GRIEVANCE MONGERING RUN AMUCK

A PERSON’S CHARACTER DETERMINES THEIR FATE.

Twenty years ago, my husband was targeted, pathologically stalked”  and/or inappropriately “pursued”  by a depraved, sociopathic behaving woman.   She harassed, followed and threatened him for many years before she resorted to her blackmailing and “extortion” maneuvering.  FYI — The bunny-boiling-agitator was married to another man during this timeframe.

His initial mistake was thinking he could negotiate with the escalating menace of the calculating sperm-stalker.  Everything went downhill through the rabbit hole of insanity after he was “cozened”  with false promises to secretly “gift” his then, 48-year-old sperm to an account set up by her at a local California Cyrobank.

 He thought she would just go away after the veiled “property transaction”.    Wrong.  He was tricked.  She subsequently declared that the genetic material was “no-good” for her reproductive processing plans, but yet, she refused to destroy it.  And then, abhorrently, she demanded $60,000 as a ransom.  

We found out years later she was simultaneously,  trying to transfer the sperm to another bank and complaining to the staff about (fake) threats being made against her.  They became sympathetic to her plight, when she said she didn’t want to destroy the sperm, which the donor had demanded the bank to do, because she might want future siblings.  So much for the pernicious lies made to the donor that his sperm was not viable.    

All of this subterfuge and stalking was equivalent to “domestic relationship terrorism”.  Even worse was finding out that she was maliciously telling others that she was effectively the sperm donor’s “undocumented wife”.

Unfortunately, her “inappropriate conception” scheme and vile delusions got thwarted when I got wind of her evil shenanigans.    Suddenly, she was faced with the uncomfortable fact that her 37 year old, biological clock or “shelf-life” would soon be expiring.  Which lead to her becoming even more desperately sick and reckless in her terroristic, macro-ggressions.  

She told the “inappropriately” interfering wife,  that if she wanted a war, she would get one.  Her gaslighting tactics came straight out of a some Alinsky-inspired, hoor playbook.   There was no end to her campaign to insult, besmirch, and to damage the wife’s interests, or her sensibilities.  The unscrupulous end game was to meant to inflict untold suffering or stress, or to destroy the wife’s “peace of mind”.

When that didn’t work as planned, she decided to file frivolous lawsuits smearing and defaming the donor and his nasty, bitch wife.  Preposterously she claimed some “reverse” inappropriate behavior of  harassment and stalking, that was not supported by any evidence.  But you know its always about the “seriousness of the charge” to enrage the judge.  Much to her chagrin, her unsupported allegations were challenged and dismissed. 

This piece of schiff, ( POS ) wannabe sidepork even had the unmitigated gall to seek me out in a public place to confront me.   Having no moral qualms,  she audaciously   screamed at me that  (QUOTE) —“[she] was not going to let my jealousy interfere with her [meretricious] association, —- or whatever was perceived in her disgruntled mind as some [unrecognizable]  long-term-interactions, or albeit,  illicit, alleged,  “relations-POS” with my disloyal husband.

Aghast at her unnerving and insulting verbal assaults or her mindfucking,  I decided to contact her MIA husband, (who lived in another county) to discuss her bizarre and sinister, semantic “insinuations”.  

 

YOU CAN NOT MAKE UP THIS KIND OF MIND MELTING MUCK

Now, according to HURRICANE STALKINGER’s, Stockholm-Syndromed, conflicted husband, —who proudly  asserted that he fully supported his beloved wife’s actions and/or “career moves”, —they were still married.   He claimed he was a SWABIAN, and still, willingly paid for her lifestyle and adulterous mothering “choices”.    He reluctantly admitted that she had started coming up with plausible excuses to distance herself from him soon after they were “conveniently” married.    Then astoundingly he  told me their apparently, “open marriage” was done in exchange for him paying off her college debt.    ( Which he claimed was about $175,000 in value. )  WHAT a sad 😢 dope.

His attitude was beyond baffling.  Even after I contacted him to expose his wife’s behaviors,  he chose to stay in this emotionally abusive, gaslighting marriage for almost 14 years.  It was unbelievable how he pathetically continued to  defend his wife’s whoremongering, —as if,  —it all was somehow his fault. 

There could be no doubting that this pathological exploiter was dangerously obsessed with my husband.    After all, everyone told me, she had been professionally stalking him for years.   She was constantly plotting to place herself in his business orbit whenever possible, ever since she had met him.  My husband finally told me that without his knowledge or consent, she had been unexpectedly showing up, uninvited, at his business related events, always stroking his ego and asking him to be her “mentor”.  

 By all accounts from many different sources, she had misrepresented her toxic stalking or her “associating” with my husband as some “LURVE AFFAIR TO REMEMBER”.   She literally crossed mountains, continents and oceans to throw herself at him.   There was nothing she was not above or below doing to get her targeted prize.   Or “by any means necessary”.  The whole, surreal, Kalfesque nightmare was like some pathetically sick or twisted, sad, greek tragedy. 

 

THE FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD DOW

Once her frauds, deceits and crimes of moral turpitude were exposed she went ballistic. Her hair was on fire  in her disdain and contempt for her enemies.  She naturally, resorted to a vicious smear campaign to cover up her felony wrongdoings and material lies.

 Like the wicked witch of the west, she and her  “flying-monkey”-sycophants conspired to manufacture fake talking points or perjurious allegations.

Her legal contentions had no basis in law.  Her meritless posturing was unsupported by any material or relevant facts.  

There was no end to her unethical attorney’s misrepresentations of law and the dishonest parroting of her client’s misleading and false statements to further her hoaxes or legal charades upon four separate courts, as well as upon several governmental agencies, in two different countries.  

Her disinformation scam was scandalous.   Her deceitful propaganda was inspired by pure evil.   She was a sociopathic bully,  manipulating others to corrupt and subvert due process rights,  and to violate other legal prerequisites. 

All of the fraudulent documents filed by the sperm-stalker in her improper complaints demonstrated her unlawful, deceits and wrongdoing.  Her  crimes had  “the appearance” of a conspiracy.   Her dishonest pleadings lacked any shred of any justifying predication facts for any court to proceed.   When there is the  “wrongful, unclean hands, invoking” of  a court’s limited jurisdiction, the law commands dismissal.  There are no rights for any hearings, no matter how salacious or intriguing.

As a threshold, prerequisite matter, there was no “subject matter jurisdiction over the defective parties.”   Thus there was no legal right for the unauthorized court to grant any reliefs, which are illegal or forbidden, as a matter of law.  

In other words, there was no “good cause” for the State to intervene, or to act, because there was NO compelling state or relevant private interests proven first to be “at issue”. 

Because the parties presented were prohibited parties the parties lacked “standing”.  Moreover, because these issues were challenged at the commencement of the case, there could be “no controversy to adjudicate.”    

Furthermore, the fabricated, inapplicable or “specious” contentions were not even “colorable” claims, in spite of the insufferable plaintiff ‘s hypocritical and hysterical howls of protest.  

Each of her false equivalency legal positions created mandatory legal estoppels.  TheRe was no proper notice or joinder of necessary parties for the cort to have fundamental jurisdiction.   The biased, obviously obtuse or confused  court acted beyond its authority.   The preliminary decision showed how the court subsequently misunderstood or conflated distinguishable legal matters.  That  are otherwise completely separate or apart issues.  No joinder notice means the court can not adjudicate anything. Or issue any binding orders, that are void for all purposes.  PAST PRESENT or FUTURE.

The incompetent court did not want to see the forest, for all the flying rotten fruit thrown from poisonous trees.

 

NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE LUDICROUS ALLEGATIONS :

The merits of the pleadings were completely  disproven.  Which is supported by the courts own determinations of undisputed facts.   Thus, “as a matter of law,” the court had a mandatory, legal duty to dismiss the case, after the very first hearing.    ( See Cal. Family Codes, 3428, 3425, 3429, 7630(a), 7645 et seq.)   The plaintiff had unclean hands and committed frauds upon the court. 

Because the plaintiff had asked for specific custody reliefs, the jurisdiction prerequisite threshold was not satisfied.   The facts precluded any further, UCCJEA restricted hearings.    Because there was no standing, there was no further subject matter jurisdiction, “over the “defective parties”  or a legal basis for the court to act, at all.    

This fact renders all orders or all of the ensuing, illegal proceedings unconstitutional, and thus every order or ruling was null and legally invalid, and/or  void, “on its face.”

The court can not confer subject matter “Jurisdiction” upon itself , merely by the presence of prohibited parties. (SEE IRMO JENSEN (2003) ; and IRMO Nurie (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 484, 490-492, 512.)

The applicable law only recognizes the mother’s ex-husband as already being the only, “legally- presumed- father”.  

Because he was not ever properly joined or named as a litigant, as a required, necessary adverse party , nor was he ever given any required notice or service of process, —-the  court could not hear the “inappropriate petitions” or the unauthorized hearings.   Again, because of all the notice/ joinder violations, all of the rendered adjudications or proceedings violated due process and thus were unconstitutional and equally  “VOID”.

 

THE COURT’S ABJECT LEGAL FAILURES

The so called “decisions” of the court were forbidden by law, non-binding in their nature, and were the product of frauds, bias and collusive acts.

The law clearly mandates that  “no liberty interest” exists to untimely bastardize a marital child.     

There are no “legal distinctions” between the circumstannces of the case with those that were at issue in the similar 1998 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT case, Dawn D. vs. Superior Court [ 17 Cal. App. 4th 932 ].    See also Neil S. v. Mary L. (2011) 199 CA 4th 240,249-255.); and W.S. v. S.T. (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 132.  

