 “The unreported chambers conference resulted in a finding alleging that Mother agreed fo ‘forfeit custody and have her visitations supervised. Specifically, Mother allegedly agreed | 10 go from having sole physical custody of her children [6] and Father having visitation to Father having sole physical custody...; all of which occurred off the record. A reasonable person would not agree 10 these terms, and 10 hold that this ‘off the record custodial determination; is a final custodial judgment would be unconscionable.” Further| the Court of Appeal stated that the court “abused its discretion” and “denied due process” to the mother. Exhibit A is the ‘Summary of Facts’ listing four unreported chambers conferences in 2009, three in 2010, and two in 2013. In fact, the only way that a hearing would take place in the court room was if Plaintiff was pro per. It is a pattern of practice in Contra Costa that attomeys will go into the judges chambers as is evident in Plaitniff's case. The in judge’s chambers “off record” hearings took place four times in 2009, four times in 2010, and twice in 2013. The judges have granted orders three times without holding a hearing, the first incident was when Plaintiff lost custody of her children. The second element of Monell is met since the Court of Appeal already decided that these “off record” hearings or holding no hearing policy or custom is improper. The judges and| attorneys have extensive knowledge of the public’s basic constitutional rights, and they know the purpose of having Family Court is to provide parents with their due process rights. Exhibit TT is the Register of Action for Plaintiff's case in Contra Costa, which clearly states “in chambers” and “off record” next to the hearing dates, thereby alerting Contra Costa of the pattern of practice they either allow or condone. Therefore, the third element is met in that Contra Costa knew and they have deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights, as well as the public. The fourth element of Monell is that the misconduct was a moving force behind the constitutional violation, which the facts speak for themselves, res ipsa loquitor. 2.Denied Public Access THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 10 uv 18 19 20 a 23 24 26 20 28 24, Plaintiff was never married to Brian Krippendorf, and therefore her case at Contra Costa has been confidential. This means that the public does not have access to this case, and that there is an additional financial burden put on any attorney that represents Plaintiff. It costs additional fees to the attorney that needs the records, but cannot have access to ther] for free online. Any attomey representing Plaintiff must incur additional costs to get access to what would otherwise be a publie case. Additionally, since itis a confidential case, the public does not have access to court files, which does not protect Plaintiff as the public or media cannot have access. ‘This is an additional policy of Contra Costa that denies Plaintiff due process and equal protection. ‘This policy denies media and public access and information that is afforded to children in a marriage case. The second ‘Monell element is fulfilled since the existence of this policy is improper and unlawful For cases that are public, it allows for public oversight and allows the media to report on the case, which can facilitate in deterring judge crime to happen and certainly deter it from continuing. Brian Krippendorf has threatened lawsuits for releasing any of our court documents to the public. Lack of oversight is almost.certain to create an incentive for fraud, deceit, and misconduct. The third element is met as Contra Costa has a deliberate indifference to this policy violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights as well as any unmarried parent. The fourth element is fulfilled as Plaintif?’s case with her ex-husband, Jared Thompson, is open to the public and Plaintiff was not denied due process. Therefore, this is a moving force behind Plaintiff's constitutional violations. 3.Denied Fair Trial 2. Plaintiff has been at a disadvantage by not having equal representation. Plaintiff has never been able to afford representation at the same level that Gary Krippendorf provides for his son, Brian Krippendorf. There are three main factors that have contributed to Plaitniff’s denial of fair hearings, trials or court proceedings as follows: a. Key Witnesses Testimony: Plaintiff has never been allowed to have her key witnesses testify in court. She has had key witnesses call her terrified for their life because Brian Krippendorf was leaving aggressive threatening voicemails. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 11 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 Others have been threatened by Dana Santos writing letters threatening to get their professional license revoked so they would not be allowed to work. Stacey Stevens has emailed and made phone calls threatening Plaintiff's key witnesses. In addition to these tacties, in 2013 Stacey Stevens and Judge Fannin purposely colluded to ensure that Plaintiff was never given more than 30 days notice to the trial so that she could not properly subpoena her key witnesses to testify in court. Itis true that family court judges are given wide discretion, but that is supposed to be used to allow pro per litigants to bring forth all and any evidence and testimony they want. Instead it is used as a means to block Plaintiff from her due process rights. Plaintiff filed multiple complaints and motions requesting a fair trial, and she was continually denied. Judge Fannin would use court rules as a basis to deny Plaintiff due process. To allow judges wide discretion yet have firm rules that the judge can use violate constitutional rights is improper, thus meeting second element of Monell. These policies amount to deliberate indifference, thus meeting the third element of Monell. Fourth, this was a moving force in denying Plaintiff her due process rights and fair trial. Concealed False Reports: There have been many concealed false reports dated in 2009 and 2010 that Plaintiff was unaware of their existence until December 2014. If they were not false reports, then there would not have been any incentive to hide them in a confidential file that only the judge could see. Plaintiff learned of these documents during mediation with Sue Mayo on December 19, 2014. She| spent December to March trying to subpoena the records. Plaintiff was told by Judge Fannin and the clerks that her case was assigned to Judge Santos, but Judge Santos would not accept the subpoena giving the excuse that she was not the judge on her case. Plaintiff eventually did the reports from the first supervisor of children’s visitation with mother, Ellen Gold. Further, she could prove that the reports were grossly false since she had recorded all the visits with her children. The children’s cries for their mother can be heard, and the children excitedly THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 12 © calling to Plaintiff can be heard. Any reasonable person that heard these recordings as they read the reports of Ellen Gold would without a doubt say they were false. The only purpose to have the reports concealed in a file only the judge could see was to keep Plaintiff from fining out they existed, and thus keep her from proving they were false. Second Monell element is fulfilled since this policy is grossly improper. Third element of Monell is that the policy is well known and| practiced and therefore amounts to deliberate indifference of denied due process. Fourth clement of Monell, this policy is a moving foree behind Plaintiff's denied due process. Further, Plaintiff spent years being frustrating at not knowing why her custody was taken, and why her unsupervised time was taken away, and why there was no plan to fix or change it. Vexatious Litigant: July 19, 2016 Judge Landau ordered Plaintiff vexatious litigant, which has effectively blocked Plaintiff from filing any motions. She must get the permission from Presiding Judge Fannin, who spent five years harming and tormenting Plaintiff in her court, creating unlawful orders, and a barrage of judge misconduct geared at purposely aggravating her PTSD. A reasonable person would conclude that Plaintiff is least likely to get a fair trial in Contra Costa with Judge Fannin as the Presiding judge. The fundamental concept of our judicial system is that any caseload increase should not be determinative or relevant to the availability of a judicial forum for the adjudication of impartial individual rights. "It is the business of the law to remedy wrongs that deserve it, even at the expense of a flood of litigatior '; and it is a pitiful confession of incompetence on the part of any court of justice to deny relief upon the ground that it will give the courts too much work to do." Prosser, Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering: A New Tort, 37 Mich. L. Rev. 874(1939). We obviously do not accept the "too much work to do" rationale. We place the responsibility exactly where it should be: not in denying relief to those who have been injured, but on the judicial machinery of the Commonwealth to fulfill its obligation to THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 13 az 13 a4 as 16 make itself available to litigants, Plaintiff did not find out about the vexatious litigant statue until after Judge Landau ordered her one. None of the reasons that she listed in her order come close to meeting any of the statue requirements in West's Ann. Cal. C P Sect 39 let seq. The policy of allowing a family court case| litigant to be ordered vexatious is improper especially since custody and child support can be changed any time, and for any reason in the best interest of the child. A motion cannot be decided in the best interest of the child without holding} a hearing that allows both parents to present their case. Family Codes are clearly defined as to prove that vexatious litigant orders are improper, this meeting second element of Monell, It appears that the use of vexatious orders is as a means to purposely deny a parent from bring forth evidence that shows clearly the child custody needs to be changed. Therefore, the third element of Monell is met as this policy is deliberate indifference to Plaintifi’s due process rights. This is a moving force behind Plaintiff not being allowed a fair trial and due process, thus meeting element four of Monell 4.Forced Arbitration: 26. The other custom that Contra Costa regularly participates in that is unconstitutional is in conjunction with Family Court Services (hereafter: FCS). Prior to 2017, they called the FCS employees mediators and advertised on their county website rules that it was mediation. The custom of the mediator was then to get the parents to sign a paper under the pretense of mediation, but really it was signing in agreement to arbitration. The FCS employees are not judges, not attomeys, not licensed to practice law, and not qualified to make legal decisions, yet they ordered by the judges