Spouses involved in divorce or custody cases often find their ex making false claims of domestic violence. Common responses are: "they are lying!"
Lies are more often than not motivated by greedy divorce lawyers who pad their bills, incite conflict and cash in big. These lawyers also appear to be linked to charities raking in large donations and court connections that allow them to cash in on advancing false domestic violence claims, as real crimes involving domestic violence go under protected by the local DA and family courts getting federal money to help victims.
Family Code Section 3044, or a finding of domestic violence, in a divorce or custody case adds anywhere from $50-$150,000 in attorney fees in Santa Clara County. Contrast that to the $5,000 in fees paid out in fees in a typical case in Sacramento, According to the papers leaked by attorney Elise Mitchell from Maggie at the San Jose law firm Hoge Fenton, three non-profit groups are teaching lawyers how to succeed in getting judges to make findings of domestic violence., in order to maximize profits for a core group of divorce lawyers,.
WEAVE, a non-profit largely working in the Sacramento Area, hosts a board chocked full of representatives from Sutter Health , Kaiser, Wells Fargo Bank and board president, Ashley West, an attorney specializing in real estate and corporate law. Divorce lawyers in Sacramento have reportedly used this group to obtain clients and court orders, as representatives from WEAVE regularly train judges on how to make rulings that make lawyers very wealthy. Insiders claim individuals connected to WEAVE use medical and financial information to maximize fees lawyers can charge in domestic violence cases.
Insiders report WEAVE is linked to UC Berkeley feminist Nancy Lemmon, who reportedly has developed trainings for lawyers and judges that make false domestic violence claims very lucrative, leaving victims with valid claims silenced. Lemmon was involved in the high profile domestic violence case involving Elena Berg, a case that got her national recognition from the American Bar Association in 2013. Men and women seeking help from WEAVE report some support groups and advocate services that have been helpful, but when l;awyers are invovled, the help becomes more blurred and less assured.
Lemmon now heads the Family Violence Appellate Project, where she is setting dangerous case law that does more to help lawyers get rich than provide services that help survivors of domestic violence. Lemmon is known for her "feminist approach" which shos a pattern of taking cases involving wealthy targets while doing little for middle-class and poor victims trying to get help from the charity.
By contrast, women seekin'g services from Ruth Patrick Darlene and the Santa Clara County non- profit Women SV fare the worst. Mitchell Papers show that during her own divorce, Ruth mastered the art of false domestic violence claims, having her husband arrested by reporting he had heavy arlitery buried in the yard of the family home. Many of Ruth's claims appear to have been set up with the help of infamous attorney Phil Hammer and the law firm Hoge Fenton. Ruth attracks prosective DV vicitms to her non- profit, by leading them to beleilve she was a victim of doemstic violence herself. She wasn't. She has however struggled with mental health issues following the suicide of her own mother after a series of financial struggles. Many worry she has become increasingly dangerous as she gets more connected to the local legal community and appears to be set on making money and being apart of the Silicon Valley affluent.
In a virtual playbook, Elise Mitchell has decribed how Ruth Patrick teaches lawyers to make false claims of domestic violence that will stick in court. Meanwhile, real vicitms appear to be used as test subjects to gather more donations as she conceals her personal goals. Ruth also has reportedly been operating her charity for the benefit of attorneys BJ Fadem, formerly her/ now he, Nicole Ford, Sean Onderick, Hector Moreno, Jim Hoover, Bill Dresser., John Hannon and Organge County div0rce lawyer Kieth Dolnick.
How Do They Do It ?
People seeking services from domestic violence support groups claim that when they are referred to WEAVE or WOMENSV, they go through an in- take process. WEAVE'S process involves forms and screening to get to " support groups", Ms. Patrick is the in- take for WomenSV. Only women of means sufficent to attract powerful divorce lawyers are passed on to support groups run as " meetings" at WomenSV, with Ruth's approval.
In Silicon Valley, it begins with a "meeting", where Ruth claims she is testing to see if a "victim " is right for the group. During the week following the meeting Ruth checks potential client's social media, hunts down neighbors and friends and backgrounds finances to determine how much a case will produce in the way of fees for lawyers she regualry refers in the Bay Area, and Organge County. She also consults with lawyers in the area to alert them to a potential new case.
Once "victims " are accepted into the Women SV group, they find weekly meetings where Ruth invites guest speakers to groom potential clients for law firms who give Ruth and her supporters kickbacks in the form of charity donations and referrals.,
Vicitms report attending meetings where articles on doemstic violence are reviewed, or lawyers speak, but provide little helpful information. In the cases where the most money is available , Ruth offers court watching and " support services"., though she has no formal training in theraphy to provide mental health services needed for depression and anxiety that typically plague vicitms facing the family court proceedings that can linger for years.
Most women reaching out to WomenSV are told the group provides support for vicitms of domestic violence. Within the first few group meetings these women report they are given no services, but merely attend meetings where they are pressured to fundraise and use certain lawyers for their own divorce case., Nicole Ford, Sean Onderick and Jim Hoover getting the majority of support from the charity and the individuals operating it,.