If one has no standing under the UPA, or if the qualifying facts do not apply to an alleged party, as specified in the restricted provisions of California Family Code, section 7611, or 7630(a)., …there can be no “controversy” or litigation issues for any hearings. 

 In other words, any potential, separate, bifurcation issue rebuttals of a husbands presumed parentage, that might arise under section 7612 is a separate jurisdiction case. The provisions can not apply to statutory prohibited parties.  

Simply put, there can be no judicial interventions where there is no actual controversy.  There was no legal justification or predicates proven first, to hear the case.  The case constituted a prohibited or “an inappropriate action”.   The case was a fraud upon the court.   The malicious prosecution of a case wrongly perpetrated against my husband, who had no standing was a miscarriage of justice and a legal nullity.

 

JUDICIAL MALFEASANCE

It was chilling, and stunningly alarming the sheer backdoor corruption or rank  judicial incompetence, malfeasance and collusive acts at issue.    Somehow the malcontent players were able to illegally bootstrap themselves into unauthorized hearings to advance her frauds upon the court.   Even through it is evident that her original pleadings were defeated.  Her allegations were clearly unproven, under the burdens of proof.

 This “shockinger” travesty of injustices  is regrettably similar to what happened in the corrupted General Michael Flynn case.   It is just another example of the reckless and callous abuses of court process by unscrupulous persons, aided and abetted by a biased court refusing to even obey the applicable rules of law.  

These “Compromised” or corrupted judges are unwilling to do their mandatory, legal duties.  All the confusion is by design, meant to impoverish the victim and to unjustly enrich the exploiting lawyers.   Like sharks summoned to fake, chummed, bloody waters.

Another ignored or constantly overlooked fatal jurisdictional error in this legal disaster was that the record shows there were. “no required filings” submitted to the court. Which is a legal requirement, for verifying the papers.  ( See CRC , RULE 5.24 )  Which must occur “before “ any preliminary hearings can even happen.

The incompetent court missed that stop 🛑 light too !!!!

At every turn in this legal train wreck there was a complete lack of any fundamental jurisdiction “over the parties”— for the court to render in a legal vacuum any preposterous or precipitous bogus  “adjudications”.   ( See the newest CAL. Supreme Court case, Bianka M. v. Superior Court, Issued 8/16/2018, case # S233757.)

 

THERE CAN BE ONLY “ONE “ PRESUMED LEGAL FATHER THAT IS SUBJECT TO A FAMILY COURT’S JURISDICTION. …

There can be only “one presumed father”.   A sperm donor is not legally equivalent to a presumed parent, so the complaining party, mother, had no legal entitlement, or the “capacity to sue”  a prohibited party, or a an alleged father, who otherwise is a legal stranger, or someone who has NO standing or no legal status.

Moreover, such a legal stranger lacks any standing under the UCCJEA or the UPA to displace the presumed legal father,  who in this case is still the marital husband.   The court only had limited authority or jurisdiction under Family code section 7666 to give an alleged, bio contributor “notice”.    

If a mere “alleged father” wants no part of the case, or if he claims that he has “no interests” for the wrongfully invoked hearings, he has no standing.   A court can not confer subject matter jurisdiction over an uninterested party.   ( IRMO NURIE)

The record clearly showed that the alleged sperm donor challenged the underlying merits of the case, and asked “to be dismissed”.  The court utterly failed to grasp this critical, fatally jurisdictional, distinction or the defective parties fact.

The mother’s own absurd and  obstructionist requests to quash any discovery requests under privacy and marital immunity provisions during the initial case proceedings “eviscerated her legal claims”.   ( See Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) at pp. 937-944 and Scott v. Thompson (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1506, 1510-1514. ; H.S. v. Superior Court (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1502. )  She can’t claim two opposite positions. Or that there is no presumed father/husband at issue, and then scream marital privileges apply or privacy  immunities apply to preclude any discovery affecting the very issues she untimely raised.

 

THE LAW IS CLEAR

A California court as a matter of law, has NO “declaratory discretion” to act or to intervene against estoppel preclusions.   ( See Librers v. Black (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 114,124. ; In re P.A. (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 974, 983 ; Neil S. v. Mary L. (2011) 198  Cal. App. 4th 240, 249 [ lack of standing means no compelling state interests arise for further marital interests scrutiny.].)

 The record shows clearly themanifest injustices” or the judicial malfeasance where the court granted specific reliefs without having any legal powers or the jurisdiction to do so.   The violations of due process where in direct violation of specific, statutory restrictions or governing, statutes of limitations.   ( SEE new, Kent v. Kent (2019) 35 Cal. App. 5th 487, 496 ; IRMO Jackson (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 890. ; Bianka M. v. Superior Court (2018) CAL. SUPREME COURT case S233757. )   All the orders and proceedings were VOID .  “ A void judgment is in legal effect, NO JUDGMENT.”  ( Levine v. Smith (2006)  145 Cal. App. 4th 1131, 1135.) 

There is no doubt that the California court acting under the UCCJEA was fraudulently and “wrongfully invoked”  by unjustified acts, or by unclean hands.   The family court acted beyond its limited jurisdiction.  It had had no “applicable” powers to grant any of the prohibited custody reliefs that were improperly requested by the dishonest reprobate, whose deceitful agenda was to illegally further her own government records and birth records frauds.   

There was no legal basis or rational reason to entertain what was proven at the first hearing to be a fraudulent petition about an untimely and prohibited or an inappropriate action to effectively, “bastardize”  an otherwise legitimate child, born into a valid marriage. 

 

LACK OF STANDING IS A FATAL JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT

“Without standing, there is no actual controversy, and thus wrongfully invoked courts cannot entertain such cases.” ( see : In re P.A. (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 974, citing Clifford (1995) ; H.S. v. Superior Court (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1502. ; Scott v. Thompson (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1506, 1510-1514.)

All of the allegations in the moving pleadings were unsubstantiated.    Because the “ burdens of proof were not satisfied,  the petitioner was not entitled to any further reliefs, or hearings, or to any “orders or adjudications” regarding restricted UCCJEA matters. ( West v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal. App.4th 302, 305 [ litigants can not avail themselves of restricted UCCJEA provisions ]). 

Even more legally significant, in the unique circumstances presented, because there was “no proper service or notice” ever given to the only presumed father, who was the only allowed or a necessary party, the court also lacked any reasonable, “personal jurisdiction” over him under CRC Rule, 5.25(e).   Thus  CRC Rule 5.17 or under CCP section, 389 ,  the court could not render any (non-binding ) precipitous or prohibited orders, that were void on its face, orders.   ( See CA. Family Code 3425, and Bianka M. v. Superior Court  ; W.M. v. V.A. (12/13/2018) Cal. App.5th, # B287735.) 

Yet this biased, obtuse California court was nevertheless, hell bent on getting an outcome that it wanted, regardless that its reckless acts and machinations constituted malice per se, and violated every substantive and due process right or law.

 These structural errors were legal abuses ( or malfeasance) that resulted in a compounding miscarriage of justice.  Such jurisdictional and unconstitutional, procedural defects violate due process and are reversible, per se.  ( IRMO GODDARD (2005) Cal. Supreme Court, IRMO Jackson (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 980.) 

If the court even wished to act on matters outside of the jurisdictionally defective pleadings, —it would need to first amend the pleadings and to mandatory joinder the proper or necessary parties before it could proceed to act on any alleged, separate, bifurcated issues. ( CCP 389 and CRC Rule 5.24(e); Bianka M. (2018) Cal. Supreme Court , S233757.) 

The defectively named, sperm donor, “respondent”,  had no recognized legal status, nor standing to be compelled to submit to the court’s limited authority.  There was no rational reasoning,  nor any applicable legal basis or theory to support any further hearings.  The court improperly acted as a biased advocate, acting on issues not specified in the original pleadings.    ( See new precedent case , In re G.B. ( issued 10/18/2018. [ 28 Cal. 5th , 475 ? ] .) 

Parentage determinations can only be based upon the Legislative framework or the qualifications outlined strictly under the UPA (Uniform Parentage Act.) .   Worthless determinations of non-binding, invalid “presumed parent status” can not based on subjective and improper,  specious, or any best interest of the child considerations.  

Such an approach raises the repugnant specter of unwarranted governmental interference in matters implicating our most fundamental notions of privacy, and confuses concepts of parentage and custody. Logically, the determination of parentage must precede, and should not be dictated by, eventual custody decisions.”     ( Johnson v. Calvert ( 1993) 5 Cal. 4th 84, fn. 10.)

 

CALIFORNIA CASE LAW PROVES LACK OF JURISDICTION:  

Courts must always defer to the Uniform Parentage Act ( The UPA) to make any binding Parentage adjudications. —. ( Lisa I. v. Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 605, 620-622 , citing Dawn D.  )  The UPA strictly restricts time limits and standing in parentage actions that seek to challenge the already established by law, “presumption” of the husband’s paternity.   ( Lisa I. v. Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 605, 34 Cal. Rptr.3d 927, at pp. 930-931.) 

The UPA is the only legal mechanism or means that may be used for “determining” any parentage facts, pursuant to the California Supreme Court ‘s binding case law.  See Dawn D. v. Superior Court  (1998) 17 Cal. App. 4th 932–through to the recent  Bianka M. v. Superior Court  (2018) S233757 [ if no joinder of presumed father, no standing or no Jurisdiction exists to make any  adjudications.].) 

Fundamentally, there can be only, one legal father.  So if a legal stranger does not qualify for any recognizable “presumed parent status” in the first place, the court has no power to declare  him to be a putative father, or to proceed against him, against law.  ( H.S. v. Superior Court (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1502.) 

Also see other binding California Supreme Court authorities  : People v. Sorenson (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 280, 287- 289, fn 1, [ which clearly states that “Regardless of any decrees made in any divorce action, the duty to support a child born during a marriage falls on the mother and her husband equally, because the husband is automatically the only “lawful father”, regardless of a lack of a genetic connection.] ;  see also In re Marriage of Buzzanca (1998) 61 Cal. 4th 1410, 1412-1426 [ “UPA parents cannot limit or abrogate a child’s right to support.”   Paternity may be established by remaining married to the mother or by promising to support the child in writing.”].    

The California Supreme Court cases, Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal. App. 4th 932 and In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal. App. 4th 588  clearly state that biological facts are irrelevant factors” when one does not qualify for any standing purposes.  This means that a man who is merely only an alleged biological father,  is unable to be made a party to an improper action which wishes to challenge the other, presumed marital-father’s paternity status.   

It is obvious that in our improperly litigated case, the incompetent court unlawfully granted “reliefs” that the court had “no power” or statutory authority to grant.   ( See Carlson v. Eassa (1998) 54 Cal. App. 4th 684, 696; County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 1215, 1225-1229 ;   In re P.A. (2011) 198  Cal. App. 4th 974 ;   H.S. v. Superior Court ( 2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1502;  Neil S. v. Mary L. (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 240;   In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal. App. 4th 588;   Bianka M. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) S233757. ;  County of Santa Clara v. Perry (2018) 18 Cal. App.4th 432. 

Thus all of its orders were “void on its face”.

Every subsequent ruling or any new orders issued, seeking to unfairly validate the court’s prior, unlawful orders were “equally void”.   ( Rochin v. Pat Johnson Mauufacturing Co. ( 1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1239-1240. [ res-judicata claims do not apply against void orders.  All proceedings are worthless, last, present and future.].) 

Furthermore, “Family law can not apply to unmarried persons who are legal strangers for all purposes”.     ( Marvin v. Marvin (1979) 18 Cal. 3d 660.)   The rogue court had sanctioned my husband without proper subject matter jurisdiction to do so. 

Repeating unsubstantiated, dubious or false claims that are not proven, does not make them facts.

Each subsequent judge in this case was required by law to vacate the proven void orders,  and to correct the scandalous and materially falsified, California birth records. But they refused to do so.   

A married woman must give birth records officials the name of her real husband and her real maiden name for vital record validity purposes, if any child should be born during her valid marriage.  To not do so is a felony act.  The rights of Legitimacy belong to the child.  A court can not just undermine or subvert the law to “declare a man” who otherwise does not qualify as a presumed father under the UPA, to be a parent.   It is a void act against law.  ( H.S. v. Superior Court  (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1502,  [A court must correct such unlawful, corrupted, fraudulent or statutory invalid birth records, as a matter of law. ].)   See also Pavan v. Smith (6/26/2017) US Supreme Court ; Title 18 USC 371 ; CA. Penal Codes 112, 115, 118, et seq. )

Unfortunately regardless of the fact that we could not ever get the obtuse court to comprehend or to recognize its own legal frauds with its compelling legal duties to rectify its own void and preposterous and insane rulings, its orders are all void.  And thus we have the ongoing legal right to collaterally attack the patently “ void orders”, at any time and in any court.

  Void acts can not stand.  Void acts are worthless for all purposes, past present or future.  The passage of time does not validate such worthless legal nullities. ( GORHAM) 

 

ESCAPING DANTE’S PURGATORY 

We finally see a light at the end of this fabricated farce.    We know certain inconvenient truths and multiple California SUPREME COURT directives will always eviscerate any of the warped claims made by the unrepentant, ghoulish crone, who still can not seem to get any closure from her rejection.

Much to her chagrin, we are living our happily ever after.

 To demonstrate how utterly irredeemable this alleged, penniless stalker from HELL is, we recently found out she was asked about when she last had any “contact” with my husband, —who allegedly was harassing her.  She absurdly answered, “well, … I heard his voice over the phone in an unrelated court proceeding”, —that she herself initiated to harass him.    This woman can’t let go of her contempt for us and is feverishly engaged in a new defamation smear campaign against us to cover up her felony crimes and malicious wrongdoings.    

HURRICANE STALKINGER is a danger to anyone who gets in her path.   Ironically she deserves some retribution lightening, winds and the wrath of a Cat. 5 hurricane to descend upon her briny breezy lair where she and her emotionally enmeshed, malcontent joke of an agitator, aka activist, son allege they maintain their undercover, trailer trash operations to save the planet.  

Which deceitful pandering is beyond laughable because the woman has not even paid her garbage collection fees for the last four years !!!!  ROFLMHO    And of course, now they are asking people to donate to their “undivided” cause, — I assume because the child support scam has been eliminated.   🌪🌪⛈⛈⛈⚡️⚡️💨😱😱 OH MY ! ! !  

 

Posted in Babymama by choice, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Cheap, Coersive Sex is Not a Romantic “Relationship” !!!

Once upon conniving, ”what-about-me-isms”… cloaked under the protections of Constitutional immunities and privileges that affect personal, liberty, marital and privacy rights, a Machiavellian evil, exploiter (aka-sociopath) decided to commit corporate espionage and wrongdoings hoping to leverage and entrap her prey, my husband.

This 30 something, married but available, female-predator met my husband through her employer’s business dealings. From their initial introduction and back whispering she perceived him as a wealthy, successful, noble or white-knight kind of prey. Worthy of being “side-porked” or pursued by a social-climbing, marauding opportunist.

Apparently, she never even loved the duped, cuckolded man she had just recently married. Because her husband proudly bragged to me that he had “agreed” to pay off her student loan debt in exchange for her seduction and marriage vows. She exhibited no guilt or remorse to him about the consequences of her behavior. In other words, she had no qualms about abusing and exploiting him, or to cheat on him, seeking to trade up.

After sexually compromising my targeted husband, (her client), during a drunken celebration of the closure of their business transactions, she started her years long campaign of harassing and stalking him. She persisted in coaxing and cajoling him into “helping her” with her career. Maneuvering to position him as her “mentor” from afar, to network with others.

From that point afterwards, this weaseling woman kept up a litany of excuses of exploitive pretenses to be useful to him, literally “stalking” him across three continents to stay in his business orbit. After her next employer threatened to transfer her to MOSCOW if she did not resign, she blackmailed my husband into hiring her as payback for all the “mutually benefiting” information and self-serving “services” she had rendered to him to ingratiate herself.

Unfortunately, all of her sex-exploitations, or her “shelf life” was about to expire. Within two months of her hiring, she quickly wore out her unwelcome when my husband’s other subordinates vehemently objected to her pissy, arrogant, condescending, and sanctimonious attitudes, given her utter business incompetence. The only thing she actually knew how to do, was to “market herself” to my husband.

My husband flatly told her that there was no private future for them and that their inappropriate and “meretricious” associations needed to stop. He had thrown her a lifeline, but it was time to move on. Apparently, it came as a shocking surprise that he would throw her overboard because he valued and loved his wife and family more. In spite of her “no-strings-attached”, fantasy relationship parameters.

Being the predictable, mentally deranged, devious or damaged skank that she was, when her directed love-bombing schemes and covert manipulations did not pan out as plotted, she resorted to other subterfuge to undermine her alleged mentor.

Naturally, the winning ploy was to place him in utter distress by threatening to expose to his wife their cheap and coerced, past sexual entanglements. Effectively, she indecently propositioned, that in order to get out of their “inappropriate interactions”, he would need to agree to an unconscionable deal with the devil.

She blackmailed him to enter into oral and written contracts, where in exchange for certain considerations, he would secretly donate his Scandinavian sperm to her at a California sperm bank that she had already selected. This hostage release deal was made with her promises that “no future expectations or obligations” would ever be demanded by her of him, if he gifted his sperm. He foolishly thought he had bought his release with his compliance. So much for trusting a conniving sociopath, or pathological liar.

Predictably, almost 10 years later, she reneged on her agreements and stabbed him in the back. She managed to improperly sue him by frauds upon the courts, in what constituted jurisdictionally defective, unauthorized proceedings for certain restricted UCCJEA prohibited matters.

The legal consequences of the court’s own undisputed “findings” resulted in “factual determinations” that this married woman, when her child was born eight years earlier, had effectively shrouded her private procreative activities within the confines of her marital immunities and privileges. All done with the knowledge, aid, collusion and abetting of her former husband. Who is automatically presumed established by law and the only
“Legal Father”.

Moreover, the court made explicit findings that during the previous eight years he had willing supplied generous amounts of financial and emotional support to his wife, to in effect, legally estoppel, or “preclude” (or stay) any further legal proceedings to challenge or to refute his long established, “parental status” that applied under California Family Code Sections, 7601,7601, 7610, 7611 and 7645 et seq.
( See legal case law authorities, “Lisa I. V Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 605; Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998)
17 Cal. App. 4th 932; and the recent new California Supreme Court opinion
Bianka M. v. Superior Court (8/16/2018) case # S233757.)

Because her former husband was already the only legal father, the court had no further legal discretion or jurisdictional power or authority to intervene, or to act, or “to proceed” to untimely rebut or negate the husband’s already established parental status or to refute and terminate her child’s protected presumption of legitimacy.

In other words, her improper-purposes, “unclean hands”, requests for mischievous and unlawful reliefs, prohibited by statutes were unauthorized and improperly petitioned for in what constituted inapplicable or unfounded UCCJEA proceedings. Because her husband’s parental status was automatically binding pursuant to California’s constitutionally-valid, and comprehensive, governing UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT, (UPA). Its standing standards are buttressed by a long line of California Appellate and Supreme Court opinions that dictate how lower superior courts must made parentage determinations.

