A Palo Alto Family Struggles To Free Their Daughter Nancy Golin

“On November 15, 2001, 31-year-old Nancy Golin was taken by Palo Alto, California police from her family, never again to return.”

Court Records Reveal The True Story – And The Cast of Featured Players, Gary Baum, Donald Larkin and Scott Pinsky

GERARD W. WALLACE, Esq. (N.Y. SBN 2870467),

Counsel Pro Hac Vice

80 New Scotland Avenue

Albany, N.Y., 12208-3494

Phone: (518) 445-3266

Fax: (518) 445-2303

E-Mail: meimeiwallace@aol.com

Attorney for Petitioners







Fmr. Dir., Dept. of Developmental Disabilities, State of California,

Dir. Dept. of Social Services

in his personal and official capacities


Dir., Dept. of Developmental Disabilities

State of California,
in her official capacity


Lead Attorney, Office of Legal Affairs, Department of Developmental Disabilities, State of California, in his personal capacity


Secretary, Health and Human Services Agy., State of California, in her official capacity


Governor, State of California,

In his official capacity




Project Manager, Santa Clara County Adult Protective Services, in her personal and official capacities


Public Defender, Santa Clara County, in her personal and  official capacity


Deputy Public Defender, Santa Clara County Office of Public Defender,
in her personal and official capacity


Office of County Counsel, Santa Clara County, in her personal and official capacity


Dpty. District Attorney, Santa Clara County, Office of District Attorney

in his personal and official capacity


SANTI J. ROGERS, Director.

Regional Manager

TUCKER LISKE, District Manager

LISA WENDT, R.N., Staff Nurse

As a corporation, and each in their personal and official capacities



Attorney for Acting Conservator,
San Andreas Regional Center

In her personal capacity



Detective, Palo Alto Police Department, in her personal and official capacities,









DOES, 1-50,



No. 06-AS-01743




PARTIES (§§1-17) 1


Relevant Family History. 6

Seizure of Nancy from Family Violating 4th Amendment Rights. 11

Evidence of Police Premeditation, Fraud and Misconduct 12

Illegal State Custody Asserted. 19

History of False APS and Others’ Allegations Against Golins. 20

State Abduction From Stanford Following Legal Denial of Psychiatric Hold. 24

Golins Defamed in Local Paper by Defendants by Fraud to Cover Up Misconduct 27

False Criminal Charges Filed, Golins Arrested to Conceal State Abuse. 28

State Fraud to Conserve Nancy Extra-Judicially in Secret 30

Evidence of Abuse in State Care. 32

Attempts to Conserve Captive Nancy in Undisclosed Proceedings, by Fraud. 35

State Abuse with Unnecessary and Non-Therapeutic Psychiatric Drugging. 38

SARC/Embee Medical Neglect, Personal Injuries of Nancy. 39

Lamb’s Hidden Slander, Collusion and Concealment of Evidence. 42

Forced Unjustified Restriction in Contacts Between Family Members. 46

DDS Improperly Gains Conservatorship After Parents Are Cleared. 47

Aggravated Abuse by State Drugging Resumes During Temporary Conservatorship, 48

Public Defender Misconduct 49

Trial by Error in Probate Court 52

Medical Neglect and Abuse in DDS Care. 56

Constitutional and Statutory Wrongs. 59

Unjustified Denial of First Amendment Familial Association. 60

Continued Abuse and Medical Malpractice in SARC Care, Concealed. 62

Extreme Emotional Distress of Golins and Nancy. 75

SARC’s Five Years of Dental Neglect/Endangerment Fraudulently Blamed on Golins. 75

New Unjustified Harsh Visit Restrictions and Abuses to Nancy Resulting from Defendants’  Retaliation to Suit 81

PROCEDURAL CLAIMS  (§§179-205) 82


(Denial of Freedom from Unreasonable Personal Seizures and Warrantless Searches , Fourth Amendment extended to States by Fourteenth Amendment – Constitutional Tort – Section 1983) 91


(Denial of Natural Right of Familial Association, Loss of Consortium, Free Speech, First Amendment extended to States by Fourteenth Amendment – Constitutional Tort – §1983) 93


(Denial of Due Process, Fifth Amendment extended to States by Fourteenth Amendment – Constitutional Tort – §1983) 95


(Fraud, Forgery, Misrepresentation – Civil Tort) 96


(Obstruction of Justice, Concealment of Evidence, Concealment of Witnesses, Suborning of Perjury, Witness Tampering, Corruption) 97


Common Law Conspiracy of State Officials to Deny Civil Rights  of Protected Handicapped Persons Under Color of Law – Civil Tort) 98


(Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Eight Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment) 103


(Breach of Statutory Duty–Welfare and Institutions Codes §§4502, 4503, 4620.1, 5250, 5150.05, 5152, 5250, 5270.35, 5270.10) 106


(Breach of Title II, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. §12132) – Statutory Tort, adopted by state Uhruh Act, California Civil Code 1801 et seq) 107


Negligence and Indifference to Medical Care, Breach of Fiduciary Duty. 109


Attorney Malpractice – Failure of Duty to Client, Advocating Chemical Assault, Sixth Amendment Denial of Representation, Fraud upon Courts, Concealment of Evidence, Obstruction of Discovery, Denial of Due Process, Wrongful Imprisonment, Conspiracy. 111


(Abduction, Wrongful Imprisonment – Tort Claim) 117


(Slander and Defamation of Character) 118


(Malicious Prosecution – Tort Claim) 125


(Wrongful Termination – Tort Claim) 130


(Chemical Assault and Battery– Tort) 131


(Violation of Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act)  (Civil Action: W&I Code §§15657-15657.5) 133



PARTIES (§§1-17)

1.      Defendants, CLIFFORD B. ALLENBY (“Allenby”), and THERESA DELGADILLO (“Delgadillo”) are the former and current Directors of the State of California Department of Developmental Disabilities (“DDS”), respectively, and defendant H. DEAN STILES (“Stiles”), is the Lead Attorney of the Office of Legal Affairs (“OLA”) for DDS, located at 1600 Ninth St., in Sacramento, California.  Allenby served in this position from all times relevant to this complaint, up to his resignation in December 2005.  Allenby since leaving DDS now serves as California Director of Social Services, since January 2006.  Allenby was succeeded by Delgadillo at that time. Stiles has served in his position at all times relevant herein as state counsel for DDS relating to this case, pursuing the conservatorship of Plaintiff Nancy K. Golin (“Nancy”). From February 4, 2004 to the present time, Allenby has served as conservator to Nancy in his capacity as Director of DDS, and that appointment by statute has passed to Delgadillo upon her assuming the post.

2.      Defendants ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (“Schwarzenegger”) and S. KIMBERLY BELSHÉ (“Belshé”), are respectively the Governor, and Secretary for the Agency for Health and Human Services, of the State of California, Capitol Building, Sacramento. Gov. Schwarzenegger succeeded Gov. Grey Davis in that office on November 17, 2003, and Sec. Belshé was appointed immediately at the time that Gov. Schwarzenegger took office, and have served in those positions since then at all times relevant herein. They directly oversee the Director of DDS.  They serve in a direct supervisory capacity over Allenby, Stiles and Delgadillo.

3.      Defendant JAMIE BUCKMASTER (“Buckmaster”) is Program Manager of ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES (“APS”), for Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (“County”), under the supervision of the AGENCY FOR AGING AND ADULT SERVICES (“AAAS”), under the oversight of Defendant SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, with offices at 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose, CA 95110. APS and AAAS have their offices at 591 King St., San Jose, CA 95133.  Buckmaster held this position at all times relevant herein.  Unnamed Social Worker Linda Suk (“Suk”), referred to herein, worked under the supervision of Buckmaster.

4.      Defendant JACQUI DUONG was at all times relevant herein an attorney in the Office of the County Counsel, Santa Clara County, with offices at 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose, CA 95110.

5.      Defendant RANDY HEY (“Hey”) , is a Deputy District Attorney, for the Office of the District Attorney (“ODA”) , George Kennedy, Santa Clara County, with offices at 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose, CA 95110.  Hey has at all times relevant herein served as prosecutor in this and related matters.  Asst. Deputy. District Attorney Dan Nichigaya worked under Hey in this matter at all relevant times herein, but is not named at this time.

6.      Defendants MARY GREENWOOD (“Greenwood”) and MALORIE M. STREET (“Street”), are the PUBLIC DEFENDER heading the Office of the Public Defender (“OPD”), and a Deputy Public Defender, respectively, Santa Clara County, with offices at 120 W. Mission St., San Jose, CA 95110. Greenwood at all times relevant herein supervised Street, and succeeded Jose Villareal in that position in or around May 2005.  Street was assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court Probate Department to represent Nancy in probate conservatorship proceedings on or about February 4, 2003, and is believed to have served in that capacity at all times relevant herein since that date.

7.      Defendant SAN ANDREAS REGIONAL CENTER, INC. (“SARC”), is a private non-profit corporation and exclusive vendor of state funded services to its developmentally disabled “clients” and their families within the catchment area of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey Counties, State of California, one of 21 Regional Centers serving the California Department of Developmental Services.  SARC serves as the statutory “acting arm” for DDS for developmentally disabled persons who are conserved by the State within this catchment area.  SARC’s principal offices are located at 300 Orchard City Drive, Suite 300, Campbell, CA. 95008, with additional offices in Salinas and Watsonville, California.

8.      Defendants SANTI J. ROGERS (“Rogers”), MIMI KINDERLEHRER (“Kinderlehrer”), TUCKER LISKE (“Liske”) AND LISA WENDT, R.N. (“Wendt”), are, respectively, Director, Regional Manager, District Manager, and Staff Nurse/Consultant, for SARC, working from the principal offices listed in §7, and have served in those positions at all times relevant herein.

9.      Defendant NANCY J. JOHNSON (“Johnson”), is a partner at the law firm of BERLINER-COHEN, INC. (“BC”), formerly identifying her practice areas as litigation in bankruptcy and real estate, BC’s principal offices at 10 Almaden Blvd., Suite 1100, San Jose, CA 95113 where Johnson is quartered, and offices in Merced. Johnson serves as counsel for SARC, and following the appointment of DDS upon her urging as temporary conservator in February 4, 2003 and as limited conservator on November 18, 2003.  Johnson acted as the lead attorney and lead trial attorney in pursuing the conservatorship for DDS and San Andreas, from February 4 to November 18, 2003 and remained their attorney and counselor for day-to-day matters concerning this conservatorship at all relevant times since then. BC claims it is “one of the largest law firms in San Jose”, also serving as City Attorney for the Cities of San Jose and Gilroy.

10.  Defendant CITY OF PALO ALTO (“Palo Alto”) oversees and is responsible for the PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT (“PAPD”), in which Defendant  LORI KRATZER (”Kratzer”) was employed as a Lieutenant and Detective from or before November 14, 2001 until in or around July 2004,  a specialist in charge of elder abuse cases, inter alia.  Kratzer worked out of the headquarters of the PAPD located at 245 Forest Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 until 2004, when she was employed by the FBI in San Francisco located at 450 Golden Gate Ave. 13th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102, as a “witness specialist” deployed  to coach witnesses for credibility in terrorism cases[1].

11.   Defendant EDNA MANTILLA (“Mantilla”) is the owner and operator of a six-bed residential board and care facility for developmentally disabled persons, licensed by the State of California, doing business with SARC as “EMBEE MANOR” (“Embee”), located at 5867 Embee Dr., San Jose, CA   From on or about November 27 or 28, 2001, until on or about January 17, 2003, Defendant Mantilla was chosen by SARC as care provider to Nancy, under the direct and immediate supervision of SARC, by Liske, Kinderlehrer and Wendt.  Mantilla was known during this same time to also be directly employed by DDS at all times relevant herein as a psychiatric technician at Agnews Developmental Center (“Agnews”), in Santa Clara, California.

12.  Defendants ROSELILY TALLA and ANSELMO TALLA (“Tallas”) are owners and operators of a six-bed residential board and care facility for disabled persons, licensed by the State of California, dba “TALLA HOUSE” or Talla Care Homes, located at 858 Leith Ave., Santa Clara, CA. From on or about January 17, 2003, until the present, Tallas were chosen by SARC as care providers to Nancy, under the direct and immediate supervision of SARC, by Liske, Kinderlehrer, Wendt, and Lamb (see §14).  Both Tallas were, until recently at a time not known exactly but alleged to be sometime in the summer of 2005, also directly during this same time employed by DDS as psychiatric technicians at Agnews, and purported to have been doctors trained in the Philippines, but not licensed to practice in the United States.

13.  Defendant STANFORD HOSPITAL, INC. (“Stanford”) is a Palo Alto university teaching hospital at all times relevant herein a California corporation, located at 170 Building, 3rd Floor, Main Quad, Stanford, CA 94305. Between November 15, 2001 and about November 28, 2001, Nancy was held against her will at that hospital in the psychiatry ward.  The primary persons in charge of her at that time included but are not limited to Drs. Christopher Hayward (aka Robert C. Hayward), Jenny My Luu, Alexander K. Deisseroth, Social Workers Jeannie Luttiken and Scott Skiles, employed by Stanford were involved in this case, but are unnamed at this time.

14.  Defendant GEORGIANNA LAMB (“Lamb”) is a former business acquaintance of the Plaintiffs, who applied at the Golins’ (see §16) request on or about August 18, 2002 as a private individual in the role of an interim temporary limited conservator for Nancy, and was appointed in that capacity from October 15, 2002 to February 4, 2003, during the balance of Golins’ criminal proceedings (see §63 et seq) while the Santa Clara County Probate courts deemed the parents to be disqualified from being appointed.  At that time, she was replaced by Allenby, first in his role as temporary conservator in February 4, 2003, then as limited conservator in November 18, 2003.  Lamb petitioned for conservator on or about August 18, 2003, and continued that petition after she was removed, until the probate conservatorship trial between September 29, 2003 and October 15, 2003. On October 7, 2003, on the 7th day of trial, Lamb withdrew her petition in exchange for a stipulation by SARC that she would be granted “special status” under an agreement, on condition that she would not petition for the conservatorship, and in exchange San Andreas would not attack her. Lamb is believed to remain acting in the role of “advocate” for Plaintiff Nancy K. Golin, taking her to her doctor’s appointments, presenting her to doctors, and making medical decisions for her with the consent of San Andreas Regional Center. Little is known about these activities.  Lamb resides at 10221 Miguelito Rd., San Jose, CA 95113, and works part time as a sign maker and caregiver to her elderly mother.

15.  Defendant MARVIN P. MASADA, M.D. (“Masada”), a general practitioner, was chosen as Plaintiff Nancy K. Golin’s primary care doctor by Lamb during her term as temporary limited conservator, on or about late October 2002, and continued to serve in that capacity under the direct and immediate supervision of SARC, Wendt and Lamb until the present time.  Masada has his office and private practice located at 3151 S. White Rd., #104, San Jose 95148.  On or about February 2003, Dr. Masada referred San Andreas to a San Jose Medical Center Gastro-Enterologist, Dr. Hashem Farr, M.D., for GI examination and emergency follow-up. Dr. Farr continued in that capacity until an unknown time approximately late 2003 or early 2004.  On October 16, 2003, during trial, Dr. Farr was subpoenaed as a critical witness and expressly chose to defy the subpoena. Dr. Farr is unnamed at this time.  Dr. Masada also is believed to have referred SARC to a neurologist Sara Gaskins, M.D., sometime shortly after February 4, 2003, who continued in that capacity until a later time uncertain.  Dr. Gaskins is unnamed at this time.

16.   Plaintiffs JEFFREY GOLIN and ELSIE GOLIN (“Golins”, or “plaintiff-parents”) are the married natural parents of Plaintiff NANCY GOLIN (“Nancy”). Nancy Golin is an adult developmentally disabled autistic adult, who has been raised and cared for by her parents at home until the age of 31, At all times relevant herein, up to around July 2003, Golins lived in Mountain View and Palo Alto, CA, Santa Clara County.  From August 2003 onward to the present time, Golins resided in Santa Nella and Los Banos, CA, Merced County.  Nancy lived with her parents essentially from childhood, at all times relevant herein up to November 15, 2003.  From November 15, 2003 she was held in the custody of various of these defendants, causing this suit.  Nancy Golin has been held under a limited conservatorship by the Director, Department of Developmental Services, State of California, formerly Allenby, now Delgadillo, since about February 2003.

17.  Does. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES.  Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that said DOES are each responsible in some manner for the injuries plaintiff sustained herein and that each of the defendants is the agent, servant, or employee of the others in doing the acts complained of herein and acted within the scope of that agency or employment.  Plaintiff will amend his complaint to allege the identities of the DOES when ascertained, or as their involvement becomes clearer.



18.  Alleged history. The facts of the case are based on Plaintiff Golins’ direct firsthand personal knowledge and as such are alleged by Plaintiffs in each of the paragraphs below as follows, in §§18-178. Golins have compiled further information at their public web site, http://www.freenancy.com.

Relevant Family History

19.  Condition of Nancy Golin. Nancy is now a 35-year-old autistic adult, developmentally disabled (DD) since birth. She had never been institutionalized, living at home essentially her entire life, cared for by dedicated loving parents and co-plaintiffs Golins until age 31 when the events causing this complaint began. Since age 22, she had epilepsy, controlled by anti-seizure medications.  She is non-aggressive, has never been diagnosed with mental illness, needed psychiatric medications, or ever been charged with a crime. She has a propensity to wander away common to many autistics, which the parents had controlled. She cannot read or write, and speaks few words, yet understands and communicates effectively with gestures. She has always been outgoing and gregarious without self-injurious behaviors. She is ambulatory, can toilet, dress, feed herself, and tie her own shoelaces. She and her parents were profoundly attached to her and always together with her. Similar to many children, she derives pleasure from being with her parents and going places with them.  Her parents proved they were able to care for Nancy’s needs and advocate for her, and fought to keep her at home with them in a normal family setting.  Her parents never saw it necessary  to apply to conserve her when she was living at home, because she has always been cared for adequately by her family.  She was never institutionalized before this, and lived safely in the community.

20.  Family Business (1990-2003). On November 14, 2001, Jeffrey Golin and Elsie Golin were relocating their respective businesses from Mountain View, where they had partnered a small neon lighting and sign contracting business, just across the town border to neighboring Palo Alto. They had jointly founded and operated this business by themselves, a sole proprietorship by a married couple dba Neon Express, since 1990, to give them more flexible time to care for their daughter, Nancy, at home.  Mr. Golin built his own equipment and mastered the art and technology of bending and processing neon glass tubing for commercial, residential and private use.  Mrs. Golin performed the role of designer and assemblyperson, and Mr. Golin performed the role of engineer, fabricator, repairman and contractor, and both participated in selling. The parents depended entirely upon each other and had no full-time employees.  They had established hundreds of loyal local clients and an impressive portfolio over the years, had ads in the Yellow Pages and a web site, and like any small business owners experienced the cycles of feast and famine, but enjoyed their independence.

21.  Family Resources. In addition to the income from their lighting business, Mrs. Golin had been receiving a small income from State-funded In Home Health Support Services (IHHS) since 1995, for her straight-time hourly services as Nancy’s primary caregiver, in addition to income from Social Security SSI as Nancy’s representative payee, which she received for her since approximately 1987. Their apartment was regularly inspected and approved by IHHS social workers including Pam Ward (Ward) from the County.

