The mail arrived very late on Friday, October 13, 1989. Around 6:30 P.M. we received a letter from the District Attorney's Office declaring that they were prosecuting my wife's youngest son for a very serious crime. This juvenile was not my natural or adopted child or my ward. Since I was married to the child's mother, I became unwillingly responsible for the legal expenses of the child and the child's parents.

The problem was that I was not aware of any arrest or police investigation. The accuser lived two doors away and there were other matters that I will introduce later. I called the police department in the latter part of August 1989 to report that someone had shattered the glass on the driver's side of my car. Also, I called the police after someone had left a threatening message on our residential answering machine. The substance of the message was "I want my money, you bitch ... I want my money ... I'm going to mess you up". The officers did not mention anything about an arrest or investigation. We then started to receive a number of crank calls and I had to change the residential phone number several times over the next seven months.

The first problem with Kathleen J. Geisser's letter is that it falsely stated that we were the child's guardians. In fact, her letter was not addressed to me or my wife. She addressed the letter as shown below - even the ZIP code is wrong.

The second problem was finding an attorney on short notice. Another problem was that the letter did not include the police reports or a notice of where we can view them for inspection and copying.

2004 California Rules of Court

Rule 1420. Prehearing discovery

(a) [General purpose] This rule shall be liberally construed in favor of informal disclosures, subject to the right of a party to show privilege or other good cause not to disclose specific material or information.

(b) [Duty to disclose police reports] Upon filing the petition, petitioner shall promptly deliver to or make accessible for inspection and copying by the child and the parent or guardian, or their counsel, copies of the police, arrest, and crime reports relating to the pending matter. Privileged information may be omitted if notice of the omission is given simultaneously.

(c) [Affirmative duty to disclose] Petitioner shall disclose any evidence or information within petitioner's possession or control favorable to the child, parent, or guardian.

(d) [Material and information to be disclosed on request] Except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h), petitioner shall, upon timely request, disclose to the child and parent or guardian, or their counsel, the following material and information within the petitioner's possession or control:

(1) Probation reports prepared in connection with the pending matter relating to the child, parent, or guardian;

(2) Records of statements, admissions, or conversations by the child, parent, or guardian;

(3) Records of statements, admissions, or conversations by any alleged coparticipant;

(4) Names and addresses of witnesses interviewed by an investigating authority in connection with the pending matter;

(5) Records of statements or conversations of witnesses or other persons interviewed by an investigating authority in connection with the pending matter;

(6) Reports or statements of experts made regarding the pending matter, including results of physical or mental examinations and results of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons;

(7) Photographs or physical evidence relating to the pending matter;

(8) Records of prior felony convictions of the witnesses each party intends to call.

(e) [Disclosure in section 300 proceedings] Except as provided in subdivisions (g) and (h), the parent or guardian shall, upon timely request, disclose to petitioner material and information within the parent's or guardian's possession or control that is relevant. If the parent or guardian is represented by counsel, a disclosure request shall be made through counsel.

(f) [Motion for prehearing discovery] On refusal of a party to permit disclosure of information or inspection of materials, the requesting party or counsel may move the court for an order requiring timely disclosure of the information or materials. The motion shall specifically and clearly designate the items sought, state the relevancy of the items, and state that a timely request has been made for the items and that the other party has refused to provide them. Each court may by local rule establish the manner and time within which a motion under this subdivision shall be made.

(g) [Limits on duty to disclose-protective orders] On a showing of privilege or other good cause, the court may make orders restricting disclosures. All material and information to which a party is entitled must be disclosed in time to permit counsel to make beneficial use of them.

(h) [Limits on duty to disclose-excision] When some parts of the materials are discoverable under subdivisions (d) and (e) and other parts are not discoverable, the nondiscoverable material may be excised and need not be disclosed if the requesting party or counsel has been notified that the privileged material has been excised. Material ordered excised shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court for review on appeal.

(i) [Conditions of discovery] An order of the court granting discovery under this rule may specify the time, place, and manner of making the discovery and inspection and may prescribe terms and conditions. Discovery shall be completed in a timely manner to avoid the delay or continuance of a scheduled hearing.

(j) [Failure to comply; sanctions] If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a person has failed to comply with this rule or with an order issued under this rule, the court may order the person to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, prohibit a party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, dismiss the proceedings, or enter any other order the court deems just under the circumstances.

(k) [Continuing duty to disclose] If subsequent to compliance with these rules or with court orders a party discovers additional material or information subject to disclosure, the party shall promptly notify the child and parent or guardian, or their counsel, of the existence of the additional matter.

Rule 1420 adopted effective January 1, 1990.

Former Rule

Former rule 1420, similar to the present rule, was adopted effective July 1, 1989, and repealed effective January 1, 1990.

Rule 1420, regarding Juvenile Court Proceedings, required Ms. Geisser promptly to deliver police reports to the child and the parent or guardian. This rule required her to make those reports available for inspection and copying. General rules of conduct required Mr. David W. Paulson and Mr. Michael E. Nail to ensure Ms. Geisser's compliance with the law. Yet, to this day, they have refused to follow the rule and obey the law. Concealing information is lying and obstruction of justice.

The accuser was a subject of the Juvenile Court and represented by the Solano County Public Defender's Office. Solano County hired an outside attorney without our knowledge and permission. He appeared at the first hearing and all I saw of him was his backside and a clipboard. Without introduction or discussion "Mr. Clipboard" plead the case and left. I never saw him again. So we had to hire a private attorney.

At the next hearing, "Mr. Clipboard" did not show and our attorney had not received the police reports. I tried to obtain the reports from the Vallejo Police Department and the Solano County District Attorney's office without success. Juvenile Court referee Shelly McEwen had a sharp exchange with our attorney about who was the attorney of record. McEwen maintained that "Mr. Clipboard" was the attorney of record and unbelievably then refused to cite "Mr. Clipboard" for contempt by his failure to appear. Our attorney became the attorney of record. We appeared many times between October 1989 and January 1990 without the benefit of the police and crime reports that the District Attorney's office refused to provide. Referee McEwen accused us of stalling when, in fact, the prosecutors were withholding evidence.

The District Attorney started to file motions to disqualify Ms. McEwen on December 11, 1989. This turned into a deluge when the District Attorney filed a "blanket motion" for the entire month of January 1990. Vallejo Times-Herald staff writer Aline McKenzie reported the bizarre nature of these disqualifications. Chief Deputy District Attorney Dave Paulson disliked McEwen for releasing a boy to the care of his mother. The boy allegedly stole $20,000 of school equipment and his mother was selling the stolen goods. If true, the boy and his mother were criminals. What Mr. Paulson did not seem to understand is that a mother encouraging her child to steal for her is wrong. While Ms. Geisser, Mr. Paulson, and Mr. Nail were filing or authorizing these motions, they were keeping police reports from us and our attorney. I now understand that this is a common illegal tactic that prosecutors employ that goes unpunished.

I obtained copies of the police reports in the last week of January 1990. According to one report, a male Vallejo police officer, Mr.Coffman responded to a call around 11:00 P.M. on 7 August 1989. When he arrived, he learned from the accuser, a teenaged girl, that the "assault occurred in February or March of this year." According to the Coffman report: the accuser, suspect, two teenaged girls, and a teenaged male "were all in a small white 12 foot travel trailer next to Sheldon's house."

The accuser's statement was not completely true for that specific trailer was parked in front (north side) of the Sheldon house in a narrow space between the sidewalk and the front porch. The only door to the trailer faced the street (north) in easy direct view of pedestrians, cars, and at least four homes.

The accuser lived one house away. She was acquainted with my stepson but the police report showed that all the physical features were marked 'unknown' except a mustache and height. My stepson did not have a mustache and the height was off by at least five inches.

Then the Vallejo Police Department gave the case to a female officer. The Celeste reports did not mention any medical examination, substance abuse, or antisocial behavior on the part of the accuser. Her reports fall far below the standard of absolute diligence.

Celeste reported that she interviewed the accuser on 9 August 1989. Celestre quoted that the accuser told her that "this incident occurred while she was in school, last year between Christmas and spring vacation." Then Celestre writes without explanation "She states this would be sometime between February and March, 1989 (sic)."

Then Celestre stated that "all five persons listed went into the camper located in [the victim's] back yard (sic)." That is a contradiction of fact and Celestre lied.

