How Judge Lemkau set up a murder (Victorville, California)

Want to know how a biased, incompetent judge sets the stage for the murder of a helpless infant?

Read this partial transcript from the court proceedings held on January 21, 2010 in Victorville, California. The judge is Robert Lemkau. The plaintiff is Katie Nagle, the infant's mother, and the defendant is STEPHEN GARCIA, the infant's father (the name is misspelled as Steven below).

You almost need a calculator to keep track of how many times Judge Lemkau smears the mother as a liar. Note that he expresses no interest in examining any of her claims or looking at any evidence she may have had. His mind is made up, and that's that.

Keep in mind that after Ms. Nagle's request for an ex parte hearing was denied, Mr. Garcia murdered their 9-month-old son during court-ordered visitation.

http://photos.vvdailypress.com/files/multimedia/soundslides/Court.pdf

THE COURT: Number 2. Steven Garcia and Kathy Nagle.

MS. TAGLE: It's Katie.

THE COURT: Okay, Good morning, ma'am. I'm very concerned. You are Kathy Tagle and you're Steven Garcia?

MR. GARCIA: I am.

THE COURT: And you have an ex parte request calendered for tomorrow which I am advancing to today. One of you is lying, and I'm very concerned. You already have a Family Court Services appearance on February the 2nd; is that correct?

MS. TAGLE: February 4th is our mediation date and March 3rd is our next court date that you --

THE COURT: Okay. I'm inclined to deny your ex parte request. I feel that, if you're lying to me, ma'am, there's going to be adverse consequences. Mr. Garcia claims it's total fabrication on your part, but I'm going to deny ex parte basis and you have mediation and you're back in court. All existing orders remain in full force and effect. I urge you to work out your -- you have visitation plans. I'm going to keep all existing orders in full force and effect. Yes, sir?

MR. GARCIA: I'm supposed to get by son back today at 10:000 and so far I've not seen him in two weeks or have been able to talk to him.

MS. TAGLE: The police officer --

THE COURT: I'm denying your request, ma'am. I think -- there's insuficient evidence in my mind. Mr. Garcia claims it's total fabrication on your part that this is -- but I'm going to leave all existing orders in full force and effect which means the visitation previously ordered which you agreed to, you had an agreement for visitation, which was on December the 14th; correct?

MR. GARCIA: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. That's the order. That will remain in full force and effect. So he should have visitation.

MS. NAGLE: He didn't threaten to kill our son at that time, though and now he has.

THE COURT: Well, ma'am, there's a real dispute about whether that's even true or not. I'm going to deny ex parte basis. He claims this is a total fabrication on your part, that these email communications are total fabrication.

MS. NAGLE: He sent my mother a text message asking me to go the lake with him and Wyatt, and when I get home from work at 11:00 I have these e-mails saying that he's going to take his life and our son's life at the lake the next time he gets him, and if he doesn't do it that day, he will finish the job later and it says it in the story that he would kill our son with Benadryl, that he will put it in his juice bottle and kill him.

MR. GARCIA: Your Honor, I have a time line of all of the little stunts and games I'd like to show you that she's trying to keep me out of my son's life. She even brought her new boyfriend --

THE COURT: I'm going to deny it, ma'am. My suspicion is that you're lying, but I'm going to keep the custody orders in full force and effect. You're going to mediation, coming back to court. Okay. In any event your ex parte request is denied. Continue it to -- the next hearing is 3/1 and, sir, your ex parte request, I'm advancing it to today and I'm basically denying it as well, but I'm keeping all orders -- you had an agreement back in December. All orders remain in full force and effect, okay? Yes, sir.

MR. GARCIA: So it's my understanding you got my paperwork?

THE COURT: Yes, I did. I reviewed it and that's why I'm -- my supposition, ma'am, is that you're lying, but if I'm incorrect, you can always bring another ex parte motion but don't misrepresent the situation. If you're lying about this, there's going to be adverse consequences. My supposition is that you're lying. Yes, sir?

MR. GARCIA: Would you like the paperwork that I brought today?

THE COURT: Keep in in hand. In any event, so have your mediation date and come back to court. Okay. Thank you.

(Whereupon an adjournment was taken.)

Showdown in Shawnee County: We finally got some hell instead of corn (Topeka, Kansas)

"What you farmers need to do is raise less corn and more Hell."
Mary Elizabeth Lease (1853-1933)
Kansas political activist, suffragist, populist, writer, and lecturer

Not too many years ago, Thomas Frank wrote a book called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" where he wondered whatever happened to the spirit of progressive Kansas voices like Mary Elizabeth Lease.

After attending a custody hearing as a court observer in Shawnee County, Kansas last week, I can tell you that Mary's spirit still lives on--in Claudine Dombrowski.