22.  Long History of Conflicts Caused by SARC Animus to Parents’ Independence of Care. Mrs. Golin spent years of relentless yet fruitless pursuit of services from SARC during Nancy’s teens which SARC always refused to fund, such as speech therapy.  These  diligently sought services, were proven by Mrs. Golin at her own expense to be potentially beneficial but were nonetheless penuriously denied by San Andreas “professionals” for Nancy when she was in her teens and could have benefited. Mr. Golin found that Nancy did very poorly in group settings offered by SARC among others, with other clients who had behavior problems that Nancy could mistakenly copy. Nancy continuously suffered injuries in such inappropriate programs,  and it was found that Nancy was happiest at home with her parents performing more rewarding and meaningful tasks, or in one-on-one settings with tutors paid for by the family. Mrs. Golin’s abandoned her last attempt to work within San Andreas programs and broke off contact in 1993 when it appeared that Nancy had suffered from abuse and neglect in the program. Mrs. Golin thereafter refused to consider further SARC services for then 22 year old Nancy.

23.  History of Prior Contemplation of Conservatorship by Defendants as Defense Tactic Against Litigation. In July 19, 1999, we find in the record a telephone conversation from Liske in which it was revealed that SARC was continuing to claim Nancy as a client to count her for State funding after no services had been requested or provided for 6 years.  Mrs. Golin rebuffed this offer saying she would call the DA’s office to report a fraud if they continued claiming her without providing services. Mrs. Golin had adamantly decided she no longer wanted to try for Nancy because she had found that they were not beneficial or could be harmful.  The record then shows Liske, according to SARC transaction logs immediately on that same day, responding to this threat by looking into a conservatorship for Nancy. This establishes a clear linear causal connection in SARC’s past thinking between being threatened with litigation and protecting themselves by unscrupulously claiming to conserve the client of the family doing the threatening, and thus removing the incapacitated’s rights to litigate. Liske goes on that very day July 19 to contact the Probate Court investigator to find out if Nancy is conserved already, and determines that she is not.

24.  Evidence of Prior Planning of Conspiracy to Conserve, by Maliciously Prosecuting. A conservatorship over the objections of the parents was still being plotted by the Defendants as much as six months or more before Nancy’s removal under the pretext that she was allegedly in danger of neglect and abuse after wandering away. In the APS records of April 13, 2001, we find the note by Liske, “He said that conservatorships go through Dept. of Developmental Services (DDS) and then San Andreas is the acting arm of conservatorship duties of DDS…He did not know how long it would take to get conservatorship. I told him the problem is if we take Nancy away from her mother on a 72-hour hold there needs to be some legal method of holding her until a conservatorship hearing can be held. He agreed.  He does not know how this can be done or how to expedited (sic) conservatorship.  He will ask around and will get back to Jim Evans on Monday…” On February 2, 2001, a message was received by APS Pedraza saying that “San Andreas will follow the lead of APS and they will assist in placement if needed”.

25.  Declaration by Liske Further Supports Past Conspiracy Planning Theory. In his Declaration of May 7, 2003 Liske again reiterates his interpretation that SARC felt threatened at that time with litigation by the Plaintiffs, “Before I became a District Manager, I was a service coordinator, and Nancy Golin was on my case load.  However, San Andreas was not able to be of service to the Golin family at that time because Nancy’s parents, Jeffrey and Elsie Golin, refused our assistance and threatened litigation against San Andreas if we continued efforts to provide service to the family…” A strategy of pre-emptively avoiding litigation by unscrupulously conserving the person who would be litigating and then claiming to be her legal representative would be consistent with this behavior as alleged.

26.  No Evidence of Abuse or Neglect.  At no time during this period, or at any other period, was Nancy Golin abused or neglected by her parents.  An April 25, 2001 welfare check (reported in APS telephone records) conducted by Liske and Wendt and unnamed others found that Nancy was happy and in “pretty good shape” and no action was taken or advised at that time.  This was preceded by another APS telephone note on April 13, 2001 clearly recording considerations that Liske was at that time conspiring with others to find a way once more to conserve Nancy against her parents’ wishes.

27.  Living Situation at Time of State Intervention. When the state intervened, the family was still united. No one had been homeless, lacked a roof over their heads, or missed a meal for a single day.  Nancy Golin remained well cared for and the parents were constantly together at work and at mealtimes. Nancy’s parents had never seen occasion to be divided on issues of Nancy’s care or medical treatment, and Mr. Golin respected and concurred with his wife’s decisions.

28.  Parents businesses to Palo Alto (November 7, 2001). Mrs. Golin was in the midst of fighting her estate battle in Illinois and Kansas with her sisters and obtaining partial disbursements.  The parents signed a lease and put up a large deposit on two workshop spaces in the same industrial building, just across the town border from Mountain View, in Palo Alto at 805 N. San Antonio Rd. on or about November 7, 2001, where Mr. Golin began to set up his equipment in one unit to revive his lighting business, where Mrs. Golin intended to start a fashion stylist business in another separate unit while she resumed working part time with her husband.

29.  Condition of Elsie Golin’s workspace (November 7-14, 2001). In Mrs. Golin’s shop, she was beginning to adapt it for caregiving resources for Nancy to use while she was working.  Due to Nancy’s wandering behavior, it had always been necessary to keep outside doors locked when inside with her. A private interior door led from her workspace into the building common bathrooms, which Nancy could enter when supervised. In case there was an emergency as often happened, her mother kept a sanitary nursing home style temporary commode for Nancy to use, which she emptied after each use.  The shop had a sink, and cabinets left over from the previous tenants. It had a stall for a shower, which was unusable and which Mrs. Golin intended to remove.  Because Nancy’s sleep schedules are unpredictable, and she often chooses to rest during the day at any time it pleases her, a temporary camp cot was provided for her comfort, and there was some food and special nutrients and vitamins, tailored to meet Nancy’s special needs while she remained in the care of Mrs. Golin at work.  Whenever her mother went out, either Mr. Golin would watch and care for her or Nancy would go out with either one or both of the parents.

Seizure of Nancy from Family Violating 4th Amendment Rights

30.  Nancy wanders from parents (November 14, 2001), At approximately 8 PM, Nancy wandered away from Elsie’s newly leased commercial industrial workshop location in Palo Alto, CA at 809 San Antonio Rd. (hereinafter, on November 15, 2001 “scene”).  The parents had been preparing to go out to a buffet dinner together as they usually did at around 8pm, and Mrs. Golin needed to use the common ladies’ room in the building.  Nancy had decided to take one of her naps in the fold-down back of their new van, and Mrs. Golin could not wake her up to come with her, so she took the reasonable chance that Nancy would remain asleep for 5 minutes.

