Junk Justice

This page was last updated on Thursday, October 29, 2009.

Opening Remarks

Hilda and I married in 1982 and our marriage was uneventful until November 1984 when Hilda erupted with no reason. Hilda was then 49-years-old and I thought she was suffering from the effects of menopause. Physicians at Family Doctor Medical Group treated her for this and other conditions.  He youngest son, Jaime, would graduate from high school in June 1990 and he expressed his desire to enlist in the Navy.  Jaime had some problems but never with me, Hilda was far less than a loving mother and I saw how it affected him.

One day in 1988, an ambulance took me to Washington Hospital in Fremont, California.  My condition was so precarious that the attending physicians had to perform several procedures to stabilize my heart beat.  Instead of coming to my side, Hilda decided to go shopping.  Hilda would have received a paid mortgage and more than $100,000 in life insurance proceeds upon my death.  However, the malicious activities of a feminazi cop and prosecutor usurped my decision made in July 1988 to divorce Hilda in August 1990.

Borderline Personality Disorder - Hilda displayed the traits of a person with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Individuals with this disorder have episodes of impulsive aggression, self-injury, and substance abuse. Hilda abused aspirin and exhibited bruises upon my returning from a working assignment. She killed harmless animals and stole property. Hilda spoke of suicide and she thought she had a brain tumor. She bought an edition of Final Exit, a book on assisted suicide that she kept in the living room and rejected professional help.

Hilda's False Accusation

Every Sunday, while between jobs as a contract programmer, I bought a copy of the San Jose Mercury News.  Local sources did not carry this newspaper but a 7-11 store and a bookstore in Concord California did carry Sunday issues of this paper.  At that time, the Mercury News was the only newspaper in northern California that carried comprehensive listings for hardware and software engineers and computer programmers.  On Sunday, June 13, 1993 Hilda became enraged and falsely accused me of all sorts of things including that I had a lover in Concord California.  The fact is that I did go to the 7-11 store across the street from the Sun Valley Mall in Concord and purchased a copy of the San Jose Mercury News.  I stayed away from her for the rest of the day and did not return until around 3:00 A.M. on June 14, 1993.

I got up about 7:00 A.M. and started a job search using the Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Sacramento Bee.  About 11:00 she was out watering some plants.  She found me working in the basement office and became enraged.  She then followed me into living room screaming and flailing "I am going to control you, . . . (obscenity deleted)!" There she was, the consummate actress.  She started the argument and then assaulted me.  I told her to sit on the sofa and try calm down.  Suddenly, she grabbed for a canvass painting above a sofa and pulled it down onto her face.  The painting had a very light wooden frame and she easily broke the frame and then ripped the canvas in a fit of rage and sobbing at the same time.  I gave her an ice pack.  I did not call the police because of their institutional preference for a female's lie rather than the truth.

The Conspiracy

She did not call the police since the neighbors probably knew what had happened.  Instead, she called her second son Roberto, then a man about 35-years-old.   About ten minutes or fifteen minutes later, I realized that I forgot to take my heart medication. This medicine is used in the treatment of abnormal heart rhythms and high blood pressure.  So I went to the upper portion my home to take the medicine.  When I entered the kitchen from the garage, she stood by the refrigerator blocking the way to my medicine.  Someone attacked me from behind.

Hilda and Roberto left the house together in his car.  More than four hours later they went to the Vallejo Police Department with the story that I battered her.  The front sheet of the crime report (93-13196) shows that gap of more than four hours between the time she said that I assaulted her and the time she contacted the police. That was sufficient time to contrive a story.  The report narrative of 93-13196 by T. Lee confirms the Vallejo Police Department's institutional preference for a female's lie rather than the truth. Finally, Lee wrote "I asked if she wanted to file charges or place (S) Nunes under arrest but she said no."  There is no evidence that Lee confirmed Hilda's complaint by sending her to a medical facility for testing and observation.

The police report states that her birth date is October 4, 1935 (100435) and her age is thirty-seven.

However, her birth date is October 7, 1935 and her age was fifty-seven.  A copy of our marriage certificate is shown below.  I erased some parts to protect the privacy of others.  Throughout the marriage she had the habit of lying.  She used several last names during our marriage - Duenas, Nunes, and Subauste and two birth dates: October 4, 1935 and October 7, 1935.  Eventually, she wanted me to celebrate both birth dates each year.

I went to the hospital for an injury to my hand and a police officer spoke to me.  He did confirm that Hilda contacted the police.  He said to the effect that I should contact the police department if I discovered other problems.  Wells Fargo honored one of my checks on June 15, 1993.  But on June 16, 1993 I discovered that my business account was no longer in my name but in hers. Although I did business with Wells Fargo for fifteen years, they treated me very badly and refused to explain how my business account was now in her name.

Trusting the officer's word, I went to the Vallejo Police Department about my business bank account on the afternoon of June 17, 1993 and they arrested me for battering Hilda. They only relied upon her unquestioned word.  The arresting officer never accounted for the four-hour time gap nor questioned why she was with another man.  The arresting officer called me a liar.

This accusation came from a police department that undisputedly engaged in factual prevarication.  Shortly after my arrival at the Solano County jail,  another Vallejo police officer and a female deputy sheriff came to my cell and verified my identity.  They were puzzled and asked why I was there.  I told them that I didn't know why I was in jail except that the police accused me of beating Hilda.  The sheriff's deputy said that they have a missing person's report concerning me and there were no warrants for my arrest.

On that same day (June 17, 1993), Commissioner David Haet held an ex-parte hearing with Hilda.  Her application was a straight lie from a radical feminist's cookbook.  She implied among her other lies that Roberto lived in my home and that the restraining order should include Roberto.  Haet issued a temporary restraining order (F003237) based on her lies and soon after Roberto Duenas moved into my home with Hilda.  On Saturday, June 19, 1993, the Vallejo Times Herald published a log stating that the Vallejo police arrested me on June 17, 1993 at 10:30 p.m. and gave my home address.  The arrest occurred in the afternoon at the police department and not at 10:30 p.m. at my home.

The Civil Complaint (F003237) - False accusations of child abuse and child molestation have been common in divorce proceedings.  False accusations of spousal battery are now common because they are so easily contrived.  On July 8, 1993, I appeared and Haet did not show himself for that matter.  Instead, he hid in his chambers and did not want to hear the truth.  Ms. Joanne S. Taylor, my wife's attorney, and I met in the hall outside the courtroom.  During that meeting, Ms. Taylor served the divorce papers (F003455) and presented three fake Polaroid photographs of Hilda. Ms. Taylor attributed what the pictures depicted to me and threatened lengthy litigation.. 

Ms. Taylor admitted that someone took the pictures a week after the incident. However, no one said when and who took those pictures. A marking pen and some makeup could produce the same result. Hilda had a certificate in cosmetology and worked as a cosmetician in Peru. Also, she was a Certified Nurse Assistant licensed in California.  What I saw on the late afternoon of June 14, 1993 was a saddle mark at the bridge of her nose that was too perfect and could have been produced by some makeup and a thumb and finger rather than the broken picture frame.

I asked Mr. William L. Crow to represent me in the matter. Ms. Taylor showed the pictures to Mr. Haet and Mr. Crow. Mr. Haet called the case and the matter of F003237 was consolidated within the dissolution of marriage F003455. The result was, that Mr. Haet evicted me from my home and handed over my home and possessions to Hilda and Roberto. I had to pay the mortgage, utilities, and make other payments.

The order falsely stated that Hilda pay me $1,500 when fact was I paid her $1,500 and I have the canceled check to prove it. Someone altered this order after I signed it.  David Haet is known to alter orders after the fact and other men have confirmed his behavior.  A false claim of domestic violence is as easy to contrive as this phony court order.

We had two more hearings in July and August 1993. These August 19, 1993 orders reaffirmed parts of the July 8 and July 20, 1993 orders. It gave me exclusive use of the office in the lower portion of my home and stated that Mr. Crow would provide Ms. Taylor copies of the family's financial records. After I signed the August 19, 1993 orders, someone changed it. A cursive script appears on all written parts but someone printed "Restraining orders are revoked" on the papers after I signed them.  On July 8, 1993, the California mutual standard restraining orders, came into effect. These orders, among other restraints, restrain the parties from "transferring, encumbering, hypothecating, concealing or in any way disposing of any property, real or personal, whether community, quasi-community or separate, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life."  That false material alteration to the August 19, 1993 orders nullified any protection of my separate property and my share of the community property.  Hilda  never obeyed the mutual restraining orders or any part of the other orders. She and Roberto stole my mail and retained the bills and mortgage statements, demanding that I pay cash to them. They entered my office and harassed me, making it impossible for me to work.