to make legal decisions. They are ordered to make “recommendations” in their reports submitted to the judges. The sessions with FCS are held in a closed room with no transcriber or record, no evidence is submitted on record, and no testimony can be provided. Further, it is evident in comparing reports of Sue Mayo, how she favored Brian Krippendorf’s attorney when Plaintiff was pro per, and she neutral when both parties had an attorney. Evidenced in THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 14 10 a a2 2B a4 16 uw ae 19 20 2a 22 23 25 26 27 Objection to FCS Sue Mayo Report and Complaint Exhibit EAA. Exhibits X, Z and AA evidence the bias of FCS to attomeys, and discuss the damages caused by denying due process. Exhibit Y and MM provide evidence that shows a better result when due process| is allowed. Also, the mediator report in the Jared Thompson v. Tanya Thompson (Nemeik) case in 2013 clearly shows that the FCS was bias towards the parent with the attomey as the recommendations did not fit the evidence provided. The policy of either allowing or directing FCS to arbitrate a case is improper and unlawful, thus meeting the second element of Monell. The fact that in January 2017 Contra Costa changed their rules as posted on the website to state they can arbitrate only gets them off the hook for not being deceitful to the public with the real intentions of FCS. However, this policy amounts to a very deliberate indifference to the public’s constitutional rights of due process, thus meeting the third element of Monell. This policy has been a moving, forcing in violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights, which meets the fourth element of Monell. A BETTER RESULT WITH DUE PROCESS 27. A reasonable person would conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff would have| gotten a better result had she been allowed her due process rights as is evidenced in her divorce and custody case with Jared Thompson. Jared Thompson v. Tanya Thompson (Nemeik) Contra Costa Case D13-00500 is the dissolution of marriage (from the ONLY marriage Plaintiff has had) and custody case over her youngest son. This is an example of a case wherein Plaintiff was given due process. Jared Thompson and his attorneys colluded with Brian Krippendorf and his attorneys in an attempt to use all the same tactics to gain custody. FCS mediator Tiffany Piascik clearly had loyalties to the attomey, as evidenced by the report, and clearly does not do her duty to be a neutral party. However, these tactics did not work as is evidenced by the court orders both in 2013 and in 2016. Exhibit MM has the case orders, reports and filings. The dissolution of marriage is finalized as of 2017, and we have court orders that allow us to work together without further interference from the courts. Jared Thompson has told Plaintiff THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 15 10 rt 2 a aa as 16 a 18 that he does not speak with Gary or Brian Krippendorf anymore, and he no longer has an attorney. More simply put, when Plaintiff is not given due process, then the trial court, orders full sole legal and physical custody to the father, which is evidenced in the Krippendorf case. When Plaintiff is given due process, then trial court orders mother primary parent, which is evidenced in the case with Jared Thompson. 28. Comparing these two cases further highlights the misconduct and unlawful orders in a ‘way that any reasonable person could see. Legally Brian Krippendorf would have had to prove Plaintiff to be an “unfit” parent to gain sole legal and physical custody since we were never married. By law is that an unwed father must hold a hearing on parental fitness and must prove his fitness has a parent before he can be granted custody, and mus prove that Plaintiff was an unfit parent. The requirements to prove a parent unfit by Family Code definition is high and the evidence needs to be clear and convincing. However, the requirements for Jared Thompson to gain sole legal and physical custody are much lower since we were married. Had there been a legal reason for Brian Krippendorf to have sole legal and physical custody of the children, and for Plaintiff to continue to be on supervised visitations for seven years, then Jared Thompson would have legally been able to get sole legal and physical custody of the younger more vulnerable child as he continued to request of the court in 2013 and 2016, In 2013 and 2016 custody orders kept Plaintiff as primary parent as she had been since birth. In four and half years of bringing youngest son, Jacob, on supervised visitations to see his brothers twice a week not one mandated reporter supervisor wrote a derogatory report about the care of Jacob. There was never any police reports or child protective services reports or social workers reports about Jacob. In fact, not one person voiced any concern about Jacob's well-being in four and half years of being under the care of Plaintiff every day. 29. The only significant difference in the Brian Krippendorf case versus the Jared Thompson| case is due process violated in one and provided in the other. Exhibit XAA provide THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 16 a2 2 a4 as 16 u 18 19 20 a further evidence that the custody orders with Brian Krippendorf are unlawful, unjust, malicious, and unreasonable. 30. Plaintiff continues to suffer severe emotional distress from the interference with the companionship of her children. 31. In re: Peter Stanley, Sr. v. State of Illinois, the State continues to hold that unwed fathers are presumed unfit to raise their children, and therefore Plaintifi's children should have never been separated from her. 32. Denial to unmarried parents of hearing on fitness as parent which was accorded to all other parents denied equal protection of the laws. 33. Defendant Contra Costa is liable for damages as stated in Exhibit A, B, C, D and punitive| damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: DENIAL OF ACCOMMODATIONS, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, INTERFERENCE, COERCION, AND/OR INTIMIDATION; 42. US.C. §12101; 42 U.S.C. §12203; 42 U.S.C. §12132 AGAINST COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 34, Plaintiff incorporates by reference the other causes of action, preceding allegations and as stated and evidenced in Exhibits which are attached. State Disability Impairment 35, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional trauma from Defendants listed in this complaint abruptly unlawfully taking custody of her children away without holding a hearing on September 16,2010. The separation from her children was the procuring cause for Plaintiff not being able to continue employment at Safeway Corporation where she had worked for five years in executive level corporate finance positions. 36. The continued misconduct, harassment, and threats that have been continual and ongoing for seven years have exacerbated Plaintiff's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 17 13 u 15 16 1" 18 23 a 25 PTSD is a recognized disability under the ADA. Treatment has been ongoing since 2011 as is evident in Exhibits. Currently, Plaintiff is able to get treatment through Human and Health Services, also known as welfare. Plaintiff's weekly therapy is part of her Family Stabilization Plan through welfare (Exhibit H). Extreme chronic stress from Plaintiff's family court orders has caused physical problems as well. Plaintiff was diagnosed with hypothyroid five years ago due to the years of high chronic stress. Plaintiff has also had ‘medical treatment for Adrenal Fatigue due to the chronie stress. In 2016 and 2017 Plaintiff as had migraines and fainting spells from the extreme and constant stress. 37. Plaintiff is able to perform essential functions of life like providing care for herself and her youngest son on a daily basis, including getting him to and from school every day. She is able to appropriately interact with her two oldest children, and provide them love and care in the limited time she is able to spend with them. Plaintiff is able to stay focused with her school work and perform well on her school work. Substantially Limited Major Life Activities 38. Litigating in Family Court is a major life activity that Plaintiff has been severely limited in her ability to do. Plaintiff has been severe emotionally attacked in the Superior Courts of Contra Costa that it triggers her PTSD. She fails to communicate especially when she is confused and unclear on what to expect or when procedures and rules are not being followed. She also easily gets upset. 39. Plaintiff is substantially limited in her ability to work as basic questions “How are your kids?” or “How are you?” can trigger anxiety and cause her to withdrawal. She has trouble with basic social questions which interferes with her ability to work. There are some basic social triggers that cause her to cry that normal people would not cry over. Plaintiff has a hard time interaeting with people that do not know about her family court matters because of the severe anxiety that gets triggered by basic social interactions. This is a big problem in going in for job interviews. Plaintiff has difficulty in explaining her unemployment gaps without anxiety and getting emotionally upset. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 18 rt 2 3 a4 a5 16 uv ae 19 40. Plaintiff has a disability under the ADA that substantially limits her ability to participate in major life activities including but not limited to effective participation in the public services of Superior Courts of Contra Costa and Santa Clara, ability to work, and inability to defend herself from the constant misconduct and mistreatment that exacerbates her condition. Accommodations 41. Plaintiff's requested ADA accommodations were reasonable and did not create undue hardship or cost for Contra Costa or the court procedures. Requested accommodations included a support person to sit next to her and a recording device. These accommodations are minimal or no disturbance, it does not cost the court any resources, and is a reasonable request. It allows Plaintiff to participate more effectively in the litigation process, which is one of the guarantees of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42, Plaintiff requested additional time if needed and to be able to take breaks. Plaintiff has been denied additional time. Plaintiff needs the additional time to understand the court's orders and what they are based. 43. Exhibit NN are the accommodations that Plaintiff was granted, and the complaint and grievance that was filed in the court due to Judge Fannin denying her accommodations. 