Click here for latest court date
(they're a lot better in keeping up to date than I am)

By the Order of the Court
"Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on all the parties in this matter forthwith.  SO ORDERED." (5-23-08)
The Honorable Joseph H Huber
(Dept 8, former Chief of Civil; superceded by the Hon. Kevin Murphy, Dept 22; now superceded by hte Hon. Mary Jo Levinger, Dept. 5 -- "the Civil rotation")

Thank you sir.  I had indeed hoped to finish this thing long long before the election.  Sorry for the delay.  With all due diligence I've been trying to (which isn't easy with a list of still unknown defendants that now includes some of the court's staff).  I'm a bit slow sometimes (I have an explanation).  I've got your letters around here somewhere, I'm not good at managing paper. Will publish it as soon as I can.

("the oral tradition")
To all parties (listed or not):

 "The Court determines that the above-referenced case is NOT COMPLEX" (4-1-09)

because (I've come to the conclusion that) the court is at its limit and simply doesn't have the capacity to.  Only *I* do.  And perhaps may well be the only one ever to  (I hope not!  And would like to inspire it in others).  And my capacities vary widely from day to day from quite good down to nil, depending on the support I get from the people around me.

ALSO (I missed this one until recently) there's another problem -- you just can't start "emailing" lawsuits.  Anyone can send emails (even letters) under someone else's name.  "We don't know who you are".  If I were a judge, I'd feel the same way.  And would want to call this person in first to "get the cut of their jib" as they say.   See if the person fits with what they have written.  And who and what they are all about.

"We're all waiting on Dolores"
(Lee Sturtevant commented to me just after she took office)

This case is public..    2/1/09, 3/9/09, 4/19/09

"Public for All"
("a work in progress" .. gosh, I may have to correct some errors and misperceptions .. stay tuned..)

A Grant that is priceless and granted in whole (thank you both).

Welcome to my lawsuit

G. Mangers vs The County Of Santa Clara, Et. Al.
"Et. Al." -- list of defendants still incomplete
(including the Section 382 ones, who should be joining me as plaintiffs)

Start here:
First Papers
(2 Megs - a few minutes)

 "What *is* Mental Health?"


This problem stems from decisions made by the Board of Supervisors. 
It's in the Grand Jury Reports.
Second Papers
I haven't been able to scan it all in yet.  Why I haven't been able to along with everything else that has delayed me has now also become a part of this suit.  This filing should have been completed long long ago.  Having "know what it all is" before the end of last year.  And now it's May already.


"Justice for ALL"
(why not?)

Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
Presiding Chief (formerly) of the Civil Division:
The Honorable Kevin J Murphy
"The court understands perfectly"
The gentle Judge Elfving (alas so many questions to ask and so little time).  I recommended he call me on the carpet the next time because of my disability.  He nodded in agreement.  I noticed Judge Levinger doing so the first time I met her.  Scrutinising my many extensions.  Judge Cabrinha moved up my next CMC date from Sept 25 to Aug 26.  This was wise.

"The full 'heart and lungs' of Sections 378 - 382"
of the California Civil Code of Procedure

"James Bond" I'm not: "Why didn't you get the license number!"
"Yeah sure.."  I'll let him do that one.  Or my sister (who made the same suggestion).
I didn't know Robertsville Postoffice was closed on Presidents Day.  I should start a scrapbook: turned away at the Sheriff's office by Marian, so now I'm "on my own" trying to figure out how to do the mailing.  Postal Annex was open though.  So walk over and ask roughly how much it would cost.  Explaining it's a lawsuit and would need a notary signature, learn is $10, mailing add~$20 = $30.  Looking for cheaper solutions, onto Branham U-turn back to Almaden South with a low price coupe (looks rather old, dark greenish) quickly approaching.  Windows all very dark.  Can't see anything inside.  I pull over as far ahead on the Almaden ramp and to the right as possible.  Giving it a wide berth.  Waiting to see what it would do (while I still could in a very public area).  And not expecting it (I don't know what to expect anymore).  Anyway, instead of proceeding into light traffic on Almaden, it stops at the corner which is constructed to make right turns easily and efficiently, instead it just stopped there and waited.  Not even attempting to make the right turn.  Instead of passing on by as everyone else and I would have.  Had it waited any longer, cars would have been honking behind it.
I know a "salute" when I see one.
It's possible there might indeed have been almost 21 all totaled.  Robertsville post office (Thursday night 4/23/09).  I like to check in with "mother" to let her know my intended path (especially if it includes postoffices).  "A mother could worry" my mother told me.
"NO TAXI's!"
Joan Oloff (DPM) boomed out in the background as soon as she heard it.  Whereupon her secretary proceeded to explain to me that the person who drove me home after my surgery must be "someone who cares about you".

Geoffrey Mangersssss
("jeffrey MANjers")

My email address:

Phone: (408) 978-3149

(sorry for the answering machines, please don't be shy about leaving a message)
[best times to call: 10am - 10pm (Pacific Time), any day incl. Sat & Sun & Holidays]

David Yamasaki: "Welcome Aboard!"
Now take control of your ship.
Mutiny on the County

First Papers
(filed with an incomplete list of parties) .. Correction!

Second Papers
Amended #1 (filed)
with additional parties and complaints (hoping it was complete)
not yet in pdf format (working on it)

Thank you sir.  It was good to hear it. 
And for the first time ever.  From

Third Papers
Amended #2

My first motion
Amended, amendmented, appended, addended..  I thought you couldn't "throw anything out" (you can't with police and medical records, the U.S. Constitution etc.).  And didn't know "amended" means "revision" and (I gather) are allowed only one correction.  But it doesn't say that on the PLD-PI form.  It says AMENDED not REVISION.

Stay tuned..
The Bar Associations
What makes a client "worthy"?  Lawyers are our ultimate law enforcement officers.  But what if they can be bought out?
80% of litigants are unrepresented.  Why?  And to her answer asked:
"Is that justice?" 
And to her answer answered:  "That's my case"
(and thanks for helping me to state it so succinctly)
Summoning some Law Schools around here:
I've called all of them to ask for assistance, and still waiting for a lawyer to return my calls.
I now have some more questions about the kind of values being taught to law students these days.
Charities: "buyer beware"
Section 384: "paved with good intentions"
Why hasn't it all been turned into law stamps or something?
I want our money back!
A Judgment on The Media
"You could get sued" (I've heard it myself).  Elizabeth Kearny commented about how all these publishers fear it.  Have they all become "sue shy"?  What's the cure for "a bunch of pusillanimous yellow-bellied lily-livered namby pambys trembling in fear of being sued by their own shadow"  How do you plead?  "Not guilty!, your honor".  Well, then you'll have to prove to the court's satisfaction something you've done that's been courageous (thanks for "showing an interest" Judge Judy, it meant a lot to me).


A waste of time:
The Social Security Administration

"Why,'s called The Medical Privacy Act!"
"getting it wrong" -- Form SSA-827
Before I even had a chance to begin reading it I was "shown the door". 
Why do I need to "appeal" an incomplete interview?
When and where is the Hearing?
(published Friday, February 27, 2009 3:27pm)

then "getting it right" Peter D Spencer
Regional Commissioner, Social Security Administration, March 13, 2008
"We will help you get any information and/or evidence you do not have. 
We will explain anything you do not understand."
AT&T ("high finance")

Billing you for their $600 mistakes.  And making you run around to pay it. Everything went down: internet, long and local distance.  "What do I have to do?" I asked.. "Pay down that bill".  So you "call and call".  After they've already wasted a month of your time calling and calling trying to repair your internet connection that went down from another one of their mistakes when you called them: "ignore the letter".  Over a simple identity issue:
Everyone has a right to have their own telephone/internet connection and control over it.
2/16/09 -- almost a year later, they still haven't completely fixed it.  A communications company that can't communicate: it's a "construction defect"482_ATT.wav

8-21-09: update: they fixed it.  Then it broke again.  Lesson: be careful what you're signing.  *Both* of us made the mistake this time.  I called and told them I was recording it (I was and glad they were too).  Pointed out the repair work they did was still under warrantee and wanted it fixed.  Which they finally did a few months ago.  Thank you.
Yellow Cab (they want to stay in business) knows it (so does AT&T):
"this call may be monitored or RECORDED for quality and training purposes"
(what happens when it's not .. and why you want a record of it, i.e. RECORDED not "monitored")

And the training for quality begins with me.
Apology to Georgia Ku (and any others I've made this terrible mistake with).