About The House - My home had two floors.  The main floor has two bedrooms, a full bath room, a living room, a dining area, a full kitchen, and the garage.  The basement contained the utility space, laundry room, half bath room, tool room and my office.  All four sides of the home were illuminated by motion detection lighting.  There are no internal passages between the upper portion of the home and the basement spaces.  The entrance to the basement is at the rear (west side) of the home and that door was secured by a keyed door lock, a keyed dead bolt, and a separate alarm system.  The basement office is within the basement.  The entrance to this area was secured by a solid core door, a keyed door lock, a keyed dead bolt and a separate alarm system.  The main garage door on the east side of the house was secured by a slip bolt and a common alarm system.  The secondary garage door on the north side of the house was secured by a solid core door, a keyed door lock, a keyed dead bolt, and a common alarm system.  The main entrance door on the east side of the house was secured by a solid core door, a keyed door lock, a common dead bolt, a keyed dead bolt, and a common alarm system.  The kitchen door controls passage between the kitchen and the garage.  It is secured by a solid core door, a keyed door lock, and a keyed dead bolt.

Hospital Stay - From October 1992 until November 1993 I suffered from severe pain due to kidney stones and gall stones.  Veteran Administration physicians sent me to the VA Hospital in San Francisco on November 1, 1993. I stayed a week recovering from jaundice from a duct blocked by infected gall stones.  During that stay, I received a letter from Ms. Taylor through Mr. William Crow.  Hilda and Ms. Taylor made several false accusations and attacked my mother. Hilda worked the Pillar family in Vallejo and received unreported income from that source. Hilda falsely claimed that my mother and I had a similar arrangement.  Then Hilda claimed that I had entered the upper portion of the home without her permission. The upper portion of the home had a separate alarm system and I didn't have the keys to the locks to that part of the house. Hilda also complained that I had changed the locks to my basement office. Why was she trying to enter my office? I decided to return the properties that belonged to my client before Hilda and Roberto could steal them.

On November 16, 1993, Roberto had some of my personal items and tools strewn in and about his car at my home. They had entered my office and took some items and tampered with equipment. I took what I could, including papers required for this matter. The adjoining tool room was a mess.  During this, I saw him smirking with my video camera recording the event.   I wrote to Mr. Crow that I would return my client's equipment on November 18, 1993 and I did not want any distraction with continued photography and recording. When I returned that Thursday, Hilda and Roberto were furious and called the police. When the police arrived, I showed the court orders and a company official and I showed the inventory papers that included descriptions and serial numbers. One officer implied that he would arrest someone, and that meant me, upon additional complaint.  Later that day, Roberto went to the Department of Motor Vehicles and, without possession of the car's title, replaced my name with his on my car's registration. Subsequently, I had to pay the fines that accrued due to his deception and the Department of Motor Vehicles' incompetence.

False Civil Contempt Action (111412) - The Court scheduled several hearings scheduled in the spring of 1994. Ms. Taylor filed a contempt action against me and I made several appearances without being heard. When I appeared for a hearing in April 1994 and learned that former District Attorney, Mr. Mike Nail, would hear this matter, I requested his disqualification for prejudice.  Then I received a misdemeanor complaint (111412) from the District Attorney's Office on or about April 19, 1994. It stated that I disobeyed a restraining order.  How was this possible when restraining orders are revoked?  Once the Summons and Petition for Dissolution of Marriage have been filed with a Superior Court in California, the mutual standard restraining orders, come into effect. These orders, among other restraints, restrain both parties from "transferring, encumbering, hypothecating, concealing or in any way disposing of any property, real or personal, whether community, quasi-community or separate, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life."  The problem was that I remained within the law and the authorities did not.  They altered the papers and then acted with malice toward me.  If restraining orders were revoked, how could I disobey an order that does not exist?  If they did exist, then why later did the police and District Attorney fail to arrest and prosecute Hilda and Roberto vandalizing and selling my home and stealing my property?  This is a clear example of institutional misandry.

Falsified Audio Video Transcript - The audio video transcript of the hearing held on Thursday, May 12, 1994, in case number F003455 is not an accurate, complete, or true account. It is a fabrication, to conceal the truth of what happened that day.  The tampering with this tape is an act of corruption and the destruction of public property.  The county replaced court reporters with audio video recording systems in the early 1990's. The courts banned litigants and the public from making their own audio and audio video recordings. The judges operate this system to create an audio video transcript that we expect to be an accurate, complete, and true account of a hearing.  I received a copy of the audio video transcript of the May 12, 1994 hearing from Solano County in February 2000. It had unacceptable image quality, missing segments, and additional segments depicting events that did not occur. A representative at Jefferson Audio Video Systems, a firm that makes court room recording equipment, suggested that I purchase another tape.  I received that copy from Solano County in March 2000.

The technical problems with the tapes are:

1. The video portion of the recording never showed a large readable fiduciary wall or desk clock to prove its authenticity as an accurate, complete, and true account of the hearing. This made it easier for those who controlled the recording to taint the integrity of the audio video transcript.

2. The time-stamp in the video portion of the recording exhibited 'ghosting', a reflection. This shows that the time-stamp signal and image signal are not in step, that is, not synchronized when someone recorded the composite video image frames. No honest and discerning person would accept or provide such a product.

3. Segments that should have appeared in the transcript are missing and segments that did not occur are now present in the transcript.

4. The recording exhibited poor image resolution such that facial features were indistinct but the audio portion was clear. That is, a person could not correlate what they heard with the blotchy facial movements depicted in the transcript. Poor image quality of this kind is always deliberate.

I arrived about fifteen to twenty minutes ahead of the scheduled time. Mr. William L. Crow, Ms. Joanne S. Taylor, and I briefly met in a law library near the court room. Among the few items we discussed was a letter. She said that Hilda said that I gave the copies of the letters to her. That was a lie. These are the items, I confirm.

• Mr. Haet and the attorneys spent considerable time trying to figure out the reason for a hearing. They did not know what they were going to do that day.

• Mr. Crow said that I had attention deficit disorder. That statement appalled me.  I do not have attention deficit disorder.

• The tainted transcript includes segments that did not happen. It falsely depicts my confirming that I had attention deficit disorder in response to Mr. Crow's question.

• Ms. Taylor lied when she complained that I had not complied with pre hearing discovery regarding income and expenses. I made all the requested information available for inspection and copying seven and to ten months before.

• Hilda and Ms. Taylor did not provide any documents relating to her accounts and the accounting of monies. Mr. Crow's letter to Mr. Gamboa relates the reason for that.

• Ms. Taylor pointedly complained that she did not have my accounting of monies. Mr. Crow reached into his brief case and handed her a copy of the report. That scene is missing from the transcript.

• Ms. Taylor presented a forged letter from a business named Incorporated Computer Services, dated November 21, 1993, requesting routine information from me. I remarked that:
• The letter was dated on a Sunday when most companies are closed.
• The letter did not have a return address, phone number, or fax number.
• I could not find the business and the letter was a forgery.  The segment about Incorporated Computer Services is missing from the court transcript.
   
• I had remarked that I had not received my mail. That passage is missing from the transcript.

• Ms. Taylor had a copy of a letter from Intranational Computer Consultants, dated December 14, 1993, requesting an updated resume. Not only did Ms. Taylor and Hilda were creating phony letters, they were intercepting and stealing legitimate mail to me, hindering my efforts to find work. The forgery and the legitimate letter were a part of a letter to Mr. Crow from Ms. Taylor dated February 3, 1994. It took six years to obtain Ms. Taylor's letter.

• At one point, Mr. Haet noticed that Ms. Taylor and Hilda had failed to complete some papers. He completed the papers himself, an ethical breach.

• The tape shows Hilda testifying that she was working for a Vallejo family for a brief time and had not worked for them before. In fact, she obtained Nurse Assistant Certification (CNA 319463) from the California Department of Health Services in 1990 and then started working for a Vallejo family. As of October 30, 2001, she continues to work for this family. Though she lied, the court took her word and did not allow me to testify about my knowledge of this matter.

• Then came the issue about what happened on November 16, 1993. Mr. Crow and Mr. Haet did not want to hear my testimony because the District Attorney's office had filed a criminal charge against me. The assumption was that the District Attorney's Office could review my testimony. I had no problem with telling the truth but evidently others did. My testimony would have brought grounds to charge Hilda and Roberto and no one wanted to hear that.

