Vacating Daniel T Brice for corrupt violations in Orange County - Still Active Breech of Fiduciary Duty resulting from Civil Rights Violations in Orange County Court System that still

7/28/2019 Vacating Daniel T Brice for corrupt violations in Orange County - Still Active Breech of Fiduciary Duty resulting from

1/17


2/17

:. .To : The Honorable Judge Daniel T. BriceOrange County Superior Court - C659 /2112002Re: King vs. King- 98-D003818

This is an informal request for you to voluntarily reconsider your decision on 9/20/02. Itis mycontention that your decision must have been a judicial oversight as the decision to dismiss mycase was done even though:1) The Motion filed was signed on 9/16/2002 4 days prier to the court date of 9/16/2002.Therefore the motion filed failed to meet the deadline as prescribed in:

CCP. 1005(b). - Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all movingand supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 21 calendar days before thehearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filedor to be filed with the court "All papers opposing a motion so noticed shallbe filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least 10 calendar days, andall reply papers at least five calendar days before the hearing. "

Additionally there is no local protection of this failure under Orange County Rules ofCourt:

Rule 703(E) Time Limitations: Responsive or supplemental declarations, memorandaof points and authorities and other documents in support of a position shall be filed inthe department where the OSC or motion is set and served on the appropriate parties orcounsel not less than 48 hours (two court days) prior to the date and time of hearing.The court may allow responsive declarations to be filed at the time scheduled forthe hearing, however upon a showing of prejudice to the other party, may permita continuance if requested.

Respondent filed a "Motion in Limine" and a responsive. Motions require filing "At least10calender days" prier to the hearing. This motion could not be heard on 9/20/02.

2) These papers were served to 223210 Harbor Ridge Ln. apt #2, Torrance Ca. 90502 as myAddress of record is 22320 Harbor Ridge Ln. #2, Torrance Ca. 905023) I was not served "conformed endorsed-filed copies of allof the moving papers" as

required. I was not served a financial declaration nor copies of his paystubs. I have no wayof knowing ifthis was actually filed or not.


3/17

4) Respondent's motion for relief was filed in a "Motion in Limine" and added an accusationof a frivolous action that is a separate motion and is not a response seeking affirmativerelief under Orange County Rules of Court 706(c).

5) Respondent claims that he was not personally served. Respondent has failed to file amotion to quash service of summons and has:a) "By seeking relief other than as provided in CCP 418.10,418.11 or FAM.C. 2012,respondent makes a general appearance and submits to the court's personal jurisdiction

in the action. "The voluntary appearance of a defendant is equivalent to personalservice of the summons and copy of the complaint upon him" (Code Civ. Proc., 416)"b) The motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court was without

jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action amounted, substantially or in legal effect,to a demurrer to the complaint on that ground. At all events, a motion to dismiss on theground of want of jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action necessarily calls forrelief which may be demanded only by a party to the record. Ithas been uniformly soheld, as logically it could not otherwise be held, and, furthermore, that where a partyappears and asks for such relief, although expressly characterizing his appearance asspecial and for the special purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over hisperson, he as effectually submits to the jurisdiction of the court as though he hadlegally been served with process."

[Crabtree v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.2d 821].c) Respondent was served called me on xxJxxJ2002 and statement I can't believe that youare trying to put me injail. He appeared in court on August 30th 2002, with attorney

Grainne Ward and offered to pay children's psychological evaluation ifI dropped thecontempt case. Further he agreed to postpone the existing case to trail the contempttherefore further demonstrating 'Jurisdiction" and knowledge of the service and motionby executing his rights against self-incrimination and due process.

6) Respondent states in his motion "Petitioner merely states of total amount due". My "OSc.And Affidavit for Contempt" pg. 2 states reasons and refers to the pages relevant in theaccompanied chronicled "King vs. King-Evidence inSupport". There are typographicalerrors that should be amended.a) For failure to pay his 12of the joint tax obligation it should read- pgs. 2,13-25.b) For failure to pay support 6 11 5/0 0, 7 /0 1/0 0 - pgs. 2,3,11,12c) For failure to pay support ordered on2/21 /02 by Judge Brice - pgs. 28-31


4/17

The accusations are exact and documented. The page numbers were typos. Thedocumentation in support is enormous and includes the copies of garnishment receipts fromemployers of partial payments, a list of all checks, missing arrears, and checks from hispersonal account. In fact the checks are written by him and include the support datesthey cover he prove conclusively that payments are past 30 days late andautom atitally a vio lation of contem pt. H e h as siened these checks and th ereforealready has testified against himself. Pg 29-31

7) Petitioner is requested sanctions against me while he has abused this system. His choice toattain an attorney in the 11th hour is evidence ofhis lack of "Good Faith". He hascurrentlyfailed to respond to the motion in a timely matter and has thereby denied methe time prescribed to prepare myself properly. As I am in "Pro Per" this is multipliedlOx. Further he is accusing me of being frivolous and harassing h im. I in no way, amharassing h im and I have continually attempted to resolve this issue for the last three yearsby asking himto pay what he owes and agree to the correct amount of support as statuteshave prescribed. I am at a huge disadvantage but I intend to exercise my rights to the bestof my ability and the fullest extent guaranteed by the Constitution, Legislators, andJustices. He is further seeking ridiculous sanctions in the amount totaling $13,000 from a"Pro Per" for mailing a copy of my motion instead of having it personally served.

8) Respondent has declared on pg. 2 of responsive declaration 9116/02 that all supportpayments have been made and are documented in Petitioner's evidenceaccompanying her contempt action." This was signed under the penaltv of contempt.

a) Pgs 29-31 of this documentation clearly shows that, April 2002, May 2002, June2002, the payments were a minimum of30 days late. That is3 instances ofcontempt.b) Itfurther documents that the 7/1/2002 and the 7/15/2002 payments have neverbeen paid. This is another contemptc) The Respondent has declared his own contempt in his declaration and if he

refuses to testify he has convicted himself.

9) Respondent further says I said in open court "that no back support was due".a) I stated in open court "Not at this time" when the judge asked ifI was pursuing any

other arrearages. I never did say respondent doesn't owe them.b) On 7/6/99 Respondent agreed to retroactive support in the amount of$687.5 twice amonth. After failing to pay the difference as agreed I had to obtain on order togarnish respondents wages.c) This order stated 10 months of2 payments of $38.83 payments. There wereonly 18 of the 20 arrearage payments made. Payment due 6/1/2000 was short


5/17

and payments due 6/15/2000 and 7/1/2000 were never paid. The garnishmenttook longer than expected and he accrued additional arrears that were not on theorder but were still due. There was a standing order often months of payments andrespondent only paid nine.

d) Therefore from 6/1/2000 every month until support was abated (September27th 2001) or for 16 months respondent failed to make his court orderedsupport payments and is therefore in contempt every month. 16 additionalaccounts of contempt

10) Declaration #3 - " The order on 7/6/99 regarding tax obligations was paid by garnishmentof my portion of the divided 401K in 1999"d) The order dated 7/6/99 is the equalization of assets and debts but at no point does it

credit respondent with paying $6228.33 of taxes.e) In fact the equalization contains an error in math that incorrectly denied me

$1718.80 that was due to me.f) This statement supports the fact that he has made no payments to our jointobligation and has forced me to pay all cost including $8140.00 of hisobligation. The academics are set forth on pgs. 13-25.

11) Declaration #4 -" I did not fail to provide Petitioner with my employer's name address andphone number"

g) "At the time of the petitioner's request on 5/22/00, I had not started work - Oneweek after I started my new job I called Petitioner's mother and gave her the newemployers name address and phone number." As of 5/19/2000 Respondent hadreceived final compensation from Toshiba. This means not only did he havefull knowledge of his new job he also had given Toshiba some kind of two weeknotice. This contradicts the innocent complying demeanor of this statement.Further, it took my lawyer to find respondents job.

h) "Petitioner's request for employer information on 12/15/01 could not befurnishedas1was not employed until 12/191011ttempted to call Petitioner however 1wasunable to speak to her. " Respondent has my cell phone, home phone and workphone and has reached me to exchange the children. "1inally gave the informationto our son Blair on 111102." His responsibility is to give it to me. Respondent'scredibility is non-existent as respondent specifically told our son "Blair" that hewould be in trouble if"mommy find out I have ajob" This was told to my motherwhile she was watching "Blair" during his Christmas break while respondent wasworking. I found out where he worked only after Grainne Ward sent proof of hisjob just days before court date of 2/21102. This is a perjured statement as I didn'tknow until January about h im having a job and kept quiet to keep my son fromgetting in trouble until I found out who he was employed by from Grainne Ward.


6/17

Also we have directly exchanged the children since September so the statementregarding being unable to reach me is another ridiculous lie.

Based on this evidence presented I all of the respondent's motions should have been denied withprejudice as further attempt to suppress evidence can only impede justice. I attempted to expressthis in court and you wouldn't listen to me.

I am absolutely terrified of you. You have the ability to take my children away and denyme justice. I was in court when you told a lady that if she cares about her children that she cannotafford not to have an attorney. You further gave her a date and told her to be sure she returned withan attorney. On 8/26/200230 seconds before I went in front of you, you made a comment to theattorney's in court that" The Appelettejudges that believe it is the right/or people to representthem selves need to com e and sit in the court and deal w ith the 20 little m esses that I have to deawith every day. " I understand your frustration as I can easily see how much time can be wasted,however it is my constitutionally guaranteed right to self-representation and taxpayer money paysour judges to provide.an atmosphere and forum for judicial equality for all persons Pro Se or not. Iam not trying to insult you or attack you in anyway.

If you would take 10 minutes and look at the document entitled" King vs. King -EvidenceinSupport" you will see without a doubt that I have support money owed to me, have been deniedaccess to money I have worked for, have incurred thousands of dollars in attorney bills trying toget what was rightfully mine. You have punished me for not having an attorney and have rewardedhim for disrespecting this court's orders by giving h im an advantage that further impairs my abilityto afford an attorney. I have tried to have an attorney and have incurred $20,000 in attorney fees.Respondent makes $80,000 per year plus options and bonuses I make $25,000. I didn't choosenot to have an attorney I was forced not to. Ifthis court had forced respondent at some timeduring the last two years to pay his arrears of over $4000 and his tax obligation of over $8000that was taken from me I would have a lawyer. Further I have incurred over $8000.00 inattorney fees trying to get $2000.00 in arrears.

Ifmy take home is about $1800-2000/mo and I am paying rent, car insurance, utilitiesand supporting 2 children how can I afford an attorney when the court still after 2 years hasnot addressed my arrears. I cannot afford my own health insurance. He has not had to payhis support that he owes and can afford to pay three attorneys and agree to pay $4,000 -$6,000 to a psychologist friend of his attorney to recommend the removal of my child frommy home. I am trying to survive and he is buying Hi-Definition Big Screen Televisions.

There is no reason that Grainne Ward needs to talk to a "Independent" evaluator of mychildren's needs. That person needs to assess my children, their father, and myself only. GrainneWard's input can only skew the process in her favor. In an attempt of "Good Faith" I agreed to usetheir evaluator on the simple condition that she was not allowed to talk to the evaluator. This wasdenied


7/17

Respondent is a verbally abusive and controlling person with a lot of charisma so he doesn'tappear so. I help to support him from when he was a telephone installation person and I made moremoney than him. He advanced in his career to an excellent position. He wouldn't allow me toreturn to school to become a RN as he didn't like the idea of me making more money than him. Iwasn't allowed to drive and didn't get my license until 1999 after my divorce at 29 years old. Idivorced him in this court to alleviate myself from his control and yet he controls my life andmy finances more now than ever.I am not uneducated and have not pursued anything frivolous or un-merited. I have notembarrassed this court and have provided basis for my case. I have purchased the $400 CaliforniaPractice Guide - 2002 and am paying $80/week to have access to "Find Law" to help me attemptto protect my rights and access case law an rights. I have not insulted you or the integrity of thiscourt yet I am being punished with decisions. I am in Pro Per and I know you don't want me tobe. You told me at least 10 times in court" That why you need a lawyer". Please allow me tofail and loose my case on the merits, rather than decisions that I hope are "Judicial Oversights" andnot what appears on face to be "biased".

If this has not been simply a "Judicial Oversight" a person would be forced to question iftherewas any type of preferential treatment being provided to an attorney who has served as "Judge ProTern" inthe court, and was running for a Judgeship inthe Orange County Court. Respondent hadtold me before that I can't win as Grainne Ward is personal friends with most of the judges inthiscourt and has served as a judge. I hope this insight of the respondent is was a lucky prediction ofthe outcome and not some sort of admission to more of the unethical conduct of his attorney basedon some type of agreement or knowledge of relationship currently unknown to me. However thereare issues that must be raised ifnot an oversight.1) Grainne Ward is able on September 27th 2001 to get an order abating support to a pregnantmother supporting 1 child and about to start her maternity leave without ever having amotion filed or served anybody during a court date that has been agreed to be continuedby all parties.2) Grainne has preferential treatment and continually talks to the judge in chambers about a casewhere there is no representation there for the "Pro Per" person.3) Where this same attorney has lied to the court regarding a "Threat" that never happens.4) My attorney makes statements to me that the judge believes that I should be working more

than 36 hrs. per week- I should be working 40. - I haven't been involved in this conversationin court.5) When my attorney tells me that the judge has had difficulties with me yet I have followedeverything the court has asked and respondent has violated orders and stipulations on atleast 30 different occasions.


8/17

6) When Grainne Ward's client is in arrears and everyone in the court knows it, has violatedalmost every order this court has made, and the presiding judge dismisses the case withprejudice for the contempt that everybody knows he is guilty of This case is dismissed forimproper service yet this motion it is guilty of a more numerous and more seriousinstance of improper service. Yet all of my legitimate, statute guaranteed, case verifieddefenses against the dismissal are ignored.

7) Why is it important that the attorney is able to speak to the "Independent" evaluator. Thereport should be submitted to the court and the court should use it on it's merit or allow bothparties to view what the independent evaluation is. Grannie Ward and I are in adversarialposition as she nearly caused the death of my child, she has lied time and again to thecourt, and made negative comments to the last evaluator. I don't understand why she wasthere the last time stating that I"Allegedly was the custodial parent" as this is more of herunethical behavior. Ilso don't understand why she needs to say anything to the nextevaluator - Ion't have kids with her, they don't live with her and her input is only negative.My motion to have her not speak to the evaluator is denied.

8) When we were in court on Friday, Grainne Ward made a comment to you attacking a letterwritten to by me to Perry that she gave you. She stated ''that it was disturbing". Ion'tunderstand how the court could have in its possession a copy of a personal letter written onthe previous Saturday to respondent and we were in court together and there was never arequest in open court to enter this letter into evidence into the record. Yet you replied''yes Iave a copy right here in front of me". How does evidence get to the judge this way?Where is my due process?

9) Why has this court still not addressed his obsession with guns and his attempt to retrieve gunshe has been compensated for. This type of behavior only solidifies my position as to theobsessive behavior that coincides with all the things that have happened in this case

1 0) Why has Respondent never been forced to provided proof of income in two years of courtwhen Orange County Rules of Court 702(a) requires compliance with C.R.C.1225(b)and 702(c) requires three pay stubs State and Federal tax returns, and his W-2. Hisemployment letter states he gets $80,000 per year plus 40,000 shares of the company in 33installments and health is paid by the company yet he claims $80,000 as his income (66671mo.) This is just under the change in calculation inthe support calculator and does notinclude his shares in a $250 million company and he is given a $250 credit for healthinsurance. I can't even afford health insurance.


9/17

Pro Per litigants are supposed to be held to a lower standard than the attorney counterparts,How am I being held to a higher one. The purpose ofthis court is to provide justice and a balancethis has not existed in this case due to the aggressive and unethical conduct of respondent'sattorney.

With respect I ask that you re-consider your decision and either re-instate the case as a"Judicial Oversight" or dismiss it without prejudice. Further this case is inherently sensitive andyou have made it clear that you hate doing "Pro Se" cases. Also I respectfully ask that youvoluntarily recuse yourself from this case and relieve yourself of this "Pro Se" litigant as I willnot lay down to Respondent or Grainne Ward any longer and will do every legal thing availableto protect my rights, keep my children, recover money that belongs to me, an find an equitablesolution to this abomination of a case.I seek resolution and your question incourt about why we don't just agree to keep the childrenseparated as they are is a valid question and would be answered ifyou would listen to the CD you

refused to admit in evidence. Itis what we agreed to, except he wanted to use his attorney to bullyme into accepting $400 per month in support "or I will take both fucking kids away fromyou." As you can see by the calculation in record that is still below the correct guideline, $400 isway below the California guidelines of what he should pay. And for this the case continued sinceSeptember last year.This case is about money, control and the abuse of power that superior financial positionprovides. Ithas nothing to do with the children.

W th Regards,


10/17

F anily L aw Public W o o - P rint R egister Of Action Pa ;}e5 of 6

ROA Docke t F i l ing Fi l in g Par ty Do cum en t SeIDate143 O ed crati on-U ni form C ustody 08120 /200 D ienne M . K ing 2 pages1 1 4 4 1 Proof Of Servi ce-Other 08/23/200 D ianneM . K ing es145 Proof Of Servi ce-Other 08123 /2002 Diame M . K ing 1 pcges

P roof O f S avice By Mal-F amily 08123 /2002 Dtame M . K ing 1pcges gawNotice-Ooc Continua1OO 08 /2812002 Minor Children 2paJeS IBy D9 /20 /2002 3pcges09 /20 /2002109 /20 /20021

This Date 09 /20 /2002. 09 /1312002 D ianne M . K i n909 /13/2002 DimneM . King~ 09 /20 /2002 Perry R . King09 /20 /2002 Perry R. KingRespons ive 000 T 0Osc-Domesti c 09 /20 /2002 Perry R. K in9( ViolenceProof Of Servi ce-Other 09 /16 /2002' Proof Of Servi ce-Other 109 /16 /20021Proof Of Servi ce-Other 09 /1612002 DimneM. KinProof Of Servi ce-Other 09 /16 /2002 DianneM. K ing

Minute Order Reassignment Re IN ST AN T O RD ER - N O C OU RT1010212002 R EC US AL D EM AN D D fU VE RE DInventory ChCJ 1ge 9/24 -MARKED 104M oti on-Other 09 /20 /2002 Perry R. King

Proof Of Service By Mal-Family 09 /20 /2002 Perry R. KingL C M fMati on-Other 109 /20 /20021 Perry R . K ing 2pcge;Motion-Other 0912012002 Perry R King 2p~es

MinuteOrder-Continuoo By 10 /08/2002StipulationRE lCIS Snment -I nventory \N oD ocumen1D

Proof Of Service By Mal-Family DianneM. K ing 1pcgesLawM iocellCI100US Document Diame M . K ing

Noti ce-C onti nuance Perry R. KingMinute Order Conti nuCllce 1 P C ) d e s

Affidavit-Other DiameM . KingResponse'Repl -Other D ianneM . K ingRespons ive Oed aati on Perry R . Kin

esponse-M oti on Or Opposi tion Depatment Of Chi IdSu port Savi ces

https:llocapps.occourts.orglfcmpub/P ri ntR oa.do 9 /27/2012


11/17

128585A IT OR N f' (O R P AA lY 1 fT HO UT A nO R NE YO R GOVERNt. '. EHT , tL J r rGEN :: ' f ~ ~WtM.'!nIl Code, FOH COUNtU:'l: ~'l '(K 11475.1, U4782J (NMIJfI. slal&beI'lXNnbw, ...-d.ct:te.uJ:r RANDAL L K. RUP P 165774 RUPP.AW OFE'ICF.S 01" RANDALL K.RANDALL x. RU?P910 WEST 1 7T I I STRE8T #"SANT1~ ANA, CA. 92706Ta.PHONENO, (714) 542-2000 FAX NO.:An(RNE.Y fOR (NanmJ: Pe r r y fL King, J r .SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA. COUNlY OF ORANGE 1

5TREET ADDRESS: 341 THE C:J TY DRI VEIMIUNG AODR.I!SS: PO 30X 14170 I IanANDZiP CODE : ORl\NGE, Ch. 92663 - l 570 I

B R AN C H N AM E : I,AI10Rr,;J.I.UX J US TI CE CSNT ERPETITIONERIPlAINTIFF: DTf,N'IIF.: KTNG

RESPONDENTIDEFENDANT: hRI {Y t{ KlNG, J R.OTHER PARENT:

CAS NUO


12/17

e eSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANCEMINUTE ORDER27-SEP-2001Dept: L60JudgeJComm: DANlEL BRlCEBailiff: LES VANDERKOLK

Convened at 08:30;00Clerk: JOANNE SCHWARTZReporter: STEVE PAY, CSR 7034

Case Category:Case Number:

DC980003818

DISSO WITH ClllLDKlNG yKING

Event: 248 ase RE CHILD SUPPORT,CUSTODY,vrSIT, OTHER ...FILED 09-13-00 BY 02255 OSC RE MODIFICATION CHll.D SUPPORT, A/F, OTHER ...FaED 09-01-00 BY 01

APPEARANCES:ATIORNEY FORRESPIDEFf G RAINNE W ARD-LAW OFFIC ES OF

IN OPEN COURT AT 9:20AM.ORAL DISCUSSION HELD.COURT GRANTS RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL'S MOTrON TO CONTINUE.HEARING CONTINUED TO:Event: 248 OSC RE CHILD SUPPORT,CUSTODY,VISIT, OTHER. ..

FILED 09-13-00 BY 02255 ose RE MODIfICATION CHILD SUPPORT, A/F, OTHER ...

FILED 09-01-00 BY 01Date: 16-0CT-Ol at 08:30:00 1..60COURT ORDERS CHILD SUPPORT ABATED PENDING THE tQ...16-01HEARING.RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL INFORMS THE COURT THAT RESPONDENT HAS LOST

#13 JMS

ENTERED: 27SEP200 1

SfP 28 2001


13/17

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANG EMINUTE ORDER30 -AUG-200 l

Dept: L 69 Convened at 08 :00:00Judge/Comm: D AV ID S . W EINB ER G Clerk: D OR OTH Y O KUTSUBailiff: D AV E ER IC KSO N Reporter: DEB RA C AD IZ ,C SR 9076Case Category:Case Number:

DC98D003818

D ISSO W ITH C HIL DKING V KING

Event: 248 O SC RE CH I LD SUPPORT ,CUSTODY ,V I S ITATIONF IL ED ON 9 /13/00 BY R ES PONDENT255 OSC RE MO DlF IC ATIO N F IL ED O N 8/1 /00 BY PETITIONER

APPEARANCES :PETITIONERRESPONDENTATTO RNEY FO RRESPIDEFT

DIANNEKlNGPER RY KINGG RAINNE W ARD LA W OFFICES OF

HEAR ING CONTINUED TO : DEPT L 60Event: 248 OSC RE CH ILD SUPPORT,CUSTODY ,V 4"Date: 27-SEP-Ol at 08 :30 :00 \ _ L ....I I, 0 f f ZOe. \ \ c a . . . . . - r QlAec.-. ,~IN DEPT L 64, PETITIONER 'S MOTION TO C ONTINUE IS D ENIED. " i . " MATTER TRANSFERRED FROM DEPT L 64 TO DEPT L 69 FOR TODAY 'S HEARING.STIPUL ATION TO C OMMISSIONER DAV ID W EINBERG AS TEMPORARY JUDG ES IG N ED BY P ETIT IO NE R AND C O UN SEL F OR R ESP ON DEN T.

INO PEN C O UR T.COUNSEL WARD PRESENT FOR RESPONDENT .BOTH PARTIES PRESENT AND SW ORN.

A U G 3 1 Z 0 0 1

COURT HEARS F R OM P ET IT IONER .


14/17

30AUG20oi 98D003818 2of2

COURT HEARS ORAL ARG UMENT.BOTH PARTIES V OIR D IR ED BY THE COURT.COURT APPO INTS , PER FC 3150, ROBERT BERG EN TO REPRESENT THE MINORCHILDREN .COURT FINDS IT IS INTHE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO APPO INTC OUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE CH IL DREN.EACH PARTY IS TO PAY COUNSEL BERG EN $500 AS A D EPO SIT FOR HISATTORNEY FEES SUB JEC T TO REAL L OCATION AND FURTHER FEES .APPO INTMENT OF COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE MINOR CH ILDREN SIG NED ANDF IL ED THIS D ATE.COURT FURTHER ORDERS COUNSEL BERG EN TO PREPARE A STATEMENT OFISSUES AND CONTENTIONS AND SERV E A COPY ON AL L PARTIES AND COUNSELAND FILE WITH THE COURT PR lOR TO THE NEX T HEARING.COURT MAKE.s NO CHANG ES TO THE CURRENT ORDER S.MATTER IS CONTINUED TO 9 1 2 7 / 0 1 AS SCHEDULED ABOVE .BOTH PARTIES AND COUNSEL PRESENT, THEY ARE ADV ISED THAT TH IS CASE ISASSIG NED TO JUDG E DANIEL BR IC E FOR AL L PUR POSES .C OURT TEMPORAR ILY ORDERS THE CH IL D , B LAIR , IS TO REMAIN ~ THRESPONDENT AND THE CH IL D, EL LE, IS TO REMAIN W ITH PETITIONER ., ,\AL L PR IOR ORDER S TO REMAIN IN FUL L FORCE AND EFFECT.

PETITIONER IS TO W RITE DOWN HER C UR RENT ADDR ESS AND TELEPHONENUMBER AND THE ADDRESS AND TEL EPHONE NUMBER IN TORRANCE AND G IV ETHAT INFORMATION TO RESPONDENT BEFORE SHE L EAV ES TODAY.R ESPONDENT IS TO W RITE DOW N IDS CURRENT ADDRESS AND TEL EPHONENUMBER AND G IV E THAT INFORMATION TO PETITIONER BEFORE HE L EAV ESTODAY.COUNSEL TO G IV E NOTIC E TO COUNSEL BERG EN.

ENTERED: 30AUG2001


15/17

OTHER PARENT:980003818

r- PETITIONERIPLAINTIFF:DIANNE KING CASE NUMBERRESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:PERRY R. KING

4. c. X

d. No provision of this order may operate to limit any right to collect the principal (total amount of unpaid support) or to chargeand collect interest and penalties as allowed by law. All payments ordered are subject to modification.

e. All payments must be made to (name and address of agency):Orange County Dept. of Child Support ServicesP.O. Box 448Sant a Ana, CA 92702- 0448

f. An Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support (form FL-195) must Issue.g. ':'; Obligor I==: J Obligee must (1) provide and maintain health insurance coverage for the children if it is available

through employment or a group plan, or otherwise available at no or reasonable cost. and must keep the local child supportagency informed of the availability of the coverage; (2) if health insurance is not available, provide coverage when itbecomesavailable; (3) within 20 days of the local child support agency request. complete and return a health insurance form; (4) provideto the local child support agency all information and forms necessary to obtain health care services for the children; (5) presentany claim to secure payment or reimbursement to the other parent or caretaker who incurs costs for health care services for thechildren; (6) assign any rights to reimbursement to the other parent or caretaker who incurs costs for health care services for thechildren. If the "Obligor" box is checked, a Health Insurance Coverage Assignment (form FL-470) must issue.

h. Both parents must complete the Child.Support Case Registry Form (form FL-191) and send (deliver or mail) itto the local childsupport agency withiA ~ days of the date of this order. The parents must notify the local child support agency of any change inthe information submitted on the form by submitting an updated form within 10 days of the change.

i. The form Notice of Rights and Responsibilities and Information Sheet on Changing a Child Support Order (form FL-192) isattached.j. I ] The following ,person (the "Other Parent") is added as a party to this aclio'n under Family Code section 17404 (name) :k. x : The court further orders (specify): Defendant owes arrears of $3, 420. 00 for the period

8/ 02 - 12/ 02. Def endant owes ar ear s of $2, 705. 00 f or t he per i od 1/ 03 - 5/ 03,total arrears of $6,125. 00 less child support paid since 8/ 1/ 02. Cou~r Rc~G~S::fuRI?i)K.not0 ru ]J~/


16/17

DissoMaster(trn) v.2003-1 page 11:- ,?~po( 1 - ,*Vi ( X ( ~~ .i->:

DissoMaster Data ScreenMonthly Figures

Input Data king Mother Guideline (2003) Cash Flow Analysis Gdln. Prop.Party J nfo king Mother Nets (adjusted) Comb. net spendable 6443 6495Number of children Father 4124 Percent change 0% 0. 8%% time with NCP 20 20 Mother 2319 king, payor of CS, Prop. CSFiling Status HH/MLA HH/MLA Total 6443 Payment cost 541 470# federal exemptions 2 (, 3} s u p p o n Net spendable income 3582 3654Wages +salary 5667 2600 Presumed CS 541 Change from guideline 0 71Self-employment income 0 o Basic CS 541 % of combined spendable 55 . 6% 56 . 3%Other taxable income 0 0 Add-ons 0 % of saving over guideline 0% 138. 1%TANF plus CS received 0 0 Spousal blocke Total Taxes 1442 1302Other nontaxable income 0 0 Support d Dep. exemptions value 0 71New-spouse income 0 0

Total 541 # withholding allowances 5 7Adjustments to income 0 0 Proposed, Tactic 9 Net wage paycheck 4161 4311(ATI) MotherSS paid other marriage 0 0 Presumed CS 610 Payment benefit 541 522CS paid other relationship 0 0 Spousal 0Support Net spendable income 2861 2841Health insurance 101 0 Change from guideline 0 - 20Total 610Itemized deductions 0 0 % of combined spendable 44. 4% 43. 7%Comb. Savings 52Required union dues 0 0 Releases to % of saving over guideline 0% - 38. 1%Mandatory retirement 0 0 king (opt) Total Taxes 269 357Hardship deduction O 0* Dep. exemptions val\.Je 0 - 20ther guideline deductions) +0 ( 12) Default Case SettingsDefault Tax Settings # withholding allowances 7 5AMT Info (IRS Form 6251) 0 0 Net wage paycheck 2312 2236Child support add-ons 0 0

FILEDSUPER IOR COURT OF CAUFORN IAC OU NT Y O F O RA NG ELA~(\I1'" ' '~ I' ,,.,rlr.r: CENTERM A Y 0 1 Z 0 0 3

ALAN Sl~_~~ur'

~-


17/17

Calculation Results Summary and Detail ~ Page 1of 4Monthly Support Totals Parent 1 Parent 2Monthly Child Support Amount 584.00 0.00Basic Child Support Amount 584.00 0.00Child Support Add-Ons Amount 0.00 0.00Child Care 0.00 0.00vtsnrrravei Expenses 0.00 0.00School Expenses 0.00 0.00Uninsured Health Expenses 0.00 0.00: Total Arrears Support Amount 0.00 0.00

Temporary Spousal Support Amount (N/A) ().OO 0.00,Monthly Tax/Income Information (Tax Year: 2004) Parent 1 Parent 2Monthly Net Disposable Income 4221.00 2273.00Monthly Taxable Gross Income 5667.00 r 2600.00Monthly Non-Taxable Gross Income 0.00 , 0.00Federal Adjusted Gross Income 5566.00 2600.00,Federal Taxable Income 4454.00 ~488.00Net Income Of Parties With Support 3637.00 2857.00, Federal Tax Filing Status HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDI Number of Tax Exemptions (Federal) 2 2State Tax Filing Status SAME AS FEDERAL SAME AS FEDERALtNumber of Tax Exemptions (State) - 2 . . . . . 211,Federal Tax Liabilities 663.00 97.00State Tax Liabilities 181.0Q 0.00FICA 434.00 199.00

! Self Employment Tax 0.00 0.00CASDI 67.00 31.00TANF/CalWORKS NO NO'Other Monthly Deduction Totals Parent 1 Parent 2Child Support Paid (Other Relationships) 0.00 0.00'Required Union Dues 0.00 0.00Mandatory Retirement 0.00 0.00.Other Guideline Deductions 0.00 0.00Health Insurance Premium , 01.00 0.00Hardstup Deduction Amount 0.00 0.00Hardshi~ Deduction Children 0.0 0.0,Necessary J ob-Related Expenses 0.00 0.00Extraordinary Health Expenses 0.00 0.00.Uninsured Catastrophic Losses 0.00 0.00

Monthly Support Amounts Per Child % Time Parent l' Parent 1 Parent 1 Parent 2 Parent 2 Parent 2with Add- Support Total Add- Support TotalParenti Ons OnsHRST-BORN 50.0 0.06 193.00 193.00 ().OO 10.00 G.OOSECOND-BORN 50.0 0.00 391.00 391.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Average % Time with NCP , 50.0%1 0.001 584.001 584.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12 , t1J

Calculation Results Summary~ 'I~"'0

PARENT 1 is required to pay PARENT 2 $584.00 in CURRENT SUPPORT

,Total Child Support Arrears Per ChildI I Child Name IPrior Period Date Range J Parent1 J Parent1 I Parent1 I Parent2 I Parent2 J Parent2

Documents

Vacating Daniel T Brice for corrupt violations in Orange County - Still Active Breech of Fiduciary Duty resulting from Civil Rights Violations in Orange County Court System that still