Unfortunately, I also saw that the corruption and special interests that Mary railed against all her life are still with us too.

It's taken me a week to gather my thoughts together, because my experience as a court watcher was inspiring, maddening, frustrating, and revolting--all at the same time.

Claudine Dombrowski is a Kansas mother, a domestic violence survivor, who lost custody of her daughter to her abusive ex-husband, Hal Richardson, in an ex parte decision.

For those of you who are not legal experts, an ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. Basically we're talking about a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties.

In the United States--or so we're told--the availability of ex parte orders or decrees from both federal and state courts is sharply limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which provide that a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process of law.

In THEORY, this has been interpreted to require adequate notice of the request for judicial relief and an opportunity to be heard concerning the merits of such relief. A court order issued on the basis of an ex parte proceeding, therefore, SHOULD necessarily be TEMPORARY AND INTERIM in nature, and the person(s) affected by the order must be given an opportunity to contest the appropriateness of the order before it can be made permanent.

In REALITY, this has never happened in Claudine's case. The ex-parte hearing took place in 2004. Six long years ago. That's an huge piece of somebody's childhood. Since then, Claudine has been on supervised visitation although I NEVER heard Hal Richardson's attorney, Jason P. Hoffman, bother to articulate A SINGLE REASON AS TO WHY. In fact, Claudine has never been accused of or investigated for child abuse, substance abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, or any other abuse you can think of.

But more about that later.

The purpose of this hearing was to finally get Claudine unsupervised parenting time and to force the court to follow established Kansas law per Chapter 60, article 16. This states that a parent must be allowed "reasonable parenting time" unless it can be DEMONSTRATED that the parent is dangerous or somehow harmful to the child.

I've mentioned that I did not hear one single accusation regarding Claudine's parenting abilities, much less any evidence, even of the flimsiest sort.

So what did I hear? I heard utterly ALARMING AND FRIGHTENING attacks on Claudine as an outspoken advocate for victims of domestic violence and as a human rights activist. I saw an obsessive fishing expedition orchestrated by Jason Hoffman, who was demanding that the authorship of various domestic violence blogs and websites be publicly revealed--even ones that I know for a fact that Claudine has no connection with. As if being a domestic violence advocate was some sort of act of treason or crime against the state!

Where the hell are we? I kept asking myself. China? Burma? North Korea?

I also witnessed an obsessive line of inquiry as to whether Claudine had removed all references and photos of her daughter from the Internet. Through all this, Hoffman did not produce one piece of timely evidence to suggest that she had not. In short, another ridiculous piece of legal grandstanding.

Oh, and another thing. The specter of ALIENATION! Despite the fact that the father (and his cronies) had limited this mother to supervised visitation since 2004, and that the father had conveniently obstructed all visits since last summer, Hoffman had the nerve to accuse Claudine of being an alienator or potential alienator! Never mind that if ANYBODY should be labeled an alienator, it's Daddy Dearest. For me, this moment crystalized how the whole "alienation" label has become increasingly bogus with every passing day. That Daddy has shut off a child from contact with a non-abusive, fit, and loving mother isn't "alienation." That Mom might have some residual anger or frustration about the situation is. Horse patootie.

One other party in this scam deserves special recognition. Jill Dykes, who has been connected with this case as a guardian ad litem, showed that she was utterly incapable of even the barest appearance of professional objectivity. Throughout the entire hearing, she was literally at Daddy's elbow, sometimes whispering into his ear. This is neutrality? This is the best interest of the child? Though she objected to unsupervised visitation being granted, she produced zero evidence to support her position. There was something about a letter, not written by Ms. Dykes, but by somebody else who was conveniently unavailable for questioning or cross-examination. Such a coincidence. And even that letter was said to be quite old--didn't catch how old.

Generally, her reasoning came down to a distorted circle of pseudo logic: Ms. Dombrowski should be on supervised visitation because...she's been on supervised visitation. Not good enough, Ms. Dykes. Can you come up with better? Didn't think so.

It seemed quite apparent that Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Richardson, and Ms. Dykes thought they could play the same old games and get away with it. And maybe they would have.

Except in the audience, there were a half dozen observers from Topeka, Kansas City, and even out of state, who were scribbling down every word. Because all of us had heard about the blatant constitutional violations in this case, and all us had decided to bear witness to it.

I'll give credit to Judge David Debenham. Maybe he has seen the light, and realized what a legal travesty and constitutional outrage this case has become. Or maybe he just felt the heat, with all the court watchers present.

The end result is that he ordered limited unsupervised visitation. Just two hours on a Sunday to start. And the right to telephone twice a week.

But it's a start. And it's an opportunity for this mother and daughter to start a healing process that is long overdue.