• Mr. Haet and Ms. Taylor questioned me extensively in several matters. Mr. Haet and Ms. Taylor questioned me about my efforts to find work. Hilda, Taylor, and Crow sat smugly in their seats knowing that she stole my mail that included offers of interview and employment.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mr. Haet questioned me about the 1992 tax filing. Hilda had hid the papers I needed to file the 1992 tax return and refused to sign the tax extension. That occurred in April 1993. I could not complete the 1992 and 1993 returns because Mr. Crow and Hilda had the papers. Nobody allowed me to testify to these facts.

Audio video transcripts can be very powerful tools and far better than a court reporter's paper transcripts. Those who tamper with transcripts conceal the truth and the public has the right to know the truth.  Several other veterans claim that David Haet has tampered with their papers after the veteran signed them.  In David Haet's court, with the District Attorney's long standing approval, misandry and concealing the truth is standard procedure.

False Criminal Charges of Violating a Restraining Order Dropped - After the May 12, 1994 hearing, I received a copy of criminal complaint (111412) from Mr. Crow. Hilda and Roberto filed a false police report on November 16, 1993. Nobody seemed to care that not only was Hilda using multiple surnames and birth dates, October 4, 1935 and October 7, 1935. Those birth dates appear on the police reports and she had been using both since 1988.  The District Attorney's complaint referred to court orders that had been superceded by others or that had ceased to exist. The complaint included the altered August 19, 1993 orders that falsely stated "restraining orders are revoked."  So instead of determining who added to the order, the prosecutors falsely accused me of violating an order, though I was in full compliance of an order that did not exist. This was clear harassment. The District Attorney's Office dropped the complaint in June 1994.

Bifurcated Dissolution - I sought a bifurcated dissolution in August 1994 through Mr. Crow and another judge granted it. The result was I was no longer married to Hilda and other issues such as property division and support remained open. Ms. Taylor no longer represented Hilda and Mr. Elias Gamboa became Hilda's attorney of record later in 1994. In a letter, Mr. Crow clearly stated that he did not require that Hilda and her attorney show anything.  Mr. Crow had abandoned the case and refused to return my papers. Despite my desire to resolve this matter, the attorneys and the court refused to allow a hearing.

The Wreckage, Plunder, and Involuntary Sale of My Home - About mid January 1996, I received a letter from Placer Title Company requesting that I sign an "inter-spousal deed and zero demand." The sale of my home was closing and I contacted Mr. Crow. He made some calls and late on January 29, 1996, Mr. Crow, Sandy Palomino (Hilda's realtor), and I entered my home at 209 Gary Circle. Mr. Crow expressed shock and promised to take action, this after fourteen months of inaction. Mr. Crow lies a lot.  My keys did not fit any lock in the home. The house and grounds were a wreck and Hilda and Roberto removed most of the property. Furnishings, fittings, and cables were missing, damaged, or replaced with inferior material. The premises were filthy with dirt, feces, grease, oil, mildew, garbage, trash, and stains. Mr. Crow called Mr. Gamboa who then filed a paper removing himself as Hilda's attorney of record.  Hilda and Roberto (I suspect others) broke into my office and took my equipment, tools, and software. What they left was mostly unsalvageable or obsolete. They stole the dehumidifier and disabled the sump pump. This is my office before I left (top) and after they allowed me to return (bottom). The dark marks on the walls and the door is mildew.

I kept the home in very good condition. I used brass fittings in the bathroom and brass protective security panels on the door locks. Rectangular lighted switches controlled interior lighting so that no one had to search in the dark for a light switch. Motion detectors controlled lighting on front porch and all sides of the house. Ground fault interrupters protected the bathroom, kitchen, laundry area, and outdoor outlets. I kept the front and back areas neatly trimmed and trash free. Click here to see the front (top) and back yards (bottom) when they allowed me to see the property. The Hilda and Roberto stole or destroyed the improvements.

The next photographs show our living room (top left). I always wanted to put a painting on that open wall above the sideboard. Another photo of my office appears at the top right. At the bottom right is a photo of the bathroom. They took all the oak fittings and cabinets, save for one towel bar. They replaced the polished brass faucet set with a cheap assembly. The wall has a patched hole left of the light switch. The combination exhaust vent-heater-bathroom light is damaged and is smoke stained indicating the someone else was living in my home with Hilda and Roberto. They replaced the decorative illuminated light switches with common toggle switches. They removed the protective ground fault interrupter outlet with a standard outlet creating a hazard.

The Veteran's Administration sent me a letter that included the Federal Collection Policy Notice. I could do nothing more than a sign the papers resulting in the sale of my home. Placer Title Company who became Chicago Title Company would not have anything to do with me. I signed the papers at the Solano Association of Realtors building at 1302 Springs Road in Vallejo, California. I never received the papers I was entitled and had to get them myself and through Mr. Weintraub.  A lien had been placed against my home for the emergency room treatment I received on June 14, 1993, this about which I knew. The California State Franchise Tax Board had placed another lien for not filing a 1992 tax return. Since Hilda and the attorneys had the papers and forms, I could not file a return. Hilda changed my mailing address again and removed my name from the voters' registration list.

After Mr. Crow saw the house he did little more than accept the information and pictures I presented him. Mr. Crow had already abandoned the case and refused to return my property and papers. The Vallejo police department did nothing and it took three months before they accepted a report. The District Attorney, the Courts, and Mr. Haet did nothing.  I turned to Mr. David Weintraub to represent me in late December 1996. The process started over. He wanted me to find Hilda and that was not my responsibility. Mr. Weintraub filed papers in October 1997.   The Presiding Judge, F. Paul Dacy, removed the matter from the Civil Active List on October 15, 1997. The reason given was that the "Petition not answered by the Respondent" [sic]. The Petitioner, Hilda, brought the matter with false claims and is the party who acted in bad faith. I am the Respondent. I answered Hilda's petition in July 1993 and continued to press the matter.  This is the judge's declaration and I am the Repondent.

Finally, the Court clerk scheduled a hearing for January 20, 1998. Hilda and her attorney, Mr. Elias Gamboa, did not appear. Mr. Haet refused to call the hearing and set a default hearing for April 13, 1998.  Then Mr. Haet decided to change the hearing to a trial.  Mr. Weintraub called me Sunday, April 12, 1998 to discuss the case at length. He wanted a considerable amount of money for the next day's hearing. In the early morning hours of April 13, 1998, doctors treated me in the emergency room at David Grant Hospital. This treatment was for a condition resulting from stress, atrial tachycardia, and panic disorder. Later that morning, I appeared with Mr. Weintraub and Mr. Gamboa.

Mr. Haet mentioned that he required Mr. Gamboa to appear because Gamboa did not give my ex-wife's current address on his withdrawal notice filed February 6, 1996. The address that Mr. Gamboa stated in his withdrawal notice was, legally, Hilda's current address.  Mr. Weintraub remarked that this was a default hearing and Mr. Gamboa acknowledged that fact.  The record had said so but Mr. Haet decided not to continue with a default hearing even though Hilda failed to appear making me the complainant and the petitioner but I was treated as the respondent with Mr. Haet acting as her apparent attorney.

If it were not for me bringing my own records, this hearing could not have occurred. Mr. Weintraub questioned me regarding what I presented to him. Again, Mr. Haet questioned me extensively.  Mr. Haet refused to accept my estimate of what my home was worth.  I said it was worth more than $98,000 and it was probably the only home in the area that had a basement, home office, tool room, toilet facilities, a laundry, ground fault interrupters, and up to date grounded wiring with circuit breakers that exceeded the highest standards.  The garage was used as a sewing, recreation, and exercise area.  The loft above the garage was empty but could be converted to another bedroom.

Mr. Haet refused to accept that my only part in the sale of the home was signing papers under duress.  This after he and the police allowed Hilda and Roberto to sack my home and move to another location.  Mr. Weintraub prepared the after hearing order and sent the paper to Mr. Gamboa for his signature. Mr. Gamboa refused to sign the papers and I had to purchase the video tape record from the courts. I made two copies, one for Mr. Weintraub and one for Mr. Gamboa. I received a copy of the signed order in September 1998.

Subsequently, I underwent two extended emergency room procedures, one triage care, and one hospitalization that September. I was very sick with many medical problems brought on or made worse by the stress I experienced.  I received my papers and property from Mr. Crow and Weintraub, toward the end of 1999. I bought two copies (February 2000 and March 2000) of the May 12, 1994 audio video transcripts and discovered that someone had altered the transcript. The court was to endorse a check for me and it did not.  The cost to appear and have the court sign the check is $450.  I have complained about the court's conduct from the beginning but no one sees anything wrong with officials falsifying orders and transcripts. I lost my home and possessions due to the misandry and corruption in our courts.  That is why I have titled my account "Junk Justice."

Edward S. Nunes

End of Page