Yet, to this day, this dysfunctional parasite has continued to dissemble and confuse others with her pity ploys and calculated lies about these legal facts. She makes misleading insinuations and connotations with her slandering and hate-pimping. She uses disparaging defamation tactics and smear campaigns against my husband and I to further her outrageous subterfuge. Not only did we discover that she falsified her child’s birth certificate by claiming my husband was her husband, but that she has continued her pathological pattern of making such false declarations by outright written statements to others that she was effectively “married to” him, and/or later divorced from him. When she was not.

After dragging my husband through unconscionable legal charades and court abuses, she has continued to still follow and/or stalk us. Public records searches showed we bought a retirement, second home in Florida; so under suspicious circumstances she moved across the continent from California to Florida. I assume she hoped she would oh-so-coincidentally run into him.

Bizarrely, we recently discovered in closed court records, that she signed under penalty of perjury, that she lives with my husband at his address. Her insanity never ends.

Apparently, in her morally bankrupt world, as an intellectual sloth, she still has no shame, no remorse, nor any regret about any of the harms, effects, or the consequences of her reckless lies and destructive deceits. Even those calumnies used to deceive and manipulate her precious child. Whom she likes to call, “Your Majesty”. The brazen fruit that she birthed doesn’t seem to have fallen far from the poisonous tree, either. He parrots his mother’s vicious lies and talking points in locked step. I can’t even keep track of all of her shocking, cluster-farce of frauds, illegal conduct, and “crimes of moral turpitude”.

Thus malignant sociopath has no problem preening and bragging about the galling fact that she also will “never, ever make any apologies for “who or what she is.” In all of this washed up, ugly crone’s rewrites or whitewashing of “her-story”, she purports to otherwise, “sleep soundly at night”, unabashedly “secure in her integrity.”

Well Good for that belligerent, snarky shark, and bless her little black-heart. 🖤

If it weren’t so serious, all of her feigned indignations and self-serving, sanctimonious, hypocrisy is unbelievably ludicrous and laughable.

“True Love” does not steal or covert or take. Love is not jealousy, nor revenge inspired. “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.” It is not rude, it is not self-serving or seeking, it is not easily angered. It keeps no record of wrongs. Love, 💕 does not delight in evil wrongdoings. Love is honest, truthful, and protecting. Love always perseveres.”

Maybe one day this delusional reprobate will do something really stupid and illegal that finally results in her getting caught and/or sanctioned with some well deserved righteous justice.

Perhaps a court will impose DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS against her for attempting to continue to smear and harm my personal relationships, interests and rights. There ought to be some sort of redress for her rabid, pathological lies, hate-pimping, frauds and deceits.

Now who in your eyes represents the real threat when this sick psycho still persists on harassing a devoted married couple. Merely because she can not move on, or get over the fact that she NEVER meant anything to her beloved sperm donor.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

HOW DARE the Wife … ASK the SPERM BANK QUESTIONS !

Most people would find it shocking to discover that in California, despite mandatory spousal consent laws and information material for disclosure purposes in conducting transactions that might affect future marital property interests, California CRYO Banks don’t bother to verify the sensitive nature of relationships of known parties to ask them proper consent questions when they broker, as a third party, sperm donation transactions.

I am not discussing anonymous contributions, pay to play deals, where a CRYOBANK tests, screens and resells the sperm for a profit.

I’m talking about the fact that any hustler with a vagina can “open an account” and get an otherwise, emotionally unavailable,  known sperm donor to go in and deposit sperm for her amoral, recreational, reproductive uses without alerting a married donor’s spouse to the suspicious transaction, that could possibly affect her future marital property equity interests.

Apparently in the eyes of altruistic institutions such as CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK, married men own their sperm.  They consider these unique, disposable, tadpole swimmers (gamete substances) to be the “separate property” of a male donor and thus a man does not need to get his wife’s consent to “gift” his sperm away to parties “outside of” the marriage.

But in the reverse situation, women whose positions, which are “similarly situated”, like being “married”  are held to a much stricter standard.  They must get the written consent of their spouse to gift their female gamete substances away.  Even if a woman is not married, but in a relationship with a significant other, she still needs her sexual partner’s consent and written permission to contract out her eggs to another third party.  Women it seems are treated as chattel or second class citizens.  Who do not have the proper sensibilities to control the use of their “separate property” eggs.

You would think with equal protection, due process laws in place… What is good for the GOOSE,  should be good for the GANDER ???

But, OOOpps…. apparently that would be an inappropriate, biased assumption.  Male ducks can be promiscuous as heck, with no accountability.  But let’s see,  Geese ?  Well, gggeeseus ….  they get asked such invasive questions as to “who is their actual goose husband” or “what goose are they regularly shagging or living with ?”   And sorry gals,   but us Cryobanks need to protect our legal behinds and we need that male’s  signature for such a goose-gamete egg transfer.