Celestre said that she spoke with Betty Sheldon. Betty Sheldon is the accuser's brother's wife and is not a eye witness in this matter. The Celestre spoke with Dorothy Sheldon who is not an eye witness in this matter. Dorothy Sheldon's statements are false and I know that they are false because I politely escorted her from the premises. The purported conversation did not occur. None of the reports mention a key witness, the accuser's step-mother.

Celestre waited nearly ten weeks to interview an eye witness allowing the accuser to contaminate a witness. This witness's mother believes that a member of the accuser's household raped her daughter and Celestre deliberately interviewed this witness without notifying her parents.

Celestre claimed that she personally interviewed my stepson. Only after I read her report did I connect Celestre to a mysterious call from a female purporting that she was employed by Child Protective Services. In the warrant request Celestre states that my stepson's height was 6 feet 2 inches when, in fact, he was between 5 feet 7 inches and 5 feet 9 inches tall). Celestre clearly lied. (please click here to see the warrant request). Her report, dated 081589, states that the accused "came over to her residence and all five of the persons listed went into the camper located in (V) ... backyard." (The omission is a name.)

We had a note from the accuser's father that suggested that he did not know that anyone had raped his daughter in March 1989 in his front yard while he was home. Click here to see his note to my stepson. We had a note from the accuser to my stepson mentioning nothing about rape but giving a phone number. Click here to see her note. Another note from her gave the address (730 Beck Street) and the phone number (707.425.9847) where he could contact her at ALDEA (a mental health facility) in Fairfield California.

I contacted the parents of two eye witnesses and they were not aware of any police investigation or that the matter was at trial. This fact, the police reports, and the false accusation astonished them. Both mothers and the witnesses recalled the occasion and rejected the accuser's claims. Both wrote letters to me and the court, rejecting the accusation.

This is what one mother wrote on March 1, 1990. The italic script indicates my substitution of my own words to protect the identities of the parties. The ellipsis indicates my omission of a name, word, or phrase that does not add or detract from her statement. I realize that the spelling, punctuation, and grammar is not right but I wanted to keep her words. She had difficulties using a typewriter. I will always remember her care and efforts on our behalf.

- - -

" My daughter swears ... that she did not see any of this ... take place. I have known the accuser since she was in the first grade this when my daughter met her at school. The accuser has since I known her, to be a troubled child.

My daughter hadn't seen the accuser for 5 years and the she started to hang-out with her and then I noticed a real change in the way she was dressing and her habits toward me and her school work too. "

"The accuser has on many occasions bragged of her sexual exploits to my daughter and others."

"My daughter remarked that the reason she might be doing this action is that the accuser is now worried about her reputation. I feel that the accused is unjustly wronged by the charges that have been brought against him, do to the facts that in the past the accuser's lying and deceiving has shown me"

This is what another mother wrote around March 1990. The italic script indicates my substitution of my own words to protect the identities of the parties. The ellipsis indicates my omission of a name, word, or phrase that does not add or detract from her statement. I realize that the spelling, punctuation, and grammar is not right but I wanted to keep her words. I will always remember her care and efforts on our behalf.

- - -

"I have known the accuser since 1985. My daughter ... and the accuser were friends and went to school together off and on since then."

"During the past year and a half I saw that the accuser was a very troubled girl. So many bad things happened when my daughter was with the accuser. I no longer let my daughter associate with her.

As a matter of fact, I believe a family friend of the accuser assaulted and raped my daughter in April 1989. The police could not get enough evidence to even make an arrest in the case. But the accuser's family friend has disappeared and never was questioned.

One Tuesday evening last March 1989 I went to my weekly bowling league. On the way there I dropped ... my daughter off a the accuser's house on Gary Circle 6:00 PM. After bowling at approx. 9:15 I went back ... to pick up my daughter. I knocked on the front door and the accuser's father answered my knock. "The girls are in the trailer" he said pointing to a very small house trailer in the front yard. The door to the trailer was ajar and I pushed it open. I remember seeing the accuser sitting on a bed smoking a cigarette. She was smiling and laughing. I left immediately with my daughter. I was upset as I do not like teenagers smoking."

"My daughter has read the police report and has told me that the accuser is making these charges up."

The mother of the girl that Celestre coercively questioned believed that a member of the accuser's household raped her child. The police did nothing. The police ignored the rape of a 14 year old girl and then played a significant role in the fabrication of a false charge.

