X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                                 
Message-ID: <5463833A.4090102@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 07:56:42 -0800
From: Richard Childers <fscked@sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/10.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jessica.ppmrentals@gmail.com
Subject: Restraining order denied - for now.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

TL;DR: PPM has no one to blame but itself if its failure to participate 
in the legal process results in more problems.


For reasons best known to himself, Monday's judge - in Department 8, 
talks with a whisper, some sort of impediment, hard to understand - 
denied the restraining order.

So there is no reason not to expect more incidents - or worse.

I told the judge we'd be back. Because if Richard Henson corners me and 
there are no witnesses, he's not gonna turn on no charm for me.


Interesting side note: After I handed the judge a terse two-page-long 
chronology of events, with a few photos attached of the smashed 
windshield, the large stone, and the dew-covered Henson vehicle, it was 
stamped, as received, with a date, and a time ... but for reasons 
unknown to me, the judge RETURNED these stamped materials to my custody.

Based on prior experience with a similar situation I was involved in, a 
few decades ago - involving another judge, another county, another case, 
and a similar, well-written description of forgery in a court document, 
where the judge refused to touch the document ...

.. I think the judge was deliberately leaving the materials I had 
submitted out of the case file - so that he, the judge hearing the case, 
Monday, would not be challenged by his superiors (that would be the 
Presiding Judge of Humboldt County Superior Court, whom he obviously was 
not), or by any of the legal technicians whom handle the case files, 
become acquainted with the content, and discuss the specifics, off the 
record, amongst themselves ... weighing the merits of the various judges 
.. for refusing to grant the request for a temporary restraining order.

I was unable to return the document to the custody of the court because 
the Records office closed early, Monday ... but I plan to return the 
document to the case file, today - as well as communicate with the 
Presiding Judge about the matter.

I'm not sure who the Presiding Judge is but I suspect it would be the 
elderly gentleman whom handled the matter, the week before, and whom 
continued it to the next week, so that Mr Henson would have an 
opportunity to respond.

Had the judge before whom we appeared, Monday, two days ago, been of a 
similar mind, he would not have rushed judgement; nor would he have 
returned the materials upon which he based his judgement to the control 
of the parties involved in the disagreement.

That is all highly irregular.


In closing, I do not actually know that the restraining order has NOT 
been signed.

My experience with Humboldt County's judges, thus far, has been to 
indicate that the hearing continues, after it ends, and that, sometimes, 
as a result of these unofficial deliberations, that rulings change, 
between when they are spoken, and when they are committed to writing.

(This is ALSO highly irregular. So it goes.)

And so it wouldn't surprise me if, later, the TRO got signed, anyway, or 
the TRO got signed, by someone else, after the judge left the building - 
if there was anyone who felt strongly about threats of sexual assault, 
say, and whose job was to sign documents for the judge, anyway.

So I'm going to take a wait-and-see attitude about the actual order.


Regards,

~richard