44, Exhibit Q, S, T, W, and CC are evidence to the misconduct Judge Fannin and her abuse to Plaintiff. She knew that Plaintiffs children were abruptly taken from her, and knew that it caused her severe trauma to continue to be separated from them. She knew of Plaintiff's disability before and after she filed for accommodations. Judge Fannin knew that she needed to have her ADA support person sitting next her, and she refused to let him sit next her as stated on minute order and register of actions. DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, INTERFERENCE, AND INTIMIDATION Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Susanne Fenstermacher (Fenstermacher) 45. Judge Fenstermacher was the first judge Plaintiff had with misconduct as discussed in other causes of action and as evidenced in Exhibits. Judge Fenstermacher knew that Plaintiff was having anxiety over the treatment of her children by Brian and Gary THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 19 a 12 13 u 15 23 24 25 26 27 2a 46. 47. 48. Krippendorf, as is evidenced in the CIP complaint filed on March 16, 2010, Exhibit DD. ‘She knew that Plaintiff was having anxiety from the unethical court proceedings that she did not understand. As is evident in Exhibit A, the next event following Plaintiff filing a CIP complaint on Judge Fenstermacher was her retaliation by taking custody of her children away. Judge Fenstermacher discriminated against Plaintiff because of her disability, and she further exacerbated it by causing severe emotional trauma. Plaintiff was forced to take leave from work or face being immediately fired from her employer of five years, because she was unable to perform her work duties. Plaintiff became physically ill from the stress of losing her children. Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Jill C. Fannin (Judge Fannin) Judge Fannin intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff because of her disability. She constantly favored Brian Krippendorf’s attomey. Engaged and condoned the harassment and abuse from Stacey Stevens to Plaintiff in her court room. Stacey Steven and Judge Fannin would laugh, mock and humiliate Plaintiff during the court hearings. Judge Landau would laugh as she said “this is my court room; I can do as I please”. When Plaintiff would present evidence to support a change of custody, Judge Fannin would yell at her and use her bailiffs to intimidate and threaten her. She would intentionally trigger severe anxiety and exacerbate Plaintiff's symptoms. Exhibits Q, R, S, T and W are some examples of the ADA violations. Further, Plaintiff filed complaints, grievances, and motions to recuse Judge Fannin as in Exhibits HH, NN, and PP. September 23, 2014 and December 3, 2014, Contra Costa employee, Judge Fannin, denied Plaintiff her accommodations as stated in Exhibit TT and A, and detailed in October 10, 2014 Grievance filed Exhibit NN. Judge Fannin intentionally would mock, yell at, and laugh at Plaintiff in hearings to trigger severe anxiety and exacerbate her symptoms. To create further trauma to Plaint she created court orders that took away all of Plaintiff's unsupervised time, limited her hours, forced to use only supervisors that Brian Krippendorf and his attomeys would insist upon using. She would allow Stacey Stevens to speak for long periods of time THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 20 14 18 16 uv rattling off absurd fabricated theories geared at intentionally exacerbating Plaintiff's PTSD. She would limit the amount of time Plaintiff could speak. 49, She had reckless disregard to the harm that she was causing the children, and focused on her intentional harmful conduct towards Plaintiff. 50. The last hearing with Judge Fannin she granted Stacey Stevens motion and informed Plaintiff that her case was being transferred to Judge Anita Santos (Santos). Plaintiff had just recently learned that there were false reports in a confidential file that was part of her| case records during mediation with Sue Mayo on December 19, 2014. Plaintiff was told she would have to the confidential records from Judge Santos. Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Anita Santos (Santos) 51. Plaintiff attempted to subpoena the confidential records from Judge Santos but she refused service stating she was not the judge over her case. The clerks and the judges ‘worked in concert to keep from assigning her case to a judge for several months, not allowing her access to her own files, and Brian Krippendorf was not allowing Plaintiff to see or speak to the children. Plaintiff's PTSD was further triggered and created additional severe trauma. Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Leslie Landau 52. Eventually Plaintiff's case was assigned to Judge Landau. Judge Landau continued to conceal the false reports from Plaintiff to keep her from litigating her case. She even stated in court that she had the false police report that Plaintiff had specifically subpoena but refused to give her a copy. Judge Landau would allow Plaintiff to have her ADA support person sit next her, but she was not allowed to talk to her support person. The support person was not allowed to talk to Plaintiff, Judge Landau even directed a bailiff? ‘o remove Plaintiff's support person from court room prior to court starting. 53. On or about February 26, 2015 in the Contra Costa Case Dean Thompson v. Deanne Knars, Contra Costa Judge Landau was holding an off record in chambers hearing. Plaintiff entered court room in which Dean Thompson bragged to Plaintiff that his attorney was in chambers “tight now making a deal” and continued to describe how he THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 21 mM 54. 55. had been bribing the judges for six years in Contra Costa, Plaintiff filed a recusal motion on Judge Landau because any judge that would take bribe would clearly be bias. Judge Landau gave a very long response back to Plaintiff in Exhibit QQ. In contrast, Plaintiff had filed recusals on judges prior, and the responses had been fairly short and did not state any statues or rules. Apparently, Dean Thompson’s statements to Plaintiff had a much larger impact. Plaintiff had filed motions to recuse Judge Landau for concealing records and being bias. She retaliated against Plaintiff and discriminated against Plaintiff because of her disability, Exhibits QQ and AAA detail her bias and accepting of bribes. There was a separate hearing that took place regarding her taking bribes. Judge Landau further retaliated against Plaintiff by causing further severe trauma and exacerbating her PTSD by placing a domestic violence restraining order on her and by ordering her vexatious litigant, Damages for Violation of ADA Accommodations 42 U.S.C S 1981 provides for recovery of compensatory and punitive damages against defendants. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages as stated in Exhibits A, B, C and D. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages in twice her stated compensatory damages. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: DENIAL OF ACCOMMODATIONS, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, INTERFERENCE, COERCION, AND/OR INTIMIDATION; 42, US.C. §12101; 42 U.S.C. §12203; 42 U.S.C. §12132 AGAINST COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Plaintiff incorporates by reference the other causes of action, preceding allegations and as stated and evidenced in Exhibits which are attached. The statements in Second Cause of Action under State Disability Impairment and Substantially Limited Major Life Activities elements and statement apply to this claim. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 22 24 25 26 27 28 ADA Coordinator and Accommodations 5. As required by Administrative Law, the County of Santa Clara has an ADA coordinator, which is supposed to be independent and confidential from the judges. This is to minimize the ability of a judge to discriminate against a person because of their disability. However, the Santa Clara Superior Court apparently has a custom where the Judges tell the ADA Coordinator what they can and cannot grant as an accommodation. Itis in the public interest for persons with disabilities to enjoy full and effective participation in all aspects of life and those actions and entities that ignore this Congressional Mandate (See 42 USC 12101 et. Seq. should be enjoined from preventing the rightful enjoyment under the ADA, particularly Title II in this instance, which would give her needed accommodations in State Court. 6. On April 14, 2014, Plaintiff applied for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodations. On May 9, 2014, Georgia Ku responded with a letter stating “This response is drafted on behalf of Commissioner Edward Mills.” (Exhibit TAA) and it describes the accommodations granted and denied. On January 5, 2015, Georgia Ku sent a letter stating “This response has been authorized by Commissioner. Exhibit OO are the ‘emails between Plaintiff's ADA support person and Georgia Ku clearly talking about the violations. 7. This is in response to your request for ADA accommodation the Court received on. January 5, 2015.” (Exhibit TAA). This letter states accommodations that are granted and denied. Notification of a change of judge was denied, which stemmed from the constant change of commissioners on this case. These letters are also evidence that Georgia Ku is not independent of the commissioner. Commissioner Mills effectively denied Plaintiffs accommodations. Santa Clara Superior Court Commissioner Edward Mills (Mills) 8. Commissioner Mills denied Plaintiff having a recording device, which is an accommodation that Contra Costa allowed her to have. Commissioner Mills also denied THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 23 20 24 22 23 Plaintiff tools that would enable her to understand the calculation used to set the child support. 9. Commissioner Mills did not give any good faith effort or attempt to comply with providing equal opportunity to Plaintiff, and more so used his knowledge of her disabilities as a means to trigger and aggravate her disabilities for the purpose of rendering her incapable of effectively litigating her case. 10, Plaintiff had a right or a reasonable expectation that she should and would be granted the accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act for use in her case before Commissioner Mills in the Santa Clara Superior Court. These accommodations would allow plaintiff to have her disabilities accommodated so she could engage fully and effectively in the legal process under Title II of the ADA. Plaintiff was further granted these same requested accommodations by Contra Costa County. 11, Family Code 4055 specifies the inputs that are supposed to be used for the purpose of calculation as well as states how to calculate support. Although Commissioner Mills provided some of the inputs he was using, itis unclear if the error in the calculation is from incorrect inputs, incorrect use of the inputs, miscalculation, or if any calculation was, actually used. Commissioner Mills would not allow the DCSS attomey Evalina Barth to do her duty by using the software program that it is presumed she is trained to use correctly. 12. If Plaintiff had been able to have the accommodation that would have allowed her to follow along with all the inputs and verify the correct use in the calculation. The error could have been addressed during the hearing. It appears that Commissioner Mills did not ‘want Plaintiff to correct his error and that he did not perceive his calculation as an error. 