31.  Parents’ response to Nancy’s absence (November 14-15, 2001). Mrs. Golin immediately discovered Nancy’s absence, immediately (within 5 minutes) called the police for help, and searched all night for her without success.  The Golins searched all the usual places for her to no avail. Mrs. Golin alerted police that Nancy has a seizure condition and had missed her bedtime anti-seizure medications.  In the morning, the police called the exhausted parents back to the building and detained them at the front of the building, searching and photographing their van.  Police when challenged denied that the parents were being detained as suspects but referred to their van as a “crime scene”. The police were unable to find Nancy. Mrs. Golin went to post a reward. The police got out the bloodhounds.  They were unable to find her.  The parents feared abduction, until Nancy came back on her own, appearing in the rear driveway around 11am of November 15, 2001, after apparently being lost all night.  She was grinning and unharmed, happy to have found her way back.  The parents were overjoyed to see Nancy, and broke down with relief, in tears. At this point, petitioners allege that no further emergency existed and no further police action was required or warranted.

32.  Police barge into industrial workspace without consent, warrant, emergency or probable cause (November 15, 2001). Following this at around 11 am, Elsie took Nancy into her shop to give her missed evening medications as she had been advised by her neurologist to do in that event.  Nancy immediately used a temporary commode, (previously empty) took her medication, flopped down on a cot at the rear of the shop and immediately fell asleep.  Kratzer, having learned of the SARC and APS files, arrived at the front parking area while the police were photographing the van.  A uniformed PAPD representative at the scene deceived the Golins that they needed to take Nancy to Stanford merely as a precaution even though they admitted she looked well and unharmed “to make sure she was OK” because she had been out all night and could have met with foul play due to stranger abuse, they said the parents could follow.  They did not inform the parents that they intended to place Nancy into state custody or apply for her to be placed on a psychiatric hold, or any other reason. Elsie said she’d bring Nancy out.

33.  Lack of consent to enter and search (November 15, 2001). Det. Kratzer testified at the probate trial that the police “were about to kick the door in”, until Mr. Golin knocked on the mother’s workshop door asking to be let in to see Nancy. The police at the scene, under Kratzer and other Does, barged in behind Mr. Golin, invaded the mother’s workshop, without invitation, warrant, request or consent, and began an extensive search, rummaging through drawers and boxes, over protests, saying they were looking for things that might be harmful to Nancy.  At least a dozen police officers, uniformed and plain-clothed, invaded the mother’s shop at one time, and another dozen in the father’s workshops space.  It resembled an organized pre-planned police raid. At no time did the police ever request consent to enter, nor did either parent give consent.  Mr. Golin took Nancy to a neighboring taqueria attempting buy her lunch, but police intervened when they arrived.

Evidence of Police Premeditation, Fraud and Misconduct

34.  Evidence of Premeditated and Coordinated Conduct by Defendants. There is ample circumstantial evidence of coordinated advance contingency planning of this entire event of November 15, 2001 by the police and SARC.  Whereas it may ordinarily take months to find a residential placement, according to APS records, at 2pm on the same day she was removed, SARC already had a placement ready at Corinthian House, even before she reached the hospital.  This placement was soon found to be unacceptable however when Nancy’s wandering behavior was disclosed and Corinthian House was found unprepared to prevent her becoming AWOL The placement at Embee could not be established until November 27, 2001, two weeks later right at the end of the denied 14-day hold.

35.  Parents are warned by Mountain View police that police might “grab” Nancy Golin (October 2001).  One month before Nancy was grabbed by police, a deputy police chief of Mountain View threatened Mrs. Golin, on a visit to the police station to make a complaint about a bank officer that had misappropriated funds on her account.  Nancy was with her parents when she went into the station.  Nancy broke away from her mother and wandered into the back.  The deputy chief caught Nancy and became rough with her, displaying an attitude of disgust for Nancy.  Mrs. Golin complained about the way Nancy was being handled.  The deputy chief shot back, “you know, the next time that Nancy wanders off we’re going to grab her”. Then, that is what happened.

36.  Further Evidence of Pre-Meditation of Unwarranted Police “Raid”. Also during the search on November 15, 2001, the police somehow found time to call the building inspectors to shut down Jeffrey’s new shop on alleged code violations without leaving him time to correct them, which plaintiffs allege was designed to financially impair him enough to prevent his opposition to his daughter’s detention. Plaintiffs note that it normally requires a one-week appointment to get a building inspector out, but here all four of the principal inspectors reached the scene within a one-hour notice. Plaintiffs believe and allege that this action was so inconsistent with the purposes of the search, and so consistent with the scheme of action to remove Plaintiff’s source of income that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was premeditated to attempt to render the parents financially incapable of resisting their scheme. It was incongruous with their effort to locate their missing daughter when it seemed she might have been abducted. Golins allege that it was consistent with an attempt to shut down their business by removing Mr. Golins city gas meter, and deprive the parents of the opportunity to engage in their chosen occupations.  Mr. Golin was merely using the same equipment that he had used for years with inspector approval in Mountain View, so there could not have been any hazardous emergency to shut him down.

37.   Kratzer fraud and perjury two years later in probate trial (October 2003). In testimony in Trial Court, Kratzer perjured herself by, inter alia, falsely stating under oath that she had informed Elsie that she was taking Nancy on a WIC §5150 hold. In fact, she did not inform them of this, and the parents would have certainly been aware of this and remembered this had they been informed of such an important eventuality and know how to respond to it, and legally objected to this without a warrant or probable cause being proven.  Detective Kratzer eventually backed down under cross-examination saying maybe she did not remember exactly what she told the parents.

38.  Warrantless entry, search, and collection and falsification of evidence (November 15, 2001). Next, police at the scene under Kratzer, began taking photographs of the as-yet unorganized interior of the mother’s newly moved-in shop, complaining about code violations pertaining to the shower and lighting installed by the previous tenant, and brought in building inspectors.  When Mrs. Golin observed an officer taking a photo of the cot with the camera held high over his head at an unusual angle that was used deliberately to attempt to falsify the perspective to make it look like the sleeping surface was on the floor instead of elevated on the cot, and asked why he was doing that, police including unknown Does strong armed Mrs. Golin out of her own shop and she was made to wait outside while the police took more photos.  Police and building inspectors continued to rummage through the shop.  Kratzer falsely alleged a statement in her police report by Elsie that she had told police that she, Nancy and Jeff were all sleeping together at night on the cement floor of her shop, whereas Elsie never made any such statement because no such situation ever existed.

39.  Kratzer leads intentional police frame-up of Golins, in police reports (November 2001). Kratzer issued a lengthy report starting the next few days following November 15, 2001 and continuing in the weeks and in various edited versions, that contained numerous knowing factual misrepresentations and brazen falsifications that were represented as fact to other parties including but not limited to: Judge John Loftus, (for the purposes of later gaining a temporary protective order), newspaper reporter for Palo Alto Daily News Melanie Carroll (for the purpose of stifling reports embarrassing to the police) and various prospective defense attorneys (for the purposes of stifling the retaining of effective counsel). Plaintiffs allege the effect of this official misconduct was for all practical purposes a police frame-up against the Golins and Nancy. In 2001, newspaper reports contained instances of this happening in numerous notorious cases as a result of police misconduct in Palo Alto that were exposed and had to be publicly corrected. Parents allege that the police had to know their allegations were falsified and were knowingly contrived to achieve the sought-for results.

40.  Police report fabrications (November 2001). This report falsely alleged “filth” in the shop.  There was no filth evident in the police’s own photos, however, nor in the van.  The parents had just moved in the floors had been recently cleaned by the building owner.  Kratzer’s report also gave false accounts of Elsie and Nancy supposedly wandering aimlessly about the area, and Nancy supposedly asking to use a neighbor’s bathroom at 5 AM.  Nancy is effectively mute and cannot ask to do anything. Police referred to SARC and APS for information about the family that was known to be incorrect but took it as fact.  Det. Kratzer alleged in various writings that the parents had failed to report her missing for 24 hours after she disappeared, and falsified one witness statement in her report from neighboring Arco gas station owner Fazi Beheshti to support it, which Beheshti heatedly denied making when informed by the Golins.  Beheshti was called by the Golins as a witness at the September-October 2003 probate trial and complied with the request to attend and so was prepared to testify to rebut Kratzer’s false claim but was not allowed by Martin to take the stand. Kratzer refused to reallege this fabrication when questioned on cross-examination. Kratzer inconsistently alleged in her report that the parents were either living in the van, with a bucket for urination and defecation, or were homeless, or were living in a “U-Haul storage unit”.  The police’s own photos at the scene however, did not support these allegations.

41.  Kratzer claims about supposed neglected foot injury (November 2001).  Det. Kratzer, and later DA Hey, alleged that Nancy had a “large, open infected wound on the top of her foot, probably as the result of an insect bite or neglect”. Police took photographs of the wound, which showed a small healed grafted area on the top of her foot. At the scene, the parents explained that this was in fact a treated third degree hospital-caused chemical burn that had been inflicted at Stanford in or about August 2001 by an ER phlebotomist misplacing an IV thereby missing a vein, which caused corrosive Dilantin to infuse into her[2].  A Stanford clinic plastic surgeon David Kahn, M.D., that Mrs. Golin was referred to for this injury, and whom she had consulted immediately, refused to accept responsibility. Mrs. Golin had immediately rushed Nancy up to Alta Bates Hospital in Berkeley to have their noted burn doctor Jerold Kaplan, M.D. treat it.  She followed up all her appointments and the wound was completely healed by November 15, 2001.  However, Kratzer refused to believe the parents’ story and refused to investigate it, preferring to blame them for this hospital-caused injury and alleged in her police report that it was due to parental neglect. Stanford doctors knew or should have known this was false, but doctors such as Chris Hayward or social workers such as Scott Skiles negligently or deliberately repeated Kratzer’s false claims in their hospital records nevertheless. This claim was gradually abandoned as it became clear from the record that the parents were telling the truth.

42.  Probate Trial in 2003: Kratzer’s failure to reallege, adding perjured new testimony, impeached under cross-examination (October 2003). Kratzer in the September-October 2003 probate trial perjured herself by testifying on the official record to a new fabrication, that she had to employ her special training as a “hostage negotiator” to get Elsie to open the door after informing her that they were removing Nancy, and that the unit had no lighting and was “so dark they had to go back out for flashlights”, and that police had had to keep “searching, searching and searching in the pitch darkness trying to find Nancy”, while Elsie supposedly “refused to tell them where in the shop Nancy was”.  Upon cross-examination again on record, however Kratzer was impeached by her own photographic evidence which completely refuted her testimony, and she was forced to withdraw her new story.  She had to identify a huge window high over the door at the front of the shop, which let in an enormous amount of sunlight, and she admitted on cross-examination, that the day was bright and sunny and the time around midday.  She identified light fixtures in the back area, which appeared lit, in her photos, and a light switch clearly shown in the on position.  Mrs. Golin later testified that the place had, in fact been flooded with sunlight from the large front window alone and had numerous working light fixtures.  Mrs. Golin also got Kratzer to admit in cross examination during Kratzer’s testimony that the police photos showed the light streaming in from the window, and lack of shadows in the photographs.  Kratzer started to testify that Elsie refused to show her where Nancy was, whereas Elsie testified that Nancy was simply tired and flopped down on a cot in the back, the place was not large, and she showed police where Nancy was immediately.  Kratzer also fabricated a statement in her police report that Mrs. Golin had told Kratzer at the scene she “no idea what medicines Nancy needed for her seizures” but Elsie testified she had never said anything like that, that police had taken the medication bottle of Phenobarbital from board-certified neurologist Dr. Howard Belfer in San Mateo, she’d shown it to them, and produced documentation from the subpoenaed Stanford admission records that Nancy’s prescription bottle labeled the prescribed dosage had arrived at the hospital along with her and was disposed of by the hospital pharmacy.

43.  Probate Trial Admissions by Kratzer of Possible Confusion, Refusal to Reallege Claims of Probable Cause (October 2003). Kratzer admitted under oath in trial in October 2003 that the appearance of the mother’s shop as shown in the photos could have been equally interpreted as reflecting a mother being self-employed with a new unorganized commercial business location, also having custody of a handicapped child with special needs to care for during the day and wanting to keep her close by to supervise, and meanwhile living in a motor home, as were the actual circumstances – rather than being homeless, neglected, abandoned and living in the commercial space as was alleged.  She admitted that from her experience and training as an elder abuse specialist this factual situation had never occurred to her.  She denied under oath her earlier stories in her official reports distributed to all parties and to the press that “Nancy was found living in a shed behind a pile of garbage”, or “living in filth”, or “kept locked in a closet when she was little”, or her prior claim that the parents had failed to report her absence for 24 hours.  It was also shown that Nancy had access to the building’s bathrooms through a rear corridor connecting to Elsie’s shop contrary to her claims.

44.  Other false police claims (November 2001), disproven in 2003 probate trial. Kratzer claimed in the 2001 police report that Nancy was found to be homeless.  Elsie informed Kratzer at the scene to Kratzer that she and Nancy lived in their motor home and showed police this motor home at the scene, this was proven in the probate trial court, and records found by the court.  Kratzer claimed that Nancy was “found to be in danger of abuse or neglect” whereas Nancy was in good condition, healthy and happy and bore no signs of abuse or neglect; therefore any defense that Nancy needed to be detained for her own protection in an extra-legal procedure would have no effect.

45.  Fraudulent and Misleading Claims by Stiles (October 2003).  Stiles in his declarations to the District Court in October 2003, alleged that “there was an incident so severe that Nancy had to be taken to the hospital (implying that the reason to take her to the hospital was, not the result of police misconduct, but some unspecified but allegedly severe parental neglect or abuse), and that this was the abuse for which the parents were arrested and charged.  This was proven false. No abuse was shown, nor was it found by doctors, nor did it exist.  Nancy was placed on a psychiatric hold at Stanford, not treated for abuse.

46.  Changes Made in Police Custody (November 15, 2001). Curiously, Nancy was shown according to Stanford records to have arrived at the hospital three hours after her leaving her parents, in a different set of clothes than the ones she was wearing as shown in the police photos according to the personal property record at Stanford, raising speculation that police may have “dirtied her up” to present her to doctors.  A photo of Nancy’s healed foot graft taken at the parents shop compared with one taken at the hospital shows that some time between Nancy’s wound seems to have had the loose skin flaked off to make it look like open unhealed areas, which were not present before she was removed.

47.  Parents Stopped at Stanford Hospital (November 15, 2001). When the parents arrived at Stanford as they had been invited to do, instead of releasing Nancy they were confronted by security guards that told them to leave or face arrest for trespassing, and the surprised parents reluctantly complied.  They feared for Nancy’s safety at the hospital with no one to advocate for her.  Plaintiff-parents were forced to leave in fear of arrest, without speaking to doctors or informing them of Nancy’s special needs. The Golins allege that this was done in order to prevent the Golins from correcting the fabricated police version of events to the unsuspecting doctors, who were misinformed by police that Nancy was in effect a homeless, abandoned street urchin with no family.

Illegal State Custody Asserted

48.  Physical Possession of Plaintiff Nancy Golin Asserted Without Legal Custody (November 2001). SARC and APS immediately assumed custody and control of Nancy upon her arrival at the hospital according to hospital records and she was in State custody and control from that time forward.  Nancy was placed in a locked psychiatric ward at Stanford Hospital among patients that had been declared a danger to themselves and others.  Nancy is mute and cannot report abuse or defend herself.  She was allowed to wander around the ward, crawl into the beds of mental patients and eat off their dishes there and was found snuggling up to a “mother figure”, apparently in lieu of Elsie.

49.  Protective Custody Order (November 2001).  The next day after removal, November 16, 2001, based on her fabricated evidence that she later denied, and despite probable cause not being shown, Det. Kratzer applied for a protective custody order equivalent to a temporary restraining order, against the parents, which was approved by telephone by Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Hon. John Loftus.  This protective custody order needed to be perfected later within 5 days in a court hearing in order to be made permanent, but the police instead chose not to pursue that direction, because as plaintiffs allege it would have required them to prove probable cause in an evidentiary hearing, which they could not do without exposing their fabrications in an evidentiary hearing to a judge.  The parents thus never were able to appear before Judge Loftus to tell their side of these events. The order expired on November 27, 2001, and was not renewable without court process.  When the order expired, the parents went to pick her up. Stanford refused to release her to her family and instead secreted her in a group home (see §62).

50.  Plaintiff Nancy Taken by APS From Safety and Placed in Harms Way (November 2001). This police action placed and kept Nancy in harms way ironically at the behest of APS (Adult Protective Services), after having been safe at home with her mother.  On November 19, 2001, we find in the APS records a conversation between Stanford attending psych physician Jenny My Luu, M.D. telling APS’s Linda Suk to get Nancy out of the psych ward, because it “isn’t safe with the men here”. SW (Social Worker, i.e. Suk) stated she felt otherwise and considered psych ward at the hospital  “the most safest place.”  Suk testified on record at trial, “we really didn’t have a safe place for her at this time.

51.  Failure of Defendant State Agencies and Officials to Prevent or Mitigate. Mrs. Golin immediately following November 15, 2001 and in the subsequent months contacted every official in DDS in Sacramento working in DDS under Allenby seeking help with this situation, but in each case they refused to intervene.  At all times relevant herein, the State officials including Allenby, Delgadillo, Stiles, Belshé were made aware of the situation but failed to respond or act. Governor Schwarznegger, this year, was approached through the offices of State Senator Jeff Denham to try to mitigate this conflict through his Chief Deputy Legislative Aide Cynthia Bryant, but in the end at the behest of Delgadillo and Stiles refused to exercise supervisory authority over DDS and failed to act.

History of False APS and Others’ Allegations Against Golins

52.  Stanford Intern Andrea Thom Medical Error Results In False APS “Abuse” Report, January 2000.  APS and PAPD misinformed the attending physicians and residents in the psychiatric ward that the mother was overmedicating Nancy on Nancy’s seizure medication.  This probably originated from a previous medical error at Stanford occurring in January 2000, where an unlicensed newly graduated intern, Andrea Thom, acting on her own initiative apparently, decided that the prescribed dosage that Mrs. Golin had been ordered in Nancy’s  long history of seizures by Nancy’s board certified neurologists to administer including some of Stanford’s own professors of neurology, was incorrect, according to her novice judgment. She cut that dosage in half, to her notion of what “normal” dosages applied.  With supreme unfazed self-assurance, Thom apparently did not recognize this as a mistake even when Nancy went into seizures from undermedication.  When the parents complained to her supervising physicians, Thom retaliated by maliciously reporting the parents to APS, claiming that the parents were abusing Nancy by overmedicating her. To get her out of her hospital caused seizures, supervisory staff had to use Ativan, lengthening the stay by several days.  At the end, supervising physicians recognized Thom’s medical error and restored the original correct prescription dosages to stop the seizures.  Stanford supervising physicians themselves recognized Thom’s medical error and corrected it, discharging Nancy with the original prescribed dosage. This did not convince APS however, who persisted in investigating Thom’s reports of parental abuse after Nancy was released from the hospital, pestering Mrs. Golin about the incident by phone and refusing to let it go.  The poorly-trained County APS investigator appeared incapable of adequately investigating Mrs. Golin’s explanation or comprehending the medical complexity of the situation, treating it with skepticism. Even when the report was investigated and dropped, Thom twice doggedly phoned in the same complaint again, insisting on her allegations.  These allegations were found to have survived the APS investigation and proof that there was no substance to them intact, because APS did not correct their records to reflect the results of their own investigation, as the parents later learned by discovery.  This failure of supervision of a staff intern was ultimately Stanford’s fault.

