Woman Warrior Files Federal Suit on Child Support Issues Faces Loss of Her Children By Retaliating Family Court Judge
Members of the Media Detained and Threatened While Nemick Hearing Set to Begin in Yet Another Contra Costa County Family Courtroom
Members of Jane and John Q know Tanya Nemick as a Woman Warrior, a key voice in speaking out against the unfair judges and lawyers who are attacking innocent parents in Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties where support and custody matters are at hand.
Nemick, a competent and loving mother, has been systematically reduced to a court-described degenerate, despite operating perfectly well in society for over 40 years before she involuntarily faced family courts in Santa Clara and Contra Costa counties.
Court files and records show that each time Nemick attempted to protest unfair practices or violations of due process in her support and custody matters, the family court judges circled the wagons in an effort to silence her. Such retaliation increased in intensity after Nemick filed a federal lawsuit that sought to expose attorney misconduct of Stacy Stevens, Santa Clara County's DCSS and Commissioners, as well as the Commission on Judicial Performance’s failure to assure proper administration of justice in support and custody matters.
Contra Costa and Santa Clara County Judges Protecting a Corrupt CJP ?
Just like CJP whistleblower and court refomer Joe Sweeney, Nemick has paid a heavy price for her tenacity and efforts to expose family court corruption. She has been subjected to frivilous domestic violence restraining orders (ostensibly for sending emails and text messages about her court case), and shortly after she filed her federal law suit, Judge Landau labeled Tanya as a Vexatious Litigant, making her custody and support battles even more impossible for an ADA designated pro per indigent mother.
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016, Contra Costa County Judge Leslie G. Landau continued the retaliatory conduct, as Jane and John Q members witnessed first hand that bailiffs improperly handle a media request in Nemick's case, and repeatedly violate her ADA rights, as baliffs shook down members of the public who had come to observe the hearing, and participate in a Jane and John Q Court Watcher Training Program in support of Tanya.
Judge Leslie Landau's Retaliation and Bias are a Violation of Law
In the case immediately preceding the Nemick hearing, Judge Landau demonstrated patience where two pro per litigants acted in a DV issue, and where it was not disputed the father had been arrested and was subject to a domestic violence restraining order. In that case the judge admonished the father and told him ," You are going to have to learn to be a father if you want to see your children."
The judge plainly told that father that he was going to have to learn to change diapers, feed his children on time and work on cooperative parenting with the mother. Judge Landau further told the parties she was not assigning a supervisor for that father's visitation time, and encouraged the parties to agree on a supervisor, such as a friend or family member, to reduce the financial impact supervised visits would have on father's time with his children. Landau then extended the DV restraining order, giving only vague language on the exceptions of that order related to the father’s visitation, an admitted domestic abuser.
Before Nemick's case was called, Landau's bailiff and his supervising officer, D. Murdock #72906, spent considerable time "shaking down" a reporter and a publisher attempting to cover Nemick's hearing. Officer Murdock applied intimidation tactics in an effort to obtain and search both the reporter's and the publisher's cellphones. When Murdock's police intimidation tactics failed, he resorted to threats to subpoena the phone, in order to view its photos and videos.
The publisher pointed out such would be a violation of the strong policy of the state and California's Shield Laws, under which the publisher affirmed her willingness and intent to protect the Jane and John Q sources and information contained on the phone.
When it became clear that members of the Jane and John Q were willing to go to jail to protect the rights and anonymity of their members, Officer Murdock released the publisher with an "admonishment" to not record in the courthouse. The police's harassing delay caused the publisher to miss the first portion of the Nemick hearing, obstructing Jane and John Q members' right and ability to have full coverage of the critical hearing.
Jane and John Q's Court Watchers Observe Bias and Judical Retaliation
As Nemick's hearing began, Jane and John Q court watchers noted it was more than clear that Judge Landau engaged in prejudgment and bias toward Nemick, which was tempered with very carefully calculated judical langague and conduct. It was obvious the judge and had decided before the hearing that she would grant the father an extension of the Domestic Violence Restraining Order against Tanya, using the wide discretion and immunity she is afforded to do so.
While Landau had patiently guided the two pro per litigants immediately before the Nemick hearing, Landau exhibited a different tone and demeanor when dealing with Nemick, where attorney Stacy Stevens acted as a highly paid legal shield for the father.
Landau’s bias toward Nemick was plainly evidenced as she immediately referred to Nemick's vexatious litigant designation when Nemick attempted to address the impact a DV order had had on her employment prospects and ability to see her children. Landau seemed unconcerned that Nemick, now on welfare and unemployment, was required to pay $50-$75 per hour in supervised visits each hour she wanted to see her kids.
Should the State Permit Judges the Authority to Impose a "Pay to Play" Philosphy in Child Custody Cases?
In the case prior to Nemick's hearing, Landau had sua sponte (on her own without a request from anyone), and without a support or custody order before her, ordered the father to pay $525 of the mother's rent and all of her cell phone bill, and ordered that father would be allowed to use unpaid supervision to see his children, despite having formal police records that show clear and undisputed domestic violence.
Nemick will have to pay $500 to a supervisor for each visit, including to see her own son on his birthday later this month.
Unsettling Use of Domestic Violence and Vexatious Litigant Statue in Family Law Cases
Landau's conduct is not isolated. A few months earlier CJP Whistleblower and Court Reform Activist Joe Sweeney was jailed by Contra Costa Judge Mills for posting text messages to a family law blog, despite those text messages being in the public domain.
The pattern of judges misusing DV orders and civil contempt applied to innocent parents who associate with groups critical of family courts is an alarming trend that can no longer be dismissed as “judicial mistakes." At the same time family court judges appear to be "framing" innocent parents, these same judges appear willing to give a free pass to parents with highly paid lawyers and parental history of alcohol, drug use and physical violence, even when indicted by county Grand Juries.
Jane and John Q members are reporting that judges are all too willing to criminalize parents for emails, or for tossing a piece of paper at a spouse's lawyer, while embroiled in the emotional issues of child support and custody matters, yet unwilling to address conduct of parents who are known to have committed physical assault and abuse, when those parents have money and legal representation. This judical condcut appears to be supported by a by toothless county proceutors in counties like Santa Clara and Contra Costa that exhibit a well documented history of failing to properly address support and property divisions in child support cases, where the poorer parent appears to suffer from lack of legal parity and poverty shaming, is a matter that is long overdue for federal intervention, and it shouldn’t require innocent parents like Tanya Nemick to do the job the federal government is obligated to do.
Equally alarming is the extreme abuse of discretion, judicial incompetence, administrative failures and flagrant violations of due process related to support, abetted by toothless county proceutors in counties like Santa Clara and Contra Costa that exhibit a well documented history of failing to properly address support and property divisions in child support cases, where the poorer parent appears to suffer from lack of legal parity and poverty shaming , is a matter that is long overdue for federal intervention, and it shouldn’t require innocent parents like Tanya Nemick to do the job the federal government is obligated to do.
Do Californians Really Want Good Parents like Tanya Nemick Kept from Their Children While Known Celebrity Domestic Abusers are Allowed to go Scott Free?