Back in 2001, when I found out that my ducky husband had been deceitfully manipulated and cozened into acting as a known sperm donor for his sociopathic business “friend”, who was a married woman, I tracked down and called up the mystery sperm bank and was told outright that I had no right, whatsoever to ask any personal questions about my husband’s ejaculation “transaction”.  That, by the way, blatantly violated California marital consent laws.  The bank was appalled at my rightous indignation.  So they characterized my justified alarm and concerns for my interests as being inappropriate, rude and claimed I was unduly aggressive towards their staff. Because I dared to challenge their donor consent policies and to ask personally invasive questions about the sperm recipient.

To conduct a business in California, a business has to follow all of California’s laws.  CA. CryoBank (CCB ) apparently felt certain inconvenient, pesky CA. transaction laws do not apply to their sperm banking operations.

Unfortunately, it took seven more years and a discovery subpoena to finally uncover all the deceptions committed by the unscrupulous sperm recipient. She had fraudulently misrepresented material facts, (like, alleging that my husband was her spouse with a different last name) to open her sperm bank account.  She was maliciously able to do things like this without any proof (-i.e., a marriage certificate) to verify her relationship status in order to skirt legal hurdles.   HER word was good enough for them in their books.

No wonder the sperm bank was so arrogantly hostile to me.  I was cast in the worst of light by the toxic dispersions of an interloper’s smear campaign. Who told the clinic that I was the EX-WIFE, when that was a lie. CCB was covering their legal backside, because they knew they had never bothered to ask my husband  “who he was actually married to” when he filled out their vague information questionnaire.   They just asked him, “if” he was married.   Then he just handed over his little cup, full of SWEDISH SPERM and signed away his rights to the use of his superior “sailors”.  If they had asked relevant consent questions like, …. is this woman opening the account your wife ?….perhaps the sperm bank just might have discovered there was a possible conflict of legal interests and fraud.

Those pesky, investigative, invasions of personal situations are just so inappropriate to ask a man according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.   But for a woman, no question or personal detail is beyond scrutiny.  Sperm is just a commodity that ethically blind Sperm-Banks profit from.  So storing coveted sperm for some manipulative, lying hustler was no problem, because the crone paid the bill.

As certain truths game to light that year, my husband asked that the remaining ( supposedly  non-viable) sperm held by CCB be destroyed.  We argued this because the deranged Babymama had by deceits and false promises coerced my husband into donating sperm to her and then later she reneged on all the legal considerations made in order for this suspicious property transfer to have happened.

The indignant babymama refused to close her CCB account and destroy the remaining sperm upon my husband’s requests.  She Challenged both us and the CCB, claiming that my husband’s sperm (acquired by frauds) was her sole, legal property !    

In order to determine who owned the suspect, remaining sperm still in CCB ‘s possession, CCB told us we needed to go to court to litigate the matter.  Forcing us to hire a lawyer to protect our interests in the disputed sperm property, which had been taken hostage and was being held for a $60K ransom by the evil, succubus from HELL.

CCB did agreed to “freeze” the disputed account, because of the woman’s ever growing, outrageous conduct, exposure of her lies, hoaxes and other obvious crimes and deceptions.  Their policies and contract dictated that if the social parasite “was married”, then technically her real husband’s written consent was required to open an account!  Voiding the storage contract.

The petulant shrew threw herself into a fit of indignant rage.  With her twisted, perverted tantrums she decided to show us who had true integrity and who held the moral high ground. Declaring that if we wanted a war, she would gladly wage a WAR on us and our marriage.

She continued her madness by holding my husband’s sperm hostage and for ransom for the next 18 months.  In fact, she threatened him with procreating other unwanted, possible spawns unless he gave into her extortion demands.

In 2008, the sociopathic Stalker submitted colorful pleadings and perjurious declarations to the court to procure inappropriate paternity actions against the sperm donor. She rewrote history and described this prior incident with the California Cryobank (during 2001 to 2003) to the judge as us – contemptuously harassing her, (by us merely hiring a lawyer (in 2002) to deal with her frauds) and perjured documents and lies, – and to mischaracterize our actions as somehow, an aggressive, “vindictive” attack on her dignity and indignant integrity. An unwarranted intrusion on her rights of privacy and liberty rights to create and raise her conceptions as she damn well pleased, without any outsider interferences.

It is a Good thing … Big numbers on lawsuits have a way of humbling the most arrogant !

If ardent feminists want to yell loudly … “Women’s bodies, Women’s choices !!!” … Then how about arguing it should then be a Women’s total responsibility ?

Look,  If some depraved, sperm-stalking psycho-bitch, or mentally-deficient, dirty little secretion wants to gallivant about the streets, being wildly promiscuous and unencumbered by life’s realities and consequences, choosing to have unprotected sex and then later on making the unilateral, one sided choice to bear a child…  then by all means, go ahead with your little vanities, have at it.   But you dear, are on your on.  If you want to play in the big girl leagues, you need to be the one who pays for your absurd indiscretions and choices.

Just don’t ask me ( the betrayed wife) to pay for your adultery, sins or your vain, malicious procreation choices.  Unless you want me to now also play a MOMMY role ?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment