Make your own free website on


This court date was held once the DV (domestic violence) assessment was completed. Within the minutes of this session we can see just how little these twits care about their oaths, integrity, decency, and honor. For a father the simple fact of his being a father is enough for him to be summoned to court, stripped of all decision-making rights over his children, ordered to stay away from them six days out of seven, and ordered to make child support payments that throw him into the clutches of poverty without any hope of pulling himself back out. He can also be forced to pay almost any amount to lawyers and summarily jailed if he is unable. What is happening to fathers in family courts is much more serious than unfair gender bias. An iron triangle of lawyers, judges, and women’s groups is finding it increasingly easy, and lucrative, to simply throw fathers out of their families with no show of wrongdoing whatever and seize control of their children and everything they have. Family courts have in effect declared to the mothers of America, If you make any claim against the father  we can take everything from him and give it to you. We can take his children, his home, his income, his savings, and his inheritance and reduce him to beggary. And if he raises any objection we can throw him in jail without trial. In this session we see Ms. Holman herself state that whether the mother is committing perjury or not, is not her problem

January 17th Hearing, Commissioner Holman presiding.

10:08am – Ms. Holman asks the respondent if he disagreed with anything in the Family Court Services

assessment. The respondent says “Yes”, and begins to explain the multiple inconsistencies and procedural


10:11am - Ms. Holman states the reference statements that claim there is yelling in the home is cause to issue

the Order against the respondent. Since the statements do not say who is yelling. This completely ignorant

statement made by Ms. Holman in and of itself is enough to make Ms. Holman guilty of official misconduct

pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct

pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100. Holman is therefore

forced by law to regard these statements, as that of what one does not know to be true. Pursuant to

RCW9A.72.080. Thus  making these records admissible as evidence on my behalf pursuant to

RCW5.44.040, and RCW 5.44.060. It stands to reason that only her personal bias could claim that the order

could be issued against me alone.


10:13am - Holman states that the protection order was not before her. I told her that is not what was said in

the original decision on November 27, 2000. Not only that but it was clearly documented in the order

reviewable after investigation.’ Holman again shows her personal bias, incompetence, and negligence of her

duties by not even bothering to read what was directly in from of her pursuant to RCW5.44.010 and

RCW5.44.040. Holman is clearly aware of the applicable RCW’s. Because attorneys were making the similar

claims in a case earlier that day and Holman recessed to verify a dispute with the first commissioner on

another decision.  As this decision drastically affects my four-year old son, I should have been afforded the

same courtesy especially since the law is clear on affording more latitude where there is no representation.


10:14am – I again told Holman that Bungi did not sign order for one year. Again instead of verifying this as was done in a prior case, Holman instead continues to violate RCW 5.44.010 and RCW 5.44.040 by making an assumption that Bungi had been referring to custody and visitation only. This kind of gross negligence cannot be tolerated where children are concerned and Holman needs to understand she is there for the best interest of the child and not to propagate her own biases.


10:17am - Tina asks how long she needs to wait before she can dispose of my things. Showing her clear intent to continue perpetrating her fraudulent activities Holman immediately replied, “You can’t!”  However, after being ordered by the court not to dispose any of my belongings, Tina did in fact dispose of all of my personal effects.


10:17am - Holman claims that she feels Ms. Anderson of Family Court Services did the best job she could.  Yet, Ms. Anderson offered up fraudulent testimony as defined by RCW 9A.60.010(3), Improperly concealed records pursuant to RCW 42.52.050(4), allowed inconsistent statements as defined by RCW 9A.72.050, and brought forth statements of what one does not know as true pursuant to RCW 9A.72.080 presenting them as true. Tampering with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b) as aforementioned by making no effort whatsoever to include any of my references, and is guilty of official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010(1)(b) when she fails to contact my references. These references have known me longer than either of Tina’s references have known Tina, and verify that I have always been a good parent, and that they have never witnessed, or even heard of any abuse from me. This clearly show’s Ms. Anderson’s is guilty of filing a false report pursuant to RCW 42.20.040, which also makes her guilty of perjury in the first degree as defined by RCW 9A.72.020. This in turn makes Holman guilty of failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)(b).


12:05pm – I asked Holman again to allow me to attend the sign language classes.  Holman asks Tina if she is still attending the sign language classes.  Tina says, “Yes,” at this point Tina clearly perjures herself as defined by RCW 9A.72.020, and RCW 9A.72.030 and of false swearing pursuant to RCW 9A.72.040. Since the classes had been discontinued for lack of participation as of December 13, 2000, and she had not been attending the classes Since November 15, 2000 according to the instructor. An entire 8 weeks before this court date, 4 of which there were not even classes available. This shows another instance of abuse against Taylor on Tina’s part as defined by WAC 388-15-009(5)(b)(c). Due to the restrictions of the Order of Protection, I had not been allowed to attend these classes since November 13, 2000, the issue date of the protection order.


12:08pm - Holman calls for a recess and takes time as in the aforementioned case to ask Ms. Anderson about her recommendations on unsupervised visitation. Rather than following RCW 42.52.060 and calling her into court to ask her directly, where I would have my opportunity to cross-examine her. This act also creating another instance of official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)(b). By not clarifying Mr. Bungi’s orders and in fact perpetrating Ms. Anderson’s failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100. Also knowingly and willfully accepting Ms. Anderson’s false report as defined by RCW 42.20.040. During the entire 1 hour and 43 minutes, Holman made no attempt contact Bungi or confirm Bungi’s his intentions regarding the protection order, or its reviewability. Neither did she make any attempt to read the words directly in front of her on Mr. Bungi’s order. Totally disregarding the admissibility of court records pursuant to RCW 5.44.010. This too shows another instance of failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)(b).


13:51pm - Holman claims that whether Tina is committing perjury or not, is not her problem. This statement alone is not only completely asinine but shows the bias held by Holman. As well it clearly shows Holman’s malicious intent and willful disregard for the laws of the land. Holman states that her decision is not based on what Tina told independent parties but what the independent parties had observed.  Yet the statements turned in by Tina and regurgitated by Ms. Anderson, are clearly based solely on what Tina and Brett have told the references, and not on those references personal observations. Making them statements of what one does not know to be true pursuant to RCW 9A.72.080. Another act by Holman showing her official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)(b), unprofessional conduct pursuant to RCW 18.130.180(1)(13), willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100


      Commissioner Holman needs to understand the laws that clearly state the latitude that should be given in cases where there is no legal representation.  Therefore, the aforementioned aspect of Tina’s repeated perjuries, libelous statements, and false swearing. As well as Ms. Anderson’s failure of duty, official misconduct, tampering with physical evidence, and filing a false report. Remains a matter of the gravest relevance.

This Page Created by AAAdvanced Engineering Concepts

Send Questions or Comments to: 

Copyright © 2003