I haven't had time to listen to them all.  I finally did listen back to one I left for Georgia.  It was painful.  Immensely so.  The tone was just plain offensive.  And I can't believe how badly I missed this one.  It was intended to come out as a sort of playful uplifting humorous sarcasm.  Not at all what I heard.  I can only do it with those I know closely (but won't anymore).  It's a peculiar "error of affection" I'm prone to.  I like Georgia.  It came out all wrong.  I have to "retune" the circuits, overhaul everything so I can get the delivery as intended.

John up at the Administrative Office of the Courts has the same problem.  I bet he's never heard it either.  And would be crushed by it also if he ever did. "I can't explain it.." I told Philip Carrizosa trying to explain it " have to hear it".   It's why it's so very important to record it for quality and training purposes.   So they can hear the error they're not aware of.   And correct it before it does any more harm.


The Court's Receptionists
(how long has this lack of accountability been going on? why won't they tell me their names?)

County Counsel



Notice of Further Case Management Conference
April 14, 10am 
Extension Application March 9, 2009
"describe the efforts that have been made to serve the pleading"
Feb. 10, 2009: My speech to the Board of Supervisors

Pleading must be served and filed no later than 4/13/09
Judge Elfving explained to me at the time that it would be tentatively rescheduled to 4/14/09, 3pm, Dept. 2


A petition for extraordinary relief.
ALL unrepresented litigants should be.

My problem is that I'm slow.
(it's not intentional and a recognised ADA disability)

Writer's Block
is the anticipated problem" (thanks Corrine)

CMC date: June 2, 10am
many other dates 
Aug 26, 2008
    Oct 28, 2008   Jan 6, 2009   Feb 3, 2009   March 10, 2009   April 14, 2009 10am

"..or I'll have to dimiss it.."

And the Clock has begun to Toll
3 years I'm Told
3 years and no more
And for whom does it Toll?  It tolls for me.
The 11th hour: for when it strikes "12" it all turns into a pumpkin.
So I must file the rest later.


I've been instructed by an Officer of the Court to publish what I have witnessed.
"Courage, Honor, Duty"
(Ed Martinez, Greybears)

 "I'm making a public record of this call"
Because it's the only protection a vulnerable and naive unrepresented litigant has.  And because there's not enough time to document it all in writing.  (Please let me know any private or personal information you need to give to me before you do so, in order to pause recording for it. It's much easier to do this way than have to edit it out later--in fact it becomes almost impossible to edit out later because it's so time consuming.  Thanks)
It would be desirable for you to record it also:
So we both have copies of it.  It all has to be public.

 "You're a public officer!"  
I told Tony Lewis (in Sandra Shewry's office i.e. MEDI-CAL).  Then tried to explain it to him.  Until I heard the words "You're not going to get anywhere" he told me.  Until I finish my filing and get everyone served.  "Thanks Tony, it means a lot to me." I told him.  It did.
 "Don't worry about it, you'll get used to it."
I told Lt. Larry Imas in the Sheriff's office just before Lt. Estella Frontella replaced him.
"The whole thing's a waste of time!"
I told Melody Miller when she called me (thinking I was recording her).  Then realised I was wrong.  Because now I wish I had.  Thanks for showing me my mistake Melody.

Actually, have forgotten what's in most of these, sorry, haven't had a chance to review, edit and label all these files yet (some links are broken because I've been trying update and delete duplicates).  Even doing this much is extremely time-consuming for me.  Time I don't have and that is quickly running out on me.  But the record must be made nevertheless.
















244 PSI

























































































































































































1/20 - 1/21

















































470 (apology to Josh, Feb 1, 09)

491_BlueCross.wav  Chris "catching up", thanks for your call (2/20?), talk to Corina, she finally figured it all out long long ago.



Jan. 21, 2009
Why I must sue my Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren* (who I like), Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein (for a list of names).  I need names.  And quickly.   Here's my deposition to them.  It's 40Megs -- runtime: 2hrs/45mins:

Sorry, I no longer have time to "write them a letter".  I must file orally.  And have been denied the right to do so in clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Let's capitalise on our A-bilities, eh?

I called ALL of them tonight, gave them the case number and CMC date: Feb. 3, 3pm.  At which they (or their lawyer) must appear.  And decide "which side are you on?".

* 2/3/09, ~10:30am: "She's good but she's slow" I told Diego in her local district office here, as I sat filling out the request form  for the list of names I need.


April 30, 2009   May15, 2009 

If I were Sheriff Laurie Smith, I'd fire Budget Unit
"Can I talk to your supervisor?"

I've "handcuffed the Sheriff", that was dumb.  It's right on the POS-015 "(SIGNATURE OF SENDER—MUST NOT BE A PARTY IN THIS CASE)"  Talk about "shoot yourself in the foot".  She should be joining me as a plaintiff anyway.  Not a defendant.  All of her appointments must be approved by the County Executive first.  That's "diminished capacity".  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Dolores Carr has the same problem.  It's nice to get these vital pieces of information you've been missing.  If only at the last  minute and I'm afraid to mention where I got it from.  In case Budget Unit were to ever find out.  I'm suing the County of Santa Clara, no wonder "please hold" is all I ever seem to hear.  Or constantly dumped into unreturned voice mails.  While the statute of limitations times out on me.  It would be nice to get a return call from someone.  "We're very busy .. have a great weekend" (Jennifer Allmand).  I didn't ask for her anyway.  Nor did I ask for Lori's assistant's voicemail that I was transferred into the next time.  I asked for Lori Pegg.  I think that's who I gave a copy of my suit to who quietly surprised me on the right asking what it was about.  After I sat down having given my speech in the one minute I was allowed last Feb 10 at their Board of Supervisors meeting.  Telling them all that I had come there to make my case.  And sue for my sanity.  Giving my name, the case number, CMC date, and the department it was in.  And asking who would be willing to join me as a plaintiff under Section 382.  I still don't know.

Sheriff Laurie Smith is dismissed from this case without prejudice.  And perhaps a bit of an apology.  I think she's been there for me all along.  Parenthetically, Thomas Barnett is also dismissed without prejudice.  Because from what I've read subsequently, I don't think it's called anti-trust.  It's RICO-esque (if not RICO itself).  Or maybe the Enron-Valdez.

Sheriff Laurie Smith is the only one I can trust to "get it right" in her office run by Budget Unit.  And I have as yet no idea whatever as to whether she got the letter I sent her recently.  Or if it was diverted from reaching her.  By "Budget Unit" or someone.  No one will tell me.  I marked it "Personal".  No one will even let me leave a voicemail for her.  So I can tell it to her personally:
Sheriff Laurie Smith is dismissed from this case without prejudice.

To recapitulate a bit: on 4/1/09 I sent a copy of 1-08-CV-109152 to Lt. Larry Imas who asked to see it (finally someone actually did in their office, what a relief).  So the Sheriff's office could fill out and mail the Proof of Service forms for me (I can't).  After which Lt. Estella Frontella took over his telephone extension number.  Maybe Doug Havig actually still is the head of their civil department "who knows?".  In fact, I have no way whatever of proving who in fact actually did return the copy of 1-08-CV-109152 that I mailed (with great difficulty for me personally) to Larry.  I don't think Larry would have done that to me.  I don't think he's the type.  There's no name on the return address.  Or a signature of anyone at all in the accompanying memorandi.  Why send more copies just to have them returned again?  Or be  "shown the door" once more if I try to go over there again personally.

Sheriff Laurie Smith is dismissed from this case without prejudice. 
I have to go back to 6/10/08 when Karen Miles hung up on me telling me someone would be calling me back without even allowing me to leave my telephone number.  I called back and made Tess promise to get my message through to Laurie.  Sgt. Rick Turini called me back the very next day with the right answer.  That I originally asked them on 5-7-08.  And after wasting a day with much grief, finally got the right answer for.  Only a month later to have to ask it of them again.

A year later: No, not "hold", WHOLE, having to spell it out for Undersheriff John Hirokawa "granted in whole", that means totally.

Sheriff Laurie Smith is dismissed from this case without prejudice.
And fear Tess may no longer be able to get through to her anymore either for me and my class: "Who's your supervisor?" I asked Tess, then "Who's Karen Miles supervisor?"  .. "Are you sure?".  And now fear the unanswered questions I've had to ask her have been too many for her.

Sheriff Laurie Smith should be joining me as a plaintiff.  If I were the Sheriff, I'd fire Budget Unit.  Forthwith.

Request for assistance from complex dept. (Rowena Walker)


Software problems
(they're almost impossible to explain to someone who doesn't work with it)

Doctors know it: scrubbing scrubbing scrubbing.  The Lifeguards know it: security security security.  Trust no one!  Including yourself.  Because you lost 2 years of work when you thought you knew it.  Thinking you were safe: "we have met the enemy and he is us".

Backup backup backup -- this peculiar "shell game".  Oops, just stepped into another 'pothole'. "which one was it this time" -- takes days to figure it out.  Because first you tried to fix it.  Not knowing the cause.  More problems you create for yourself.  Trying to untie this Gordian knot you've gotten yourself into: "it's just around the corner" -- the next boot.  After boot after boot.  Days turn into weeks that turn into months.  Because you can't afford the solutions even if it *did* exist. Like the software that the Judicial Council hasn't, wouldn't, couldn't or didn't.  And should have known about.  Another two months you waste trying to solve it.  The time you need to be spending on finishing writing up your suit.  A PDF file is searchable.  But you can't with their system.  So you have to have separate bland text files to do it.  Why?  And whatever happened to the CCMS-V3? -- and when's the "V4" coming out? -- "who's David Yamasaki"?  More unanswered questions.  As the statute of limitations times out on you.

February 3, 2009


70 W. Hedding:
Arrive late, 9:36am, doors locked, no BOS meeting I gather talking to woman behind information desk and clerk's office, wrong day, next week.  About to leave when realise should visit County Clerk's office: learned only get 1 minute for speech.  Despite what sign says near the locked doors: 3 minutes.

County Counsel:
Sign in, talk to Rudy (? no visible photo ID, can't confirm name he told me later) behind window explain I need to talk to them. Ask spelling of persons name who'll be coming out. Woman comes out.  No visible photo ID displayed. Does not offer me her card. And none available in lobby. I ask for her card.  Goes back behind locked door, comes back, gives me card that says "Jennifer Allmand" (Supervising Paralegal) on it.  Matches name told to me by Rudy (should have asked for his card also).  Later return to enter case#, CMC date etc in their logbook with my fine point black pen (I already logged my name in in blue ink). Witnessed by (ask for names for first time) Rudy and Linda--(sorting mail, both behind window), Jennifer now is in booth, chases me away, saying they have work to do.  I like Linda, told me her name without any sign of evasion whatever.

Earlier tried to explain to Jennifer about the CM-020 (request for extension of time, item #10): need to inform county counsel of the CMC date.  Jennifer says need to serve them first, explain this isn't service but a request for permission for an extension of time, explain I can't afford a process server or have found anyone yet who will mail it (locally), (parenthetically, don't have money for postage or time anyway).

Talk to woman behind information desk.  Finally able to explain it to her asking "Is that justice?".  "NO!" (thanks).

Stop at Zoe's ofc. on way over see if they got my message.  Sandra Soto comes out.  Remembers me from 4 years age.  Fill out request form.

Next stop: Superior Court: pick up 6 copies of my suit.

Next stop (headed for Zoe's office, overshoot, unfamiliar with First St., find myself back at county center, notice
The Sheriff's Office
on Younger for the first time, figure a good idea to stop in and drop off some copies of my suit for mailing.  Park, go in, sit down, realise need to take number from dispenser: "71", wait to be called, talk to unknown woman behind window, directs me to phone on right wall where she tells me to go to other window behind me in rear.  At which another woman tells me to give them my driver's license.  Drop it under window area.  Given visitor badge.  Door is unlocked.  Told to take elevator to second floor.  Huge office.  Lights off (energy saving?)  Totally abandoned.  Except for 'Marian' (No visible photo ID, no business card, "no last names" she tells me sitting behind the counter, constantly pointlessly flipping though papers ( "fanning" them like a deck of cards, perhaps trying to convince me she's doing some sort of productive work) telling me they don't have time to flip through mine.  Tells me she doesn't know any "Sgt. Rodriguez" (talked to him last year, sounded healthy to me, hope he's still there!).  Should try their new building I comment to her, tells me they'll only take my papers here, but refuses to or even look at any of them and tell me what the problem is or what is missing or why she won't take them.  While two women (background right) idly talk quietly with each other totally ignoring me.

I ask to see some people with badges.  Hoping they've been sworn in but realise it's probably not wise to ask them that after they come up and escort me out with my papers.  Ask if I can leave papers for safekeeping.  Told they have no ability to do that.  I comment to them in the elevator about somewhere where one can feel safe.  Glimpse badge (uniformed woman) behind window returning license:  ~"Sutherland".;.

Why do they need to keep my driver's license while I'm locked in there?  The whole place gives me the creeps.
Who will serve the Sheriff?

~12:58pm: drop off a copy at Zoe's office: Mia happily takes them.  Thanks Mia, it meant a lot to me.

There's more..

unfinished 2/6/09

Feb 6: The Grim Reaper 474.wav the world is full of co-incidences.


A grant that is priceless and:
"Granted .. in whole"
(thank you)

Code of Civil Procedure
Class action: Sections 378 - 384
Section 379
"reverse class action"

Actually all you need to know is the "lawyer summons"..
Section 382

"which side are you on?"
"turning state's evidence"
(defendants turned into plaintiffs)
Defendants: a line of accountability up to the "circle on top":
An Assembly, House, Senate, Congress, Council or Board of:
Directors, Trustees, Supervisors, Commissioners, Delegates, Governors, Regents etc.

"Summoning one's interest"

A "writ of mandamus" for
Failing Regulatory Bodies
cy pres awards,  grants,  foundations
"feed the starving children!"
"What is 'cy pres' ?" you ask?
Doling Out Other People’s Money
(where does the money go? .. who has it? .. how much is left?)
how do you find out?  you "knock on the door".  And ask for food.
Whereupon you're given an address of another door to knock upon.
and another and another .. until you hear:
"drive over to this address next Monday between 6 and 8pm"
And: "take a ticket"

"We can't help you"
Call someone else..
"We don't do that anymore"
"We don't take these kinds of cases"
"Leave a (i.e. another) message, someone will get back to you"
"I don't know"

"Please hold.."
"I can't give you my last name"

"Send a letter .."

Until you see the sign on the door that says:
Permanently CLOSED by the statute of limitations.

"showing an interest"
When that salivation is missing, it's an audit.
And an audit upon ALL their houses.

For "the cupboard is bare".
Section 384: "paved with good intentions"
Even a "Mother Teresa" would never qualify for funding under it.

Why can't I find a pro-bono lawyer?

Chief Justice Ronald M. George in his State of the Judiciary address in 2001:
“If the motto ‘and justice for all’ becomes ‘and justice for those who can
afford it,’ we threaten the very underpinnings of our social contract.”

"Send more money!"
the lobbyists beseech for their vested interests.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
It's called malpractice.  Not Justice.

How about "product liability".
The Judiciary is there to produce a product.  Called Justice.
It comes with an implied warranty of fitness.
Something called a "Code of Ethics".  An "Oath of Office" or something.
With the "Justice " on the end of the assembly line scrutinising for defects.

"I want my money back!"my money back!"
We should ALL be demanding it back from these "We can't help you" charities.
Every helpless litigant abandoned by their indigence should.

"Law Stamps"
Why not?  Food stamps can be very efficient and effective at solving the problem.

"pro-bono" (translation):
"Please leave a message at the beep.  Someone will get back to you."
"Don't probono me.  And don't probono thee,
Probono that lawyer hiding behind the probono tree"

"I don't work for free" (at least he was honest about it).


A "Code of Ethics"
 "You can't fix it      ..      or maybe you can
thanks for coming up with that   "flash of Integrity"

A "Statute of Limitations"

It compels one to act as it says "speak now or forever hold your peace"
(because memories fade over time and become unreliable)

"You might sue because you have too many unanswered questions" I told her.

You might sue for your own mental health.  Having been made ill from all that you have learned about a system (including institutions you believed in) that were supposed to make you well.  Most often money *does* make it work right.  Because you pay for what you want.  It's only when you no longer have control of it that it malfunctions.

Most people in this world are well-intentioned. And intelligent. ".. an imperfect world.." -- thanks calling and acknowledging it, it meant a lot to me.

The Court Administration:
"The Good, The Bad, and The .. "

"Mutiny on the County"
Where's Cap'n Bligh?
"in his absence"
you'll be told by one of their unsupervised undisciplined spoiled rotten administration receptionists at (408) 882-2700 who'll never let any hint of dissatisfaction reach the captain's ears.  They've got a couple of them in the Administrative Office of the Courts (Judicial Council) in SF also (415) 865-4200.  Have any of them ever been sworn in?  What was the name of the judge who did?  Why won't they tell you their name as soon as they pick up?  Before they put you on hold for over an hour until you give up (or if not simply hang up on you).  Why have these people been completely unmonitored for quality and disciplining purposes?  Will they ever be?  How long has this been going on?  The AOC SF's receptionist's supervisor's voice mail promises to call you back.  I don't know why it sounds like he's laughing at you.


"Let them eat cake"
(the referral to the self-service center)

It's the "Exxon-Valdez" -- 3 years ago you'd drive over and wait an hour.  Today you have to get there at 6:30 in the morning.  This is one of the richest counties in the world.  "It borders on contempt" were the only words I had for Barbara Fox when she came on the line directing me over there.  I didn't ask for her anyway, receptionist supervision runs through their General Counsel Jim Rumble, not Barbara.  I'm still waiting for him to return my calls who I need to ask some questions I have about the court, it's relationship with the county, cy pres distributions, finances, et. al.  And these so-called LPS "temporary conservatorships" (to verify which judge has oversight of it, etc).

Who are they anyway?
No picture ID prominently displayed: 'Alicia' told me my case had been reassigned to Judge Emerson.  But Room 19 was locked when I got there.  Later another Alicia (at the same window) told me there's two of them ("which one is which?").

Is this an "office efficiency"?
But the problem is that no one will remember the previous interaction with this person.  It's important for *both* parties to know that these documents are being signed by who they say they are.
Helpful Tellers, Stressed Tellers, Tellers I like..

Tellers afraid (or ??) to tell you what you need to know: "can't give legal advice" -- this is nonsense.  Who's been telling them they can't tell me what Judith so helpfully did explaining to me what was supposed to go in the defendant's box: "The County Of Santa Clara, Et Al".  "Do you have business cards?" I asked.  "We used to"  ..  "Have you met David Yamasaki yet?" I asked (curious who he is).

A favorite: it's nice when you see someone "taking you seriously" and being responsive.  Especially when you need it..  The list was long and she was trying to type it all in as quickly as possible.  A line forms, I looked at my watch.  The meter!  Yes, the parking ticket was dangling on the windshield.  ( ..another apology to Joshua .. long story)

Hit Counter

A new website is a "billboard in a desert". A hit counter upon it will register absolutely nothing:   Until someone is told where to find it.  It is, for all intents and purposes, essentially hidden and secret.  And known only to those who have been told of it.  Like a private telephone number.  Ignore the first 200 or so, it's just me making edits and "looking at myself".

Websites are a "public repository of information".  And that only.  And probably one of the most confusing forms of publication (if at that) there is.  They are passive, not active like TV or radio is.  And because there are 'zillions' of them, it's generally unlikely that this "drop in the ocean" here will have any influence whatever over the general state of affairs.  Even for the few who happen to 'click' on it, there's really no guarantee they'll actually read (or have the time to) and/or be able to understand it all.  Education is often a very slow process.  No one reads anymore anyway.
A "poor man's newspaper"
Despite all those rotten tomatoes™ we all love to fling at Bill Gates, I have to grudgingly acknowledge that if it weren't for companies like Microsoft (& Intel etc), I'd have been unable to bring this lawsuit whatever.  No indigent would.

: indeed, I have a few myself regarding some hard lessons I've had to learn on the security issues.

"You better publish!"