ea ae ew ne 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SWORN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CHARLES PACLIK To whom it may concern on July 23, 2014, I did travel with Charles Paclik from his county of residence, Fresno County, to Contra Costa County Superior Court to witness a hearing in his family court case, No. F08-00312. By the time Charles and I arrived, Charles was in considerable pain and discomfort due to his physical disabilities. Mr. Paclik, after considerable effort, had managed to arrange for a court reporter to be present despite the fact he is on fee waiver. At that hearing, one of the main issues was a disagreement between the parties as to the school enrollment of the Paclik children. Exhibiting intense pain, Charles Paclik testified that his children were already enrolled in the Fresno County school district since their mother had recently moved and had failed to timely register the children in school in Contra Costa County. However, Mr. Paclik’s testimony was simply ignored, and the matter was continued to August 27, 2014. Even though Mr. Paclik had repeatedly informed the court and Ms. Paclik that the children were enrolled in the Fresno County school district, Jenny Paclik appeared to discover this of her own. Incensed, she filed ex parte application for modification of custody on August 8, 2014. Despite this issue still being scheduled for subject matter hearing on August 27, 2014, the court granted Mo. Paclik’s ex parte application for relicf, releasing an ex parte order dis-enrolling the children from Fresno County and re-enrolling them in Contra Costa County. It should be noted Mr. Paclik has never been timely nor properly served with notice of that application and hearing, nor either the court’s response to it. SWORN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CHARLES PACLIK - 1ea ae ew ne 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On August 27, 2014, I did travel with Charles Paclik from his county of residence, Fresno County, to Contra Costa County Superior Court to witness this continued hearing in Contra Costa Superior Court Case No. F08-00312. By the time Charles and I arrived, Charles was in considerable pain and discomfort due to his physical disabilities. While Mr. Paclik’s arranged for court reporter did appear, she was ejected prior to commencement of hearing by Judge Jill Fannin. Despite the fact that the court had already issued a decision during the continuance, the matter of the children’s school enrollment again came on for the appearance of hearing on the issue. Mr. Paclik’s attorney requested permission to taperecord the proceedings and Judge Jill Fannin denied this request. Growing visibly angry, Judge Jill Fannin suddenly announced, “There will be no official record of this case.” The entire courtroom was silent in its surprise at this announcement and Mr. Paclik’s lawyer, Lawrence Daniels, looked shocked at this open display by the court of lawlessness, This appeared to make Judge Jill Fannin even more upset. Seeing the disapproval on everyone’s faces, she then threatened that if Mr. Paclik continued his attempts to secure a record of the proceedings, she would simply continue the matter again. Mr. Paclik was not seeing his children during these proceedings, so the effect of her threat was that if Mr. Paclik continued to move for a record of the proceedings, his parent-child relationship would be further harmed. Under this threat, Mr. Paclik relented from his efforts to have an appealable record. wt SWORN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CHARLES PACLIK - 2ea ae ew ne 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Concurrent to these facts, and in further effort to secure a record on appeal, Mr, Paclik had timely requested from the court a statement of decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 632. At the end of the August 27, 2014 hearing, Judge Jill Fannin stated she would provide her proposed statement of decision in the near future. However, before Mr. Paclik received said statement of decision, his counsel, Lawrence Daniels, pressured Mr. Paclik into relieving him as counsel of record. Also, during that time, Mr. Paclik filed a sworn affidavit of prejudice against Judge Jill Fannin. Judge Jill Fannin, with assistance of the clerk’s office, held onto the sworn affidavit of prejudice until she issued her proposed statement of decision. She and the clerks office then refused to file the sworn affidavit of prejudice as untimely. By the time she issued the proposed statement of decision, Mr. Paclik’s lawyer had left him high and dry, and Judge Jill Fannin’s impartiality had already been challenged. Mr. Paclik filed an objection to the proposed statement of decision to point out the flaws in the proceedings; it was ignored. The proposed statement of decision was given the appearance of going into legal effect and has been touted as a pivotal jurisdictional order in the case since, and also the gravamen for the current fraudulent contempt proceedings against Mr. Paclik. It is also the gravamen for Contra Costa County’s arguments in Mr. Paclik’s Medi Cal casc No. [consolidated] ACA 15 026 0162; ACA 15 042104; ACA-15-133016. In light of the findings in that Medi-Cal case, Mr. Paclik is asserting that Contra Costa County, by and through Contra Costa Superior Court, is manipulating Case No. F08-000312 in order to SWORN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CHARLES PACLIK - 3