In other news:

Ringing in the new year; Manuel Saavedra was arrested by Livermore authorities, under Penal Code Section 288a, Lewd and lascivious acts upon a child; a felony. Case No 105566.

"This is not the kind of vindication Deb had hoped for. We would have preferred vindication through legal appeal," said Mitch McKenzie, who put his own life on hold, to work for the release of ex-wife, Debra Schmidt.

Ms. Schmidt's nightmare began with Family Law Commissioner, Robin Appel - who appeared to be very angry with Ms Schmidt's attempts to protect her children. Matters further deteriorated with pro-Saavedra, FCS personnel, and 'visitation' monitors; workers McKenzie believes can prove, lied...(from worker drone to the head of FCS); but equally important; is Saavedra's, family law attorney, William Schuckman; who appeared to be working in concert with the DA. We sincerely hope the State Bar acts quickly on the complaint naming DA Robert Hutchins, and Schuckman, whose actions were likewise found suspect by the Appeals court.

A little history of Debra Schmidt's dealings with the workings of Alameda County's finest, is below.

Judge Donald Squires prevented the jury from learning the children's father is and remains, a convicted child molester. Harsh Judgment

No better proof of judicial egos over what's best for the kids

* * *

What the DA hid from the jury

The nightmare continued.

Debra Schmidt, who moved from California to Texas, to became a jurisdictional focal point between two state judges, was sentenced to One year in jail, and Five years probation on January 11, 2002, by Judge Donald Squires.

Ms. Schmidt was also ordered to pay $49,000.00 in attorney's fees, $4,000.00 to the District Attorney, and the remainder to her ex-husband. In light of the recent developments, perhaps these fines will be dropped..

Ms. Schmidt was told she will receive a, "Get out of jail free," card as soon as the children are removed from the Texas home of their grandparents, and returned to their father, Manual Saavedra, their father and convicted child molester.

Mr. Saavedra petitioned and was awarded custody of the children by a California family court commissioner after Debra moved to Texas. Prior to his petition, he was facing deportation.

Mr. Saavedra relinquished all rights to the children born from his first marriage.

Judge Squires did not allow witnesses to testify on Debra's behalf, including Mr. Saavedra's first wife.

The 3rd District Appellate Court, took Judge JUDGE DONALD SQUIRES and Alameda DA, ROBERT HUTCHINS, and the California Attorney General's office to task for abuse of judicial process, as their below, May 28th opinion stung.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

"We begin by noting our profound disappointment in the conduct of the respondent court and counsel. At oral argument on the consolidated petitions, the Attorney General essentially conceded that a “tag-team” operation has been conducted by Alameda and San Joaquin Counties with one purpose in mind -- to keep petitioner in custody for however long it takes to return the children to California. Were that not bad enough, the Attorney General’s hands are sullied as well. (See fn. 2, ante.) While petitioner may not be a model citizen, the fact remains she is entitled to the same due process as is any other person who comes before the courts of this state. The record before us is replete with suspect pleadings -- i.e., (1) the petition to revoke probation filed April 18, 2002, which was based entirely on a directive in the order of contempt, the enforcement of which order this court had previously stayed; (2) the request for additional time to respond to the order to show cause in case No. 40942, even when, as the Attorney General conceded at oral argument, there was no defense thereto, as a means of buying time for the Alameda County District Attorney to file new criminal charges against petitioner; (3) the issuance of a second order to show cause re contempt by respondent court, based on the identical affidavit of facts which gave rise to the first order of contempt, and notwithstanding that respondent court was aware this court had entered a stay of the first order of contempt -- all of which were designed simply to ensure petitioner would not be released from custody. The deeper this court explores the record before us, the more that record reveals a substantial abuse of the judicial process. However righteous Alameda County and San Joaquin County may feel about their actions toward petitioner, however indignant these counties may be over petitioner’s past conduct in thumbing her nose at orders issued by their respective courts, a line has been crossed. In this opinion, it is our intent to resolve, firmly and finally, the issues at hand, and to put an end to this nonsense once and for all."

---- Unfortunately it was an unpublished opinion as the appellate court appears very concerned the general public might become aware of just how plainly JUDGE DONALD SQUIRES and DA, ROBERT HUTCHINS, manifested their misogyny.

We're also concerned that the courts have chosen to describe the repeated violation of Debra Schmidt's constitutional rights, through charges and incarceration as, "nonsense."

Simply put, Judge Squires engineered Schmidt's conviction. Why? Because he could. And the CJP by allowing this kind of behavior, tacitly condone it.

Victims can report his activities to the Commission on Judicial Performance, if they want to go for the long shot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Navigation: