STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION
A Statement of Disqualification is a request by a party for the judge to either consent to recusal or answer the accusations of bias. If the judge does not recuse herself, SHE MUST ANSWER and explain how those facts do not make her appear biased. Judge Alksne has used an Order to Strike three times to get out of having to answer Cindy's specific accusations. An order to Strike is only to be used when a litigant does not provide legal grounds for the complaint. However, Cindy does provide legal grounds, so Alksne striking it is fraudulent and has caused an obstruction of justice. Because the Statement of Disqualification was submitted before the hearing, the hearing on Sept. 29th should not have been held and any orders are void.
[Note: This document is being posted via the Friends of Damon's organization, who have visited Cindy. It is not a completely accurate replica of what was filed with the Court.]
VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION
I, Cindy Dumas, Petitioner, in pro per, hereby challenge Judge Lorna Alksne for cause pursuant to C.C.P. Secs. 170.1 through 170.5.
THE LEGAL GROUNDS FOR THIS STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION ARE:
1. Judge Alksne was automatically disqualified on July 23, 2011, as she did not properly consent, answer, or strike the Statement of Disqualification filed within 10 days as per CCP 170.4.
2. A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that Judge Alksne would be able to be impartial.
3. Judge Alksne has shown clear bias towards me in my role as a pro per.
THE FACTS WHICH SUPPORT THE LEGAL GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION ARE:
1. Judge Alksne did not properly consent or answer the Statement of Disqualification which was filed on July 13, 2011, within 10 days [Exhibit A]. She is, therefore, automatically disqualified as of July 23, 2011. A new judge needs to be appointed immediately.
2. A person aware of the facts, including recent facts, might reasonably entertain a doubt that Judge Alksne would be able to be impartial.
From ex parte transcript, Sept. 14, 2011:
Petitioner: Will Damon be able to testify about the abuse?
Court: No, we are talking about him right now.
It is not only an appearance of impartiality here, there is actual and blatant bias. To once again exclude critical evidence favorable and exculpatory to Damon and me, while allowing Respondent’s evidence and witnesses is a violation of our due process and there is no way we can get a fair hearing. Aso, it does not make any sense that the court stated she will only allow Damon to “talk about him” not about the abuse, since that is about him, and is at the core of why Damon is in hiding, is the reason we are in family court, and the reason for all actions I have taken.
At the opening of my ex parte request for an emergency change of custody to me on Sept. 14, 2011, Judge Alksne addressed Respondent directly just after appearances, with regards to Damon running away and being in hiding for over two months:
Court: Mr. Moelter, it is almost like the court has run out of ideas.
Petitioner: May I present my ex parte?
Court: No. Have a seat Ma’am.
I am talking to your client, Mr. Henrich [opposing counsel].
I don’t know what to do. He doesn’t want to come back to you. I tried everything I could possibly do.
This is at the very least an appearance of bias and impropriety. Judge Alksne is speaking directly to Respondent at the opening of my ex parte, seemingly apologizing to him for not being able to get Damon to live with him. She is obviously only concerned about getting Damon to live with Respondent, seemingly oblivious to Damon’s wishes, who has been in hiding for over two months.
From this dialogue it appears as if there has been some sort of deal between the two in which Judge Alksne is apologizing directly to Respondent for not being able to carry out her job of getting Damon back to him. This is not the first time. She did the same thing after Damon ran away last year as well. If she were impartial, she would be concerned with why Damon ran away and what would safeguard his health, welfare and safety. Damon is letting everyone know by running away, he still wants and needs to live with me and visit his father when he feels safe and wants.
The fact that Judge Alksne says she’s run out of ideas makes clear what she has previously stated on the record: that her only intention has ever been to get the kids to Respondent and now she’s out of ideas about how to proceed to achieve that goal. She is clearly not capable of looking at new facts and making new evaluations. She is set in her goal rather than in doing what is in the best interest of the Minor.
Judge Alksne is correct in saying that she has done everything to get the boys to live with Respondent. She has acted in accordance with Parental Alienation theory, a well-documented legal strategy used primarily against women who report abuse. This theory is the epitome of gender bias. Consistent with the theory, she took the boys away from me, falsely accusing me of being an “undue influence” and “danger” without any credible evidence of that. Also, in line with the theory, she placed the boys with friends of Respondent’s while they were sent to “reunification therapy”, where undue influence actually was used to get them to recant the abuse and submit to living with their father. [Exhibit Reunification Therapy].
Meanwhile, I was placed on supervised visits to protect the boys from my supposed “alienation”. Finally, after years of this torture, when their bond with me was sufficiently damaged and their will to fight to get back to me virtually broken, she placed them under the full custody and control of Damon’s named molester, the goal of the Parental Alienation strategy. Only one problem: Damon’s will has not been broken. His running away proves that he is still willing to do whatever it takes to get back with me.
This is a serious problem in a biased Court which espouses alienation, because the alienation cure for kids like Damon, who refuse to submit to living with their identified abuser, is to further torture them with loss of their protective parent and often send them to camps to finish the job of silencing and breaking them with physical torture as well as psychological. Judge Alksne and Respondent have already suggested sending him to one of these camps. And “alienating” mothers like me who continue to fight to protect their children are often found in contempt and thrown in jail. That makes it imperative that Judge Alksne is disqualified NOW, before she can do any more damage to Damon or me.
Another show of bias is that Judge Alksne is currently implying I “abducted” Damon.
Court: “Maybe you came in [Respondent’s house] and took him for a visit and never brought him back.”
Court: “I understand the Child Abduction Unit is looking for him.”
Opposing Counsel: “We don’t think so your Honor, unless you set it up.”
With no evidence whatsoever and before any evidentiary hearing, she is implying that I abducted Damon when he clearly ran away. She claims that maybe I came in and took him from Respondent’s house and the Child Abuse Abduction Unit was on our case. There is no evidence of this and it is completely irrational, as it is not possible for a mother to abduct a 5’10” 15 year old. Any rational, unbiased person knows that if a 15 year old wanted to get back to his father, he could. It is clear that she continues to put the blame on me even when there is clear evidence to the contrary. And she lied about the Abduction Unit: Carol Snyder confirmed there is no case, therefore she is trying to intimidate me. This shows she is outside her bounds as judge.
Further evidence of bias comes from due process violations against me which favor the Respondent. Judge Alksne has forced a short set hearing for Sept. 29, 2011, giving me no time to prepare for it. It was my ex parte and I did not ask her to short set a hearing. Further, Respondent called an ex parte on Sept. 22nd but did not give proper notice to me, so I objected the day before to Counsel and her saying I must be told specifically what will be requested at the ex parte as per Rule 3.1204. Judge Alksne, in violation of the Rule, allowed the allowed the ex parte anyway and granted Respondent’s request for a companion matter and witness testimony which will be used against me. The testimony is intended to support Respondent’s claim that Damon is in hiding because I am responsible for Damon running away due to some version of parental alienation, as he stated in his declaration. However, JA stated at the ex parte that she will not allow Damon to testify to the sexual abuse, which is the necessary rebuttal to claims of PA, i.e., if Damon was abused then our actions and speech are reasonable, not a result of PA. PA is now well-documented gender bias and any judge using PA to dismiss children’s reports of abuse and give custody to the child’s named abuser, needs to be removed. It is inadmissible and disallowed by American Psychiatric Assn, American Psychological Assn., the National Council on Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the ABA, the NDAA, and others.
In response to my request for an emergency change of custody, JA said that she could not make any custody orders at the ex parte as per FC 3064. This is false. The court can make emergency custody orders if the health, safety and welfare of the child is in jeopardy. Both opposing counsel and I have asserted that is the case.
JA short set a hearing unilaterally at my ex parte with the purpose to bring Damon back, not to listen to him or give him a fair hearing.
Court: Mr. Henrich, I am trying to bring the minor in from the outside. That’s the primary goal of the court is to get him here, to have him have an opportunity to see his dad…
In her continued zeal to get Damon to live with Respondent, Judge Alksne seems to have missed the point: that Damon, at 15 years old, is in hiding from his dad. His goal is not to get back with him, but to get back with me. This demonstrates that Judge Alksne clearly is biased against Damon’s wishes, welfare and safety. Further, it shows that the hearing set for Sept. 29th is not legal. It was my motion and I did not ask for a hearing shortening time. She just set it herself. This disadvantages me as I do not have time to prepare a case, and anyway, since she is not allowing evidence of the abuse, I do not have a case.
Evidence: Judge Alksne has said she cannot make a decision about temporary custody without Damon here. That is false. She dismissed the only recent evidence available, which is the letters and video Damon has made in hiding, and is ignoring the consistent evidence of years past with Damon saying he does not feel safe alone with Respondent and wants to live with me. [Exhibit letters] She claims that they are “hearsay.” However, it is not hearsay that he has run away from Respondent. Damon being in hiding simply confirms that he still feels that way. To dismiss that evidence is prejudicial.
Judge Alksne is clearly embroiled in this case. She should have recused herself a long time ago, but seems to be fully invested in helping Respondent maintain full custody. She likely hates me for causing negative publicity. This case is high profile and has gotten a lot of media and internet attention which makes her look bad. She has continuously told me to take the SavingDamon.com website down. There have been a number of campaigns in support of Damon. Recently there was a rally at the Appellate Court against the use of Parental Alienation theory to take children away from protective parents and give custody to abusers, in which she was mentioned as having used it to give Damon to his abuser. [Exhibit press release ] At the same time, I also despise her for not listening to or protecting my son and for taking them away from me and me away from them. I will actively protest again if my children are not set free, and this will enrage her more and, more importantly, erode the public’s faith in the judicial system. She has continually retaliated against me by denying me a normal relationship with my children and effectively terminating my parental rights and if allowed to stay on the case will assuredly continue to retaliate.
This, along with the history of documented historical bias [Notice: Petition for Writ to Disqualify Judge Alksne (available on SavingDamon.com)] and more recent comments and events expounded on below, is clearly enough to establish an appearance of bias. With the enactment of Sec. 170.1, a party seeking to disqualify a California judge for cause is no longer required to prove that the judge is actually biased.
3. Judge Alksne has also shown clear bias against me in my role as in propria persona. She takes advantage of me not knowing the laws and she treats me disrespectfully. At many ex partes, she has not even let me speak. The last two ex partes are a good example of bias. The one I filed, she misquotes and misapplies laws (see above), knowing I am not able to respond immediately. She completely ignored my objection to opposing counsel’s ex parte and held it anyway (see above) when he violated the Rule for giving notice. She knows I am at a disadvantage as a pro per and takes full advantage of it. She obviously favors “real” attorneys.
A person aware of the facts of this case would easily entertain a doubt that Judge Alksne would be able to be impartial. This is not only theoretically true, but there are thousands who have signed petitions and written emails to protest Judge Alksne’s handling of this case.
Judge Alksne has not answered past Statements of Disqualification, merely striking them falsely accusing me of not stating legal grounds. Therefore, this time I have put the legal grounds and the facts that support the legal grounds in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS, so she cannot get away with that again. That is why I am also serving this on Presiding Judge Kenneth Enright and D.A. Bonnie Dumanis who will hopefully provide some oversight in this very serious case of a 15 year old minor being forced to live with the man whom he says sexually assaulted and threatened to kill him.
I am also cc’ing this to Chief Justice Tani Sakauye and Attorney General Kamala Harris and Bonnie Dumanis who are now aware of the bias which exists in family courts against women and children who report abuse. They will be involved in reforming the courts so that what happened to Damon and his brothers will hopefully not happen to so many other children.
In Damon’s case, there is at the very least the appearance of bias, although I would argue with all the violations of laws and rules, which favored the Respondent and disadvantaged Damon and me, that there is actual bias as well. There is no way Judge Alksne has been, is, or will be impartial in this case and should, therefore, be disqualified.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
September 28, 2011 ___________________________________
Cindy Dumas, Petitioner