Ruth also uses the group to test which women will lie in court and stick to a narraitve that earns pricy lawyers " wins" in court. When a "victim" isn't willing to lie or play along with the false claims narraitive , they begin losing in court and are eventually evicted from the group. . Ruth Patrick Darlene is known to stalk place women in her group under surveilance for the beenfit of lawyers and court appointed experts who use information she provides agianst them in court. For her part Ruth is rewarded with policial appointments, inflated donations or " educational contracts" with the courts and law enforcement agencies.
Under the pretense of " education" Ruth aligns herself with law enforcement agencies , not to train or educate, but to get information and manipulate police reports for the benefit of divorce lawyers.
"Victims " report being terriorized by Ruth who tells them their ex is spying on them, montioring their phones, tracking them with GPS and high tech listening devices. Once these vicitms are sufficently frightened, Ms. Patrick Darlene, convinces these vicitms to hand over confidential medical records and private files that are then provided to lawyers for their ex spouses to use agianst them in court. Ms. Patrick also provides illegal recordings that are used to gaslight the very vicitms she cliams to help.
Falsely claiming to have served thousands of vicitms of doemstic violence, most women seeking help from WomenSV report Ruth never provided any services intially promised, and abandons them when they lose in court. Noting they make a few contacts, all "victims" are eventually evicted once they cease to genderate fees for local lawyers or no longer have the funds to support the local DA's political campaigns.
Aligning with DAs and local law enforcement is a pattern seen in all these non- profits. None of these efforts appear to have increased protections for domestic violence vicitms , as realted family law cases drag out for as long as 10 years only making lawyers associated with Ms. Patrick very welathy.
Is Your Lawyer Helping Or Preying on You?
Men and women seeking help in domestic violence cases quickly find incompetent or corrupt lawyers. Good lawyers immediately assist in filing a temporary restraining order, request, support and attorney fees then settle a case qucikly, with the doemstic violence being allowed to cool down so spouses can safely go their separate ways.
Lawyers connected to these non- profits appear to take a different approach. They know the first spouse to srike and obtain a police report , wins all and will drag cases out for years, usually toi conceal serious crimes being committed by the spous e able to pay the lawyers the most money. It works like a bribe. Lawyers willing to drag out family law cases and bury criminal acts work through Ruth Patrick and other charities posing to assist vicitms of domestic violence.
Women who seek support from these non-profits who are deemed to be the " losers" early on in a case will find divorce lawyers absuing them , yelling and threatening to withdraw to increase the emotional trauma. They sell off houses to get paid, or attach liens to any property that suvives the family court. They consult with opposing lawyers and trade wins and losses based on the judge assigned to a case.
Men can actually be vicitms of domestic violence case well, These non-profits offer them no help and actively seek to discourage them. Societal shame usually finds these men paying huindreds of thousands of dollars to defend false cliams, while their male absuive counterparts find safe habor with absuive judges and lawyers dominating the family courts.
NO JURY - JUDGE DOESN'T LOOK AT EVIDENCE
In family court there is no jury. The laws are not followed and evidence is often made u, or not even reviewd by a single judge who will be lunching with lawyers on one side at the lunch hour. . Clients of law firms associated with these non-profits are taught how to edit video and audio recordings in oder to provide judges with false evidence to justify bogus court rulings, Meanwhile real vicitms often have no lawyer or evidence of the crimes committed agianst them.
Bills from these corrupt lawyers quickly reach $10-20,000 a month. Spouses pay for busy work, bogus discovery and corrupt court appointments until there is nowhere left to get money. The law rarely applies as intended because when it comes to CLETS DVRO and Family Court Findings under Section 3044., these cases are used more to make money for the courts and lawyers than to protect actual victims.
Non- proifts also work in secret. Individuals working for these non- profits claim their services assure information provided will remain confiedntial. In fact, personal information and information about a DV case is being circulated to local judges and the legal community to generate more in fees. Worse, in some cases victims may not know if a former spouse is part of the group , or working with a lawyer part of this nafarious network.
As for judges, in Sacramento, Judge Matthew Gary is known to rubber stamp orders in cases connected to WEAVE. Judge Wiley in San Francisco and Raj Chaterjee in Alameda follow suit and have been "educated " by Ms. Lemmon.. In Orange County retired judge David Weinberg has worked thorugh the Orange County DA and probation to be educated by Ruth Patrick Darlene. In Santa Clara County, Ms. Patrick Darlene's ties to Judges Scott, McCracken, McGowan, Towery and Hendrickson generate millons in fees for the law firms kicking back money, donations, appointments and cash for referrals to cases that win big.
Whistleblowers from other charities, or DV groups, such as Next Door Solutions and Community Services claim the corruption from WomenSV imposes a monopoly on the lawyers connected to WomenSV , where lawyers connected with other groups, rarely get awarded more than $5,000 in a DV case, compared to lawyers connected to Los Altos based Women SV who get $50,-100,000 in DV case. Further, attorney John Hannon is reportedly being used to bury malpractice and CLETS retraining order cases against lawyers linked to these non- prfofits..
If you beleive you were harmed by seeking help from a charity , or by a lawyer who botched a DV case or viable malpracitice claim- please contact : Natasha.Rudnitsky@calbar.ca.gov or email us : CalJohnQPublic@Gmail.com
M-F: 7am - 9pm
For those seeking information beyond what is publicaly available here, please email us tips, donations, or request to be added to our paid newsletter subscriptions.