When our attorney presented the mother's letters to the court, prosecutor Alan B. Robison, told the court that the investigation of the case was adequate. He said the mother's letters were unverified despite the fact they had two weeks to authenticate them. Robinson demanded that the court send my stepson to jail and specifically noted my efforts (these letters) as a reason for his demand

The probation report written by John C. Isaacson, Deputy Probation Officer, and approved by Supervising Deputy Probation Officer, Walter J. Irwin was nothing but pure fiction. When statements were contrary to what the accuser said, this officer dismissed them and lied. Click here to see one of eleven pages of Isaacson's report.

Isaacson lied that my stepson was arrested on August 8, 1989. No one arrested him. Instead of acknowledging their errors, the Vallejo Police Department, the District Attorney's Office, and the Solano County Probation Department continued maintain the falsehoods of the individuals in their respective agencies. All insisted that the police arrested my stepson. One year and ten months later, on December 29, 1992, Mr. Michael Robak, Chief Probation Officer for Solano County, wrote "there is no indication that your step son was cited or arrested in this matter". Click here to see that letter.

The court terminated its jurisdiction in July 1990 after commenting that this was an unusual proceeding. The Vallejo Police Department and the Solano County District Attorney's Office continue maintain their self-proclaimed veracity in the matter. No one but they support it.

A Minor Child's Legal Rights

California defines the age of majority as 18 years unless the child still in high school, then the age of majority is upon graduation or the person's 19th birthday whichever occurs first. Other states have similar and other definitions of the age of majority.

Minor children are not entitled to trial by jury or bail. All juvenile court trials are conducted by a judge. If a child is taken into temporary custody by a law enforcement officer, including detaining the child for questioning, that officer has a duty to notify the child's parent or guardian. According to California Welfare and Institutions Code 627, any public employee who willfully deprives a child of their civil rights is guilty of a misdemeanor. Civil rights violations are also punishable under United States Federal law.

No one can interrogate a minor child, who may be a witness or suspect in what is or may become a criminal proceeding, out of the presence of the child's attorney. If the child does not have an attorney, he or she may request their parents or a child advocate to insure that interrogation is proper and the child is not subjected abusive questioning. The interrogation must tape recorded without editing and the child and the child's parent are entitled to have a true copy of that recording.

Before an interrogation begins, the law enforcement officer is required to inform a minor child that anything the child says can be used against the child and that the child has the right to remain silent, have an attorney present during interrogation, and if the child's family cannot afford an attorney, the child has the right to have a court-appointed attorney. However, in some jurisdictions a court appoints an attorney only after charges have been filed and a hearing takes place.

All juvenile court trials in California must be conducted in strict compliance with California Rules of Court 1420. Failure to comply is a civil rights violation of United States Federal law.

Note: Procedures change from time to time. For further information, please contact the Judicial Council of California (California Courts Self-Help Center) directly or through their web site.

Law enforcement, the county prosecutor, and the courts used a girl: who drank, used drugs, and bragged about her sexual adventures. She was adept at using people and getting others in trouble. Her rages were so violent that she broke windows in her home and managed to put holes in the walls. These walls consisted of several layers of plaster reinforced by a steel lath. Her condition was so severe that friends had to take her to a mental health clinic in Fairfield for emergency care.

Instead of considering her documented substance abuse and violent rages, officials decided to support her lie. What she learned after so-called therapy was that the rape word is the passport to freedom. She was one angry wild child, a time bomb ready to explode when it suits her.

In her note to my stepson, she wrote "I'm madly in love with you." He said no to her and she took revenge through her own false accusation - my way or no way. Celestre's reports are pure fiction and are typical of dictatorial feminist doctrine.

I recall a case from several years ago when a female falsely accused a man of rape. This female and her sisters were running a rape scam to extort money from the accused and the State under the victims of crime law. Yet, the prosecutors were so egotistical that they ignored their duty to seek the truth. The prosecutors were and remain extortionists bent on having a winning record, without regard to the cost to the falsely accused and their families.

This true account depicts how low people will stoop to gain a false conviction. Many people who have civil and prosecutorial immunity lied. Mr. Nail became a Superior Court Judge. Mr. Paulson became the county District Attorney. His office still practices racism and misandry and continues to attack others who uphold justice and the law.