13. Commissioner Mills response in Exhibit R states that he intentionally set the child support with the purpose to cause financial harm to Plaintiff. He states he imputed Plaintiff's income at $100,000 per year, which is higher than any tax year earnings that Plaintiff has ever been able to earn. Commissioner Mills increased Plaintiff's child THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 24 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 14 15. 16. 7. support payment by 36% when her income had dropped 86% as was evidenced by the EDD (unemployment benefits) statement she provided. Commissioner Mills also threatened Plaintiff when she asked questions about the calculations he was using. He threatened to take away her computer and sanction her. The bailiff hovered over Plaintiff as Commissioner Mills threatened to send her to jail ‘The support component of a permanent family support order must be based on the statutory factors enumerated in Family Code Sections 4320, 4055, 4052.5(b). The support order must be based on the statutory factors enumerated in... the Family Code, not pegged to a number generated by a computer program ..." In Re Marriage of Shulze. Family Code Section 4052.5 (b) “Consistent with federal regulations, after calculating the amount of support owed by each parent under the guideline, the presumption that the guideline amount of support is correct may be rebutted if the court finds that the application of the guideline in that case would be unjust or inappropriate.” Santa Clara Superior Court DCSS Attorney Evalina Barth Evalina Barth, DCSS attorney, failed to prevent the support from being decided by Commissioner Mills. By remaining silent while Commissioner Mills calculated support, she failed to assert her responsibilities in preparing the support calculation] She was also served an Open Record Request that she failed to answer or on the} alternative, she prevented from being properly served and thus answered. Santa Clara Superior Court Commissioner Gregory Saldivar Commissioner Saldivar knew of Plaintiff's ADA accommodations, and he discussed in open court that he wanted medical records for Plaintiff to prove that she needed accommodations, which is a violation of her rights under the ADA. Exhibit IAA1415 is am affidavit from Plaintiff's ADA support person confirming the violation from the July 26, 2016 hearing. Further, Commissioner Saldivar put it in the court orders as statec Exhibit IAA page IAA1419 ordering “medical proof” that Plaintiff needs accommodations, and further stating that he will “rule on an ADA accommodations” at the next hearing he calendared. The hearing was very confusing because Plaintiff had to THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 25 25 26 eT 28 18. 19, 20. stand in back of court, but in front of audience area, and then the “Independent Counsel” approached the bench to talk with the commissioner. Plaintiff did not understand the proceedings and was not sure if she could talk or not, and was confused by the contempt charges that she didn’t know what to say. Gary Krippendorf and Brian Krippendorf were present and taking notes, and were fully expecting to see Plaintiff arrested. Part of the ADA accommodations that Plaintiff had been granted was to have clear communication so that she could understand and participate in the hearing. Plaintiff was not only confused but shocked by hearing, the lack of procedures, the lack of the independent counsel understanding, and the utter disregard of the commissioner to Plaintiff's ADA and constitutional rights, Plaintiff was told that the contempt charges were not about her ability to pay child support, but the “willingness” to pay. Plaintiffis still confused on how you prove the difference when she does not have the ability to pay. It seemed that her partial payments ‘would prove “willingness” to pay, but she was being held in contempt for months that sh made partial payments. The defense counsel just kept repeating what the commissioner told him, but would not explain the definition of “willingness”. Plaintiff was threatened she needed to pay $12,800 and she would be put on probation for two years wherein she needed to pay $2,284 in full every month or she would go to jail with a $25,000 bail bond. Plaintiff has never had the ability to pay $2,284 per month. Further, Plaintiff was also told that the burden of proof was on her to prove that she had the willingness to pay, but not told what the definition or requirements or elements of it. ‘This was extremely stressing Plaintiff, which triggers her PTSD further, which makes it more difficult for her to understand. In the following hearing was calendared for September 20, 2016. Plaintiff still had to show up for court and her confusion with the ‘matter is evident by the emails with the Independent Defense Counsel emails in Exhibit JAA pages JAA1463 to JAA1465. The confusion was really a tactic of Defendants retaliating against Plaintiff and discriminating against her. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 26 10 a 12 rey 15 16 1 18 7] Damages 21. Defendant is liable for damages in Exhibit A, B, C, D and punitive for violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights of due process, petition, fair trial, protection from malicious acts, and protection from harassment. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT 42 U.S.C. §1983 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the other causes of action, preceding allegations and as| stated and evidenced in Exhibits which are attached 23. As shown in Exhibit A, and evidenced in other Exhibits, Plaintiff filed a complaint on Judge Fenstermacher with the CJP, and then the judge order her custody taken away. Shi filed complaint about Judge Fannin, and she took custody time away. She further filed complaints on Judge Fannin, and she further took custody away. She filed complaints on Judge Landau, and she sanctioned her to pay Stacey Stevens and ordered her vexatious. She filed a complaint on Commissioner McCarthy and she sanctioned her to pay Stacey Stevens. She filed complaints on Commissioner Mills and he increased her child support by 36% when her income decreased 86%. Plaintiff filed a complaint with District Court, and then Defendants (with other actors) filed contempt charges on her, didn’t inform her in hopes to arrest her for not showing up to court, but then continued to try to incarcerate her even after she did. Brian Krippendorf filed two false police reports in 2016 in an effort to coerce the police to incarcerate Plaintiff. 24, There is a very clear pattem, Plaintiff files a complaint because of legitimate judge misconduct, and then she is retaliated against using unlawful harmful court orders. When Plaintiff filed federal complaint, then the courts tried every means to incarcerate her. 25, Plaintiff has the right to full and effective participation in the litigation process. The judges at Contra Costa and Santa Clara on her case have interfered with her right of due THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 27 23 24 25 26 a0 28 process, right to participate in litigation process, and further retaliated against her for trying to assert her constitutional rights. 26. The First Amendment, the Petition Clause guarantees the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This means Plaintiff has the guaranteed right to pursue judicial remedies for unlawful government conduet without fear of persecution, Plaintiff is in constant fear of what the next persecution aetion towards her will be, Defendants have stolen her children, deprived her of her companionship with her two oldest children, deprived her of her property, set orders with the intention of incarcerating her, and either actively engaged in torturing her children or condoning others to do for the purpose of causing further severe emotional trauma to Plaintiff. Each year the damage gets more severe, to the point that a reasonable person might believe that death is the next intention of the Defendants. Plaintiff fears most for the safety of her children. 27. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages as stated in Exhibits A, B, C and D. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages in twice her stated compensatory damages. mM FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND FOR FAILURE TO TRAIN, SUPERVISE AND DISCIPLINE; 42 U.S.C. §1983 AGAINST COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND SANTA CLARA 28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the other causes of action, preceding allegations and as stated and evidenced in Exhibits which are attached. For the misconduct stated in other causes of action, Defendants are liable for failing to do their duty. 29. Itis the duty of the County of Contra Costa and Santa Clara to train, supervise and discipline any judge, commissioner or official duty of the court, ‘The Supreme Court held} that inadequacy of training may serve as a basis for 1983 municipal liability when failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to rights of persons. City of Canton, Ohio v. Geraldine Harris (1989) 489 U.S. 378, 103 L.Ed.2d.412 Municipality can be held liable THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 28 10 an a2 3B aa 18 16 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 26 30. 31. in civil rights action under section 1983 for constitutional violations resulting from its lack of control, failure to train or supervise, or for the knowledge or inaction thereof, and unconstitutional policies are actionable under the statue. “The Court sought not to foreclose the possibility, however rare, that the unconstitutional} consequences of failing to train could be so patently obvious that a city could be liable under section 1983 without proof of a pre-existing pattern of violations.” Connick v. Thompson (2011), which off record in judge’s chambers hearings that decide parental custody of children is a patently obvious violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights under the 14 Amendment, and 6" Amendment right to fair trial. “It is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the goverment as an entity is responsible under section 1983.” Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of New York (1978) 436 U.S. 658,694 Under Monell, Defendants are liable for actions and inactions. Policy of inaction based on the government body’s failure to train, supervise and discipline their employed judges is thei failure to implement procedural safeguards to prevent constitutional violations. In addition to the misconduct already stated in other causes of action, the following are additions or elaborated upon already stated misconduct. Family Court Services at Contra Costa . Defendant Contra Costa intentionally has the custom and as of January 2017 has a policy that is unconstitutional that has Family Court Services (FCS) doing the duty of the judge. They intentionally court order FCS to provide arbitration for the sole purpose of providing a report to the judge with specific recommendations on custody of the children by which the judge gets to rubber stamp his/her name to create the report as the court orders, which gives the judge full immunity to orders. FCS has the right to speak with the attomeys, and regularly state that they do. ‘The attorneys coerce FCS to write recommendations they request, and can regularly do since they are not held to the same THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 29 10 u 12 u 1s 16 u 18 legal standards as a judge. The sessions are all off record, so there is no account for what ‘was said or what evidence was provided. Off Record or In Judge’s Chambers at Contra Costa 34. It is the ongoing and continual practice of Contra Costa to allow and/or direct judges to hold hearings and conferences in the judge’s chambers to decide matters of child custody and related financial matters of support and divorce. As it evidenced in Exhibits as previously stated and referenced. 35. It has been the continued practice of Contra Costa to allow judges to conspire with attomeys off record and in judge’s chambers even after the Contra Costa had been made aware of the Court of Appeal decision stating the obvious finding that it denies due process. This continued custom is evident in Plaintiff's case, as well as in Ledo v. Kinney case which the parent and children were harmed by the Judge Fenstermacher and Judge Fannin in similar manner as Plaintiff. Exhibit FF is the filed recusal of Mr. Kinney| when his case was being transferred back to Judge Fenstermacher, who was in Civil Court at the time, and Exhibit FF is Judge Fenstermacher’s response accepting his request for her to be recused. 36. Exhibit TT is the register of actions stating “off record” in chambers, therefore Contra Costa knows or should have known that these deliberate actions of their employed judges| are taking place prior to Appeal Court decision of June 25, 2013, and certainly after, and. yet they continue to allow this custom or practice to be so “widespread in usage as to constitute the functional equivalent of an express policy”. Choate v. County of Orange (2000) 86 Cal.App.4" 312,328 ADA Violations by Contra Costa and Santa Clara 37. The ADA violations as stated are federal regulations that the states must comply with, It is the duty of the Defendants to ensure that all employees are properly trained and supervised to ensure that any similarly situated person would be accommodated. This is gross oversight especially given the number of employees holding licenses to practice law. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 30 2 28 Discrimination Towards Pro Se Litigants 38. Defendants do not provide adequate legal help for pro se litigants. The California State Supreme Court refers Plaintiff to Contra Costa “Lawyer in the Library” at the court library in Martinez. They have a clinic held once per month for 20 minutes maximum. It is not possible for a pro se litigant to under what remedies are available and what procedures to follow in 20 minutes. ‘Then Plaintiff is ordered vexatious litigant for not understanding proper procedures. Defendant claims the litigation is frivolous, but yet does not provide adequate legal help for pro se. Defendant is culpable for multiple filings, yet they punish Plaintiff for their inadequacy. In contrary, the federal court has Pro Se Program Attorney that will spend an hour at a time nearly every week. It certainly] minimizes the number of filings, and makes it less burdensome on the court. 39. A committee made of court members, community and consultant planners came up with a “Self-Represented Litigant Action Plan” stating “From anecdotal observation, the court believes that the rising numbers of self-represented litigants means that increasing numbers of people need assistance from the court because they don’t understand how to follow court procedures or they are unable to easily access court information. Itis believed that these limitations often slow the proceedings and cause delays in the dispensation of justice. Most of the litigants who represent themselves appear in Family Law mattes, which raises the question of how well the justice and other human services systems are serving the foundations of our communities.” Plaintiff has struggled with understanding the procedures, cannot access the information easily, and does not always know what rules apply. Plaintiff has wrongfully looked to the attorneys to try to understand procedure, but since the judges allow them not to follow procedures it makes it nearly impossible to understand what should be done. Often times, by the time Plaintiff does lear of the correct procedures and rules, time limitations had passed, which means she is left continuing to search for the procedures that do apply. Due to the trauma caused by Contra Costa judges, Plaintiff has PTSD as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which means it takes Plaintiff longer than an ordinary THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 31 10 u 12 13 ivy 16 un as 22 23 2a 25 26 28 40. 41. 42. 43. person to be able to research and understand the rules and procedures she must follow in her fight to keep Defendants from further harming and damaging her, and to attempt to find a way to be made whole again, Department of Child Support Services Defendants allowed or condoned their employees to conspire and colluded with Stacey Stevens to have jurisdiction changed from Contra Costa to Santa Clara for her child support case. ‘The misconduct of the judges and commissioners are a result of Defendants lack of training and supervision, Department of Family and Children Services Another department of employees that Santa Clara trains, supervises and has the authority to discipline is Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) which is responsible for child abuse reporting and investigating. DFCS has failed to do their duty. On February 24, 2017 Plaintiff received a phone call from social worker Ruth Larson stating that she was finally able to connect with Brian Krippendorf at his apartment to investigate the allegations of neglect and child abuse. However, she actually failed to do her duty as specified in the Child Protective Services Manual, and she refused to interview the children separately and ensuring that they were in place they felt safe to speak freely. Instead, she decided to tell Plaintiff that Brian Krippendorf had given her court orders, so she read court orders on the phone to Plaintiff. Plaintiff asked for a copy of the report, and she said “no”. She would not give me her social worker identification number, report number, or any further information, as stated in Exhibit K from witness. In 2011, Plaintiff and her husband at the time were having a video call with the children at Brian Krippendorf’s apartment when Christopher started crying from being hit in the head, and Brian Krippendorf picked the then 3 year old up and locked him in the closet. On the recorded video you can hear Plaintiff demanding to let Christopher out of the closet, when Brian Kripepndorf said cold and callous “no, he can stay in there until he is stops crying”. He then ended the video Skype call. Plaintiff and her then husband called THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 32 10 a 12 a 15 16 18 as 20 21 22 23 2a 25 26 28 DFCS and reported the incident. The social worker on the phone first took Plaitnif?’s information and the other parent’s information, and Plaintiff could clearly hear her typing| over the phone. ‘Then she asked about the incident, and said that she was not going to send anyone over to the apartment, and she refused to give her full name only saying “Reese” and refused to get a supervisor. Further, she said “unless he is locked in a closet for more than a few days, it is not traumatizing enough for us to do anything”. It has been consistent over the last seven years in that DFCS refuses to investigate child abuse unless the child has severe physical injuries that merit emergency surgery or staying in the hospital. There has been no investigation on the children’s neglected medical and health, no investigation on their emotional well-being, and certainly no investigation on possible sexual abuse which has been reported by several therapist, supervisors for the visits with mother, and Plaintiff. In fact, the social workers reports describe the children’s physical ability to walk and be at school, and therefore they are “well”. Not one person has conducted an interview with either of the children as specified in Santa Clara own manuals and own rules. Plaintiff has continually asked for both children to be interviewed at school, without any member of the Krippendorf family, and made sure that they felt safe enough to speak freely. Plaintiff will need discovery to be opened so that she can get all the information that pertains to her children, Brian Krippendorf, and herself at Santa Clara County. Exhibit KK are reports that state the social workers did not| follow the rules in questioning the children. Damages 44. The actions of the employed judges have also violated Plaintiff's 9" Amendment rights t life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, 8" Amendment violation as Plaintiff has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines and threats of incarceration with excessive bail imposed, 13° Amendment violation for enslaving Plaintiff using unjust and excessive child support orders for the financial benefit of the Contra Costa, and 1 Amendment has been violated as Plaintiff has continued to be THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 33 10 a 12 13 ry 18 19 20 aa 22 23 2a punished, retaliated against for making complaints of the government and their officers of the court, which has been constant and ongoing for over seven years. 48. It is the deliberate conduct of Defendants that is the “moving force” behind the injuries to Plaintiff that have been constant and ongoing for over seven years. 46, Plaintiff is secking compensatory damages as stated in Exhibits A, B,C and D. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages in twice her stated compensatory damages. Mi FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO); 18 U.S.C. $1962(c(d) AGAINST COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND CONTRA COSTA 47. As stated in other causes of action, preceding allegations and evidenced in Exhibits which, are attached, Plaintiff alleges and believes Defendants are operating under RICO Act. 48. The RICO statute prohibits conducting or participating in an enterprise with income derived from a pattem of racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt. Child Support Arrears and Title IV 49. Defendants Santa Clara and Contra Costa have the enterprise of Department of Child ‘Support Services by which they pay, train, supervise and regulate and by which they collect Federal funding under Title IV for the county. By custom and policy they create unlawful debt by ordering child support payment that a parent does not have the ability to pay for the purpose of creating arrears. The arrears are then treated as a fine punishable by incarceration and/or further excessive fines. 50. The conduct is that thru the judges and commissioners Defendants regularly sets the child| support amount higher than a parent is able to afford, creating arrears, then they proceed to take any electronic funds that has the parent’s name on it without holding a hearing to determine if that parent has the ability to afford losing those funds as afforded by the constitution rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness. They purposely set child support at an amount higher than a parent can afford. Plaintiff was damaged wherein Judge Fannin THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 34 18 19 20 aa 22 51. 52, ordered Plaintiff to pay $1,522 per month when her income was $1,200 per month. Plaintiff was damaged wherein Commissioner Mills increased court ordered child support to $2,264 per month when Plaintiff was receiving unemployment benefits of $1,200 per month, Currently, Plaintiff is on welfare, and has no ability to pay $116,470 in arrears that is growing $708 of interest each month. The damages get worse each month. ‘These are not errors, but purposeful acts to create high amount of arrears and child support. The| incentives of the Title IV federal funding as detailed in Exhibit WAA is a driving force behind the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) racketeering activities in both Contra Costa and Santa Clara, Exhibit VAA, March 2003 which shows that child support arrears has increased at an alarming rate. This was brought to the attention of the counties and state as an issue to be| resolved in 2003, but instead they have chosen to continue taking tax payers dollars paid to the federal government under deceptively using DCSS. Exhibit WAA (page 6 of CRS), details the incentive for funding which include but are not limited to on the number of court ordered child suppor, the amount of the arrears, and the paternity cases established. This pattem of conduct is apparent in Plaintiff's case both at Contra Costa and Santa Clara and as stated in Exhibit O from another case. They know that the software program that calculates the support is in error because it calculates support that is unreasonable and not conducive to the parent having the ability to pay it. To add to the damages, the judges and commissioners will take hold of the software program with the purpose of “imputing” income that the parent does not have the ability to make. Further damaging is| to set the parent grossly in debt with arrears. This makes it impossible for a parent to be able to afford. Then the parent becomes a criminal because they do not have the ability to pay, but DCSS states it is about the “willingness” to pay. These arrears do not go away even after the child ages out of the system. Exhibit DAA is another example of arrears that the county purposely keeps in their records as a means to get additional federal funding. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 35 16 uv 18 19 25 26 2 28 53. Plaintiff alleges that arrear would not exist if the child support was set at a level a parent could afford in the first place. The average uncollectibles in corporate debt is about 10%, meaning that about 10% of the population does not pay their debt. According to DCSS we have a 70% of parents not paying their debt. This is evident of the racketeering. Conversion on Payments 54, The other racketeering comes from cases wherein DCSS collects a payment from one parent, but does not give the full payment to the other parent. Further they use DCSS as 4 means to cease or put a lien on all assets of parent. 55. The predicate acts set in motion the collections department to unlawfully cease all funds as Plaintiff's funds are an example. The debt that they are have collected and continue to collect is created by unlawful means as the calculation by the software program is, fundamentally in error, the commissioner/judge takes the administrative role of using the software program for which he/she inputs amounts without being trained in areas such as. tax and with purposeful intent to set an amount that is not in the ability of the parent to afford thus creating arrears, and by refusing to reconsider the calculation before the collections departments ceases funds especially from checking accounts in which most reasonable people use as a means afford their basic living expenses. Exhibit C shows conversion amount of $4,171 that DCSS took from Plaintiff for the sole purpose to give to Brian Krippendorf, but which they did not. 56, There are other cases wherein a parent is in the military and his wages are being gamished, but those wages are not being paid to the other parent. There are cases like Dean Thompson v. Deanne Knars wherein she was receiving less than half of amount being gamished from Dean Thompson pay checks. Plaintiff'has also come across other parents where in zero of the dollars collected were proved to the other parent, Further discovery needs to be conducted. Plaintiff believes this pattern of racketeering activity has been going on for over three decades as her father was paying $500 per month as garnished from his pay, but her mother was only receiving $200 per month, which means that Department of Child Support Services kept over $50,000 from 1979 to 1993. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 36 7 Title IV Federal Funding. 57. The racketeering activity must be proved by preponderance of evidence, but Plaintiff has provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Department of Child Support Services is unlawfully taking millions of dollars thru Title IV Federal funding and from unlawful practices of taking money from parents in counties of Santa Clara and Contra Costa, and the counties are aware of their actions if not actively condoning or training them to do so. 58. It is more likely than not that Santa Clara and Contra Costa knowingly agreed to facilitate the scheme to bolster then Title IV funding. Its certainly their responsibility and duty to] supervise Department of Child Support Services, and therefore they should know or should have known that they are unlawfully engaging in conversion of parents child support payments either in whole or part. 60. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages as stated in Exhibits A, B,C and D. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages in twice her stated compensatory damages. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND BANE ACT; 42 U.S.C. 1983; 28 U.S.C. §1367a AGAINST COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the other causes of action, preceding allegations and as stated and evidenced in Exhibits which are attached. 62. Defendant Santa Clara employed officers (name from report) that threatened to arrest me without probable cause, which violates Plaintiff's right of freedom of expression and Plaintiff has the right to not be arrested except under due process. Exhibit BAA has a Santa Clara Police report detailed in pages BAA1191 to BAA1200 states that Officer read Plaintiff her Miranda rights with the intention of arresting her. 63. There were four officers that surrounded Plaintiff in the hall and immediately separated her advocate from her, which is an accommodation that she is granted and needs upon entering any court building due to the extreme trauma that she has suffered continuously THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 37 a 2 3 us a5 16 vv ae 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 26 20 2a since September 16, 2010. The officers were all wearing their uniforms with badges and intentionally intimidated, threatened, and coerced Plaintiff. Plaintiff was experiencing extreme stress to the point that her back was having pain due to her muscles tensing, The| officers began to yell at Plaintiff'as she was trying to move to alleviate the pain, which she had been under doctor's care for. 64, Plaintiff was detained in the court house for excess of a couple hours, and was not taken before a judge, even though one was accessible. 65. The Fourth Amendment prohibits seizures of persons, including brief investigative stops, when they are ‘unreasonable’. Plaintiff was restrained of the liberty to walk away by force and by threat of multiple officers for a very long duration of time. After they had apparently spent time interrogating others in the court room of Judge Salvidar, where the supposed “talking” took place, they continued to interrogate Plaintiff and demand that she provide evidence to disprove Brian Krippendorf's claims right then or she would arrested. 66. The officers directed Plaintiff to sit in a small room (about 6°x10") where one officer stood guarding the door and the other officer stood over Plaintiff in a very intimidating ‘manner, Plaintiff was shaking in fear and her heart was pounding very hard. Plaintiff was filled with fear. ‘The officers were asking the same question multiple times, but Plaintiff ‘was frozen with fear and struggled to get words out as the tears poured down her cheeks. She was confined in a small room bounded in all directions, and being threatened with jail and intimidated. The officers improperly asserted their legal authority on Plaintiff and should have never forced her out of the public hallway and into a small room where they asked her to sit away from any publie site as this made her feel as if their intentions were to do unlawful physical acts to her where there would be no witnesses and no one to stop them. The officers threatened to take away Plaintiff's phone and not allow her to contract her attomey or advocate, 67. These actions were intentionally planned as evidenced in Exhbit MM that shows Brian Krippendorf had informed Jared ‘Thompson (father to her 5 year old son) that Plaintiff THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 38 16 W 18 19 20 22 23 2 25 26 28 uM 68. 69. 70. 1. R. 7B. ‘was going to be incarcerated day before court. Jared Thompson was convinced that she had been arrested that he called Plaintiff's mother demanding that she “relinquish” their son as stated in Affidavit of Pam Henderson, Plaintiff is still undergoing treatment from being traumatized as she now has a strong fear of police officers to the point that she is debilitated in even seeing an officer who was visiting her son’s school as a positive treat to the children. Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress from being bound in a room with officers blocking the door and reading Miranda rights in a threatening manner to incarcerate Plaintiff for reasons she did not understand. Damages are $25,000 per person. There were two officers in the room and three officers that threatened her. That is $75,000 in damages she to entitled under the Bane Act SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PRODUCTS LIABILITY; 42 U.S.C. §1983 AGAINST COUNTY OF THOMSON REUTERS Plaintiff incorporates by reference the other causes of action, preceding allegations and as| stated and evidenced in Exhibits which are attached. Defendant Thomson Reuters created and designed the software program which Department of Child Support Services in both Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties rely| on. The calculation is in error with Family Code 4055 as it does not correctly account for the tax implications, which results in grossly high child support amount. On the alternative, they did not properly train the users to ensure that they are putting the inputs in correctly to ensure that a “reasonable” amount is set as specified by Family Code 4055. For a caleulation to be calculated that is significantly higher than the monthly camings the parent is by far a gross error in the calculation and/or usage of the software. Family Code 4055 is very specific that net income is supposed to be used and that taxes due to the IRS is not considered income useable for child support payment. Yet, the software specifically states to input “Gross” income, and it does not show a decreased THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 39 20 28 amount to get to net income to account for taxes. This is a substantial error in the software, and one that needs to be immediately fixed so that other similarly situated persons will not be harmed. The effect of this calculation is that for a person that has gross $1,000 per month income, the software program will allow a calculation of $500 child support to result. This means that $500 will go to DCSS, (assuming the average tax| bracket) $300 will go to the IRS for taxes, and thus leaving $200 for the parent. This is not “reasonable” on any level, and is clearly a substantial error. It is not a crime to have children, and thus should not be punishable by fines. This is unconstitutional. 74, This product contained this error before it was sent to the Thomson Reuters clients, Santa| Clara and Contra Costa. This is a substantial factor in causing harm to the public as it very quickly puts parents into arrears, which the county gets additional Federal Title [V funding, which takes away from tax payers. This has been a substantial factor in the financial harm to Plaintiff who has over $97,000 in arrears. Arrears should be a reflection of the parents unwillingness to pay and not a reflection of their inability pay and certainly should not be a reflection of some punishment for having children will parent in which one cannot get along with, California has over $80 billion in child support arrears, this is not a reflection of parents that are not willing to pay child support, this is a reflection of the outrageous error in setting a child support amount at an unreasonable level and it is happening at an alarming rate. 75. Defendant Thomson Reuters is liable for the over $97,000 arrears that DCSS claims Plaintiff owes, plus the fair market value of the over payment Plaintiff made, plus the cost of debt that Plaintiff has incurred due to having her finances unlawfully taken from her. Defendant is also liable for the past noneconomic loss, including severe emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered from trying to afford basic means to support her youngest son that lives with her and relies on her care. Also, Defendant is laible for future noneconomic loss which is the cost of Plaintiff completing school and providing education to her children along with therapy and services for time spent away from their mother due to the lack of Plaintiff not being able to afford equal representation. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 40 un a2 3 ua 22 23 24 25 20 MW Defendant is also responsible for the federal funding over paid to the counties for the Title IV money that is allocated based on the arrears, which is the tax payers money in the federal funds. 76. Damages stated in Exhibit C and punitive damages to deter from this happening again. Plaintiff also believes it would be in the public’s best interest to have a bid go out to software development companies to create a program that is accurate and has a CPA, ensure that the calculations are correct. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION ASSAULT; 42 U.S.C. §1983 AGAINST STACEY STEVENS 77. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the other causes of action, preceding allegations and as| stated and evidenced in Exhibits which are attached. 78. The intentional tort of assault is a volitional act intended to cause apprehension of Plaintiff. 79. Defendant Stacey Stevens has acted with intent to cause offensive contact and harm, She hhas been made well aware of Plaintiff's emotional trauma and she acts to purposely eause| severe emotional distress by constantly threatening her and colluding with other agencies to threaten and cause harm to Plaintiff, Exhibit R, T, V and W are the affidavit of witnesses to Stevens offensive contact and threats to have Plaintiff arrested. Exhibit HAA is the details on Plaintiff's contempt charges that she had excessive bail bond imposed on her and threat of incarceration. Further, Stacey Stevens was gloating to her client Sonia Ledo that Plaintiff was “going to be arrest” months before the contempt charges were filed. She threatened imminent apprehension of contact to Plaintiff. She could only have known of these charges if she had conspired with DCSS. In Exhibit RAA] there are further details of Stacey Stevens colluding with DCSS attorney Evalina Barth, 80. Exhibit II are emails with her continued harassing behavior that continues to interfere with Plaintiff's custodial and companionship with her children. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 41 18 19 20 aa 22 aa 25 28 a 81. It is beyond reasonable doubt that Stevens had carried out her threats and was successful in coercing judges, DCSS attorneys and officers of the court to carry out her threats. 82. It is Plaintiff's right to “live without being put in fear” of incarceration or any other harm of herself. Lowry v, Standard Oil Co. of California (1944) 63 Cal. App.2d.1,6- 7[146P.2d57] Plaintiff lives in constant fear that Stevens will find some other means to cause to Plaintiff to keep her from getting justice and relief from this complaint and she will do any harm to Plaintiff to keep her from litigating her custody or support case in the| superior courts. 83. Defendant Stevens misconduct has caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress and she has acted purposely to do so. Defendant was purposely rying to get Plaintiff arrested for something, which would have left Plaintiff's five year old son without his mother that he relies on for every day care, and it would have continued to substantially interfere with her ability to have a companionship with her two older children. 84, Plaintiff continued to ask Stevens to stop harassing her and stop threatening her and stop interfering with her companionship with her children. 85. Plaintiff was unable to effectively litigate her case in court and with filing the second amended complaint of this action. She has offended Plaintiff's sense of personal dignity and even has recent as January 18, 2016, she continued to do so as Exhibit M. 86, Plaintiff had such severe emotional distress from the constant fear of incarceration that she would not leave her house or go anywhere by herself. The fear of harm increased in severity that Plaintiff got a dog in November 2014 that was a large breed of German Shephard type, and had to get over her own fear of large dogs as the fear of harm was much greater. Even though Plaintiff lives in a home with an alarm system, she was unable to sleep at night in fear of the threats being acted upon. 87. Defendants have violated Plaintiff's First, Sixth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Damages stated in Exhibit A, B, C, D and punitive damages. ‘The public needs to be protected from Stacey Stevens. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 42 10 Fen 1 13 ua 25 26 21 28 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD AND DECEIT UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW; £2. US.C. $1983 AGAINST STACEY STEVENS, BRIAN KRIPPENDORF AND GARY KRIPPENDORF 88. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the other causes of action, preceding allegations and as| stated and evidenced in Exhibits which are attached, 89, In addition to the conspiring as stated in Exhibit RA, Defendant Stacey Stevens performed duties outside a lawyer's traditional functions when coerced and conspired with judges to create orders that are not even close to following the family codes and rules set forth. Even with the wide discretion that judges are allowed in family court matters, there are still clear rules and laws that a judge must uphold, and for procedures t be blatantly disregarded it is more likely true than not that the judge is being directed either by coercion or bribe by Brian Krippendorf thru his attorney and by use of Gary Krippendorf’s money. When Plaintiff is allowed discovery in this case, the discovery will show proof beyond reasonable doubt that Stacey Stevens bribed the judges by use of Gary Krippendorf’s money. 90. The fact that the judges have immunity does not mean that the private parties conspiring with the judge have immunity. The acts of the superior court judges was a product of the corrupt conspiracy involving bribery of the judges is sufficient to assert action under color of state law on the part of the Stacey Stevens. Dennis v. Sparks (1980) 604 F.2d 976 91. In re: Dennis v. Sparks, “To act under color of state law for the purposes of civil rights statute does not require that the defendant be an officer of the state; it is enough that (s)he| sa willful participant in joint action with the state or its agents; private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting under color of law for purposes of the civil rights statue.” “State judge may be found criminally liable for violation of civil rights even though the judge may be immune from damages under the civil statute. 18 U.S.C.A. §242; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 Although the judges have immunity THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 43 14 18 16 u 1 Ws in civil rights actions for their malice and corruption, Stacey Stevens does not, and furthei is liable for damages, and further the burden of proof is on her to demonstrate her entitlement, 92. Doctrine of judicial immunity does not preclude a judge from responding as a witness when his coconspirators are sued. Immunity does not insulate from damages liability those private persons who corruptly conspire with a judge. Nor has the doctrine of judicial immunity been considered historically as excusing a judge from responding as a witness when his coconspirators are sued, even though a charge of conspiracy and judicial corruption will be aired and decided. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 928.Ct, 2614, 331, Ed. 2d 583 The harm to the public if allowing immunity to coconspirators outweighed the benefits of providing a remedy against those private persons who participate in subverting the judicial process and in so doing inflict injury on| other persons. 93. The specific acts of the judges in both Contra Costa and Santa Clara, and the acts of the DCSS attomeys, are the produets of the corrupt conspiracy involving bribery of the judges. Any reasonable person would conclude that a judge must have been bribed to make such extreme and outrageous court orders that shock the conscious of any reasonable person. Plaintiff has provided clear and convincing evidence that the judges have been bribed by Stacey Stevens using Gary Krippendorf’s money. 94, Its a pattern of practice with Stacey Stevens to use her clients money to bribe and coerce| judges. Plaintiff would like discovery to be opened immediately to gather further evidence with show this conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. 95. Defendants have violated Plaintiff's First, Sixth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Damages stated in Exhibit A, B, C, D and punitive damages. The public needs to be protected from Stacey Stevens. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 44 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRES' AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 2. U.S.C. §1983 96. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding allegations and incorporates the attached| Exhibits by reference. For the reasons stated in this complaint and in the Exhibits all the Defendants are liable. 97. The conduct that has been stated in all the causes of action in this complaint and as reference in the Exhibits and as detailed in the Exhibits has caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress, and the Defendants have all been a substantial factor in the severe emotional distress. In addition to the misconduct the malicious misconduct already stated, Plaintiff has been on supervised visitations for which Brian Krippendorf, Gary Krippendorf, and/or their attorneys have bribed, threatened and/or coerced the supervisors to write false reports, threaten the children to not speak about the abuse from their father and grandparents, created rules unconstitutional rules. 98. The conduct of all the Defendants has been outrageous and has shocked the conscious of the Court of Appeal, and certainly shocks the conscious of any reasonable person. There have been affidavits and other evidence that many reasonable persons have been appalled| and outraged at the conduct of the courts, the attorneys, Brian Krippendorf and Gary Krippendorf. Their malicious intentional misconduct was purposeful in creating as much| emotional distress and harm to Plaintiff, and they have been successful as such. 99. Plaintiff has been treated for hypothyroid for five years, which is a medical condition brought on by severe chronic stress. Plaintiff has also suffered from other medical conditions which are due to severe chronic stress, and sees her regular physicians for these problems. Plaintiff has been under years of therapy to help her cope with the extreme PTSD symptoms as she continues to deal with the lost time with her children, the financial burdens, and stress of not being employed at a level that she could afford to pay her debts and living expenses. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 45, 25 26 aa 28 100. All the defendants have acted maliciously together to create the damages and harm to Plaintiff and they are all liable for damages as stated in Exhibit A, B, C and D and punitive damages. mM V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks, prays and pleads with the District Court to provide relie! ‘as summarized in Exhibit A, B, C, and D, In addition, Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages. In} addition, Plaintiff has stated policies that need to be changed, and DCSS software program need: to be created to calculate lawful child support orders. The public needs to be protected from the} attomeys Dana Santos and Stacey Stevens. Family Court Services policies need to be changed] and they need to be neutral to the parties so that the judges can be assured that their reports ard accurate and fair. Family Court Services needs to immediately cease and desist from arbitration, Respectfully submitted, Date: 4 a] 2olT By: ‘Tanya Nemekk, Pro Per 3216 View Drive Antioch, CA 94509 (925) 470-3860 VERIFICATION IT IS HEREBY certified that the facts in the foregoing Motion are true and correct undey the penalties of perjury to the best of my knowledge and belief. ae: | 21] 207) mm _ Aes DRS) ‘Tanya Nemcik, Pro Per THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 46 EXHIBITS FOR THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE 16-CV-0322-BLF hibit [Document Taees "A Summary of Fats Relevant to Complaint LAL 8 Lost Wages from Dameges B12 CC —_DCSS Payment History, Analysis and Conversion c13-C15, Supervised Vishations Cost os E The Courtof Appeal Case AL36O31 Decision Filed 6/25/2013 97-623 F Denied Wet of Mandate by Court of Appeal 12/11/2015, m4 G _ Dismissed complaint dated 5/10/2016 625-626 H_ Welfre to Work Family Stabilization Case Plan 127 1 ETrede Financial tevy of account 28 41 W-2and EDD documents for 2010 r0 2015 29.34 K _ASfidavit Finney Re: Phone cll from CPS 2/24/2017 5 Affidavit of Nemctk Re: Ombudsperson and DCSS hearing request 6139 IM Afidavit of Kinney Re: DCSS hearing 1/38/2017 Meo N___Alfidovit of Kinney Re: D¢SS Contra Costa 3/14/2014 Nat Affidavit of Hadsell Re: DCSS uniawful orders in his case 012.003 P Affidavit of Warnken Re: Commissioner Mil 3t Santa Clara Papas Q Affidavit of Henderson Re: Hearing with Judge Fannin 9/23/2014 046-047 R Affidavit ofinney Re: Stevens and DCSSin 2016 348-89 S.__Affidavic of Warnken Re: ADA matters 350 T Affidavit of Kinney Re: Stevens misconduct and unprofesionaism TSLTS2 U_ Affidavit of Warnken Re: Santa Cara 2015, us3-usa V__Afidavt of Warnken Re: Stevens in 2014 vss W Affidavit of Green and Barnett Re: Judge Fannin in 2013 w56-w60 X Affidavit of Nemeik Re: FarlyCourt Services x61-x68 Y _Aifidvit of Abbett Re: Thompson Mediation 2016 ves Z_Aifidovt of Karkanen Re: Family Court Services her case 765.282 ‘AK Affidavit of Hoffman Re: Family Court Services and Sue Mayo -RAg-AAGS BB Response from Santa Clara Presiding Judge directing to CIP 2015 94-0896 {CC __ Responses from Presiding Judges at Contra Costa on complaints ceor-cc102 DD Commissioner on Judicial Performance Complaints and Responses 2020 to 2017 103-0118 EE Due Process Gives Voles eELI9-£E122 FE Judge Fenstermacher Recusal and 170.1 Motion Filed Fra22-FF186 GG __ The Robing Room ratings and comments 6157-6166 HH Complaints and Requests to Board of Supervisors and Presiding ude CCC 2016 w67-HHI73 11 Emals rom Stacey Stevens client an other misconduct in emails va741198 11 Reciegts of Supervisors fr visitations with children nasa KK Child Welfare Report from 1/9/2013 and 4/15/2013 K242-KK292_ LL Jared Thompson v Tanya Thompson D13-00500 Register of Action u2s3-u1302 MM Jered Thompson case jurisdiction, orders, FCS reports, income 2013 and 2016 Mv03-MMa5a NN. RDA Grievance, Complaint, and Accommodations at Contra Costa NN369-NN388 (00 Emails with ADA Coordinator on accommodations in Santa Clara (00389-00398 PP Filed 170.1 motion against Judge Fannin 11/20/2013, and her answers. PP399-PP540 QQ Filed 170.1 motion agains Judge Landau and her answer ‘00541-00591 RR Fled Request to Remove Stace Stevens 7/8/2016 RRS92-RRSOB $5 Lawsuit led against Brian Krippendort with Plintif Daun Abbett 4/7/2016 8599-55613 TT Register of Aetion Nemcikv.Krippendorf Contre Costa DO8-01592 ‘re1a-rr681 ‘UU Contra Costa 2008 Court Orders from Judge Fenstermacher wu662-UU716 W Contra Costa 2012 Cour Flings watewara WW 2013: FCS, Order and CPS reports wwe7e-wwo31 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 47 EXHIBITS FOR THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE 16-CV-0322-B1F ‘hibit [Document asee {Fling September 22,2014 with atachments: 992 OE Supervisor Crist Fraser charged Paint v. advertised ‘Supervisor reports from Bay Area Family Connections 9/22/13 Brian Kripendor refusal to use Bary Area Family Connections YY Family Court Services Report 12/19/2014 ‘yv962-19967 72 Judge Landau Order fom lune 9, 2015 that was fled on May 10,2016 96072972 [AAA Motions to Recuse Judge Landau, answers, RFO, VexatiousLtgont Order AAASTS-AAALISS BAA _ Restraining Order Request of Brian Krippendorf Filed 10/21/2016 with attachments: BAA1136-BAA1200 “Tal Order November 25,2013 July 29,2016 Order VeratiousLitigant Emails udge Landau bases DVR order from Bran Krippendort making a false police report, ‘Supervisor Scampini advertise $40/hr but charges Plaintiff $100/hr Senta Cara Police False Arrest Report CAA 2016 Responses to Domestic Violence Restraining Order and Order canizon-caaizes DAA ide oF Basson Santa Clara County DAAT249-DAAT2S3 EAA Complaint on Commissioner Mis Filed 4/6/2015 with attachments: EAAIIS@-EAR1299 Objection to supervisor fllen Gold Reports Objection to FCS Sue Mayo Report and Complaint Judicial Notice on Cildea's medical and acoder FAA Commissioner Mls Answer on 170.1 Motion 3/29/2016 FAAI3O0-FAA307 GAA _DCSS Account, Ombudsperson Request and Acknowledged Review of Child Support GAAT308-GAAI35. HAA DCSS Contempt Charges mailed to Plaintiff 7/14/2016 but file 4/13/2016 HAA1356-HAA1361 IM. Notion for TRO Filed 8/4/2016 with attachments: IAAI362AAIS8 Independent Defense Counsel Office Notes 7/26/2016 Hearing Contemot Charges ADA Aecommedstion= Objection to Contempt Charges and ling Statements Orders after Hearing 7/26/2016 and 5/19/2015 Forms set to DCSS Review and Modification Unit JAK DCSS Hearing 9/20/2016 Orders and emails with independent Defense Counsel IAALAS9.IAAA66 KAA File Response to Recalculate Arrears 3/18/2017 Hearing KARI467-KAA1486 LAA Judge Fannin Cité Suppor Order 4/26/2012 aane97-UAA1503 MAA Team Legal Proof of Service for DCSS filed 10/24/2013 for documents 6/16/2013 MAAI504-MAA1517 NAA CSS Santa Clara Register of Actions Case No. 2013--C5-141080 NAAIS18-NAAI526 (OAA 2014 DCSS Santa Cara Objections, arth Response, Krippendor 1-150 OnAI529-0AA2558 PAA 2015 DCSS Santa Cere Objections, Orders, Fld on Demand PARISSS-PARITIA AA _DCSSBilng Statement 12/31/2015 interstand3/31/2017 fl balance $116,470 anAi7i5-0aai719 AAA Fist Amended Complaint 16-cv- 0322-8 document AAAI720-RAAI747 SAA DCS Santa Cara Status Records and Notices SAAITAB-SAAA7S4 TAA ADA Coordinator Letters rom Georgia Ku 2014 and 2035 TAALISS-TAAI7S6 UsA_ CSS Senta Cara Objection to Change of Venue fled 6/37/2014 UAAA757-UAAG759 VAR. Examining Cid Support Arrears in California: The Colectbity Study March 2003 VAAT760-VAAI761 WAA Child Support Enforcement Program Incentive Payments: Policy and Issues 5/2/2013 WAAL762-WAAL802_ X®A Complain on uniavful custody issues with edetional attachments XAAI8O3-¥AA2002 Children's BMI Charts and Medical Records Police Report of San Mateo from 2008 Objection to Harassment Reports and Other Similar Tactics \Writ of Habeas Corpus for Children Detained By Other Parent THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - 48

You might also like