53.  Police Resurrect Thom’s 2000 False and Disproved Allegations Against Mrs. Golin of Failure to Properly Medicate (November 2001). Then in November 15, 2001, when Nancy was removed to Stanford psych ward, Thom’s deathless January 2000 malicious APS abuse report apparently resurrected itself upon police investigation again, having survived in APS records because APS had failed to note it as unsubstantiated and false, despite the fact that it had been soundly disproven and there had been a long history of expert medical treatment supporting the prescribed dosages  This led APS, SARC and Stanford to repeat their earlier error of almost two years prior, with Stanford psych doctors, not trained as neurologists, again cutting Nancy’s prescribed Phenobarbital dosages almost in half upon admission to Stanford, throwing Nancy once again into seizures, just as before.

54.  Stanford Again Recognizes Their Repeated Medical Error and Corrects It, November 15-23, 2001. This is what the parents had tried to warn Stanford doctors about when Nancy was removed from their custody, to no avail.  On admission the psych team halved her anti-seizure medication to their notion of “normal” levels, causing a week of protracted grand mal seizures. Neurologist consult Dr. Schwartz disagreed on record November 17, 2001, “her level was good at time of admission” and restored her medication levels. Seizures then abated. These levels were the same levels that Mrs. Golin, under the supervision of Nancy’s regular board certified neurologist Dr. Howard Belfer of San Mateo Hospital and Stanford’s own clinical neurologists, administered – which the police and APS alleged were “overdosing” constituting “abuse”. In the end, Stanford doctors had to use Ativan to get her out of her seizures, and they kept her on this. While they admitted that Nancy was harmless and not mentally ill, they kept her on a hazardous illegal (by FDA regulations) psychotropic Trazidone, which was continued in State control for almost a year.  They also tied her up, in bed and in a wheelchair, in which she fell over while trying to get free to go to the bathroom.

55.  Erroneous relevant core findings in probate court trial two years later (October 2003).
Incredibly, probate Judge Hon. William F. Martin, at the 2003 probate court trial two years later, insisted without benefit of any medical degree that the admitted medical error was actually correct! Urged by the state attorneys Street, Stiles and Johnson, in clear error “found” as his only central finding as grounds for claiming parental abuse and unfitness that those mistaken halved levels that resulted twice in status epilepticus, found in the initial Stanford psych ward medical records were correct (!) despite live testimony to the contrary, and the evidence they resulted in seizures, and the restored prescribed levels to be “overdosing” and toxic, justifying finding Mrs. Golin unfit to conserve Nancy on those grounds, for supposedly abusing Nancy by merely giving her the prescribed dosage. Plaintiff’s allege there is ample obvious reason on the record to doubt this finding. In fact, not giving Nancy the doctor-prescribed dosage actually would have demonstrated abuse.  To justify this error, Martin speculated in the opinion that Mrs. Golin  had merely “shopped around” or bullied her doctors into her mistaken overconfident medical opinion when she was not even a doctor, and thus had a history of not getting along with Nancy’s doctors, or did not trust doctors. Martin speculated that Mr. Golin sheepishly deferred to his wife’s supposedly mistaken opinions rather than “standing up to [her]” “in order to preserve whatever marital harmony still existed”. There was nothing whatever in the record to suggest that Mrs. Golin ever had to shop around for qualified neurologists, or that Mr. Golin had ever felt bullied by his wife into agreeing with Mrs. Golin’s medical advocacy, and Mr. Golin testified that he was very impressed with his wife’s caregiving. Mrs. Golin always followed Nancy’s doctor’s prescription orders, faithfully. Mrs. Golin came from a family with a history of three generations of doctors and dentists and thus did not distrust doctors. She had only two regular board certified neurologists in 10 years, and did not “shop around” for them.

56.  History of Anti-Seizure Meds with Family: (1991-2001). Nancy started having grand mal seizures in 1991, the delayed result Plaintiff-parents believe of a head injury in childhood (around 1978) from being thrown over backwards onto a concrete patio in her chair by troubled boys at a poorly supervised SARC program.  Dilantin was the first ASM tried. Dilantin was discontinued for Nancy by her neurologist in 1992 and Phenobarbital started because Dilantin was causing observable bone loss and tooth loosening.  That is one of Dilantin’s well-documented side effects. Phenobarbital is the oldest and most studied ASM, and it was continued at these same documented levels by neurologists from 1992 up to 2000 when some newer ASM’s (Klonopin, Neurontin, Tegretol, for example) were tried temporarily with the help of Stanford’s Neurology clinic, which did not give good results.  One of the ASM’s, Tegretol, caused her to become atypically aggressive, pinching and scratching, a common side effect and Tegretol was discontinued and her doctors went back to Phenobarbital only.

State Abduction From Stanford Following Legal Denial of Psychiatric Hold

57.  Attempt to Place Plaintiff Nancy on Psychiatric Hold as “Gravely Disabled” Fails. Kratzer claimed in trial to have detained Nancy by filing an application for a Cal W&IC §5150 72-hour hold for evaluation which she produced in testimony in Court certifying Nancy to be a “danger to self”.  However, in the Stanford file, this document appears to have been later altered at the hospital with an additional check box as “gravely disabled” initialed below by a physician.  In the next document at the hospital, the “danger-to-self” claim is abandoned leaving only the “gravely disabled” claim. Stanford physicians saw that Nancy was not a danger to herself and refused to continue claiming those grounds.  Kratzer revealed at trial on cross-examination that from her training her confidence in her knowledge of these statutes was misplaced and she was not adequately trained to apply them properly to persons like Nancy.  This is a “failure of training” liability for the City.

58.   Inapplicability of Statutory Hold Authority Attempted. According to Cal. Welf. & Inst. C. §5008(h)(3) (excl. merely retarded), a person who is mentally retarded cannot be declared as gravely disabled by virtue of mental retardation alone.  In addition, Cal. Welf. & Inst. C. §5250(d)(1) (family and friends) provides that a claim of grave disability may not survive when there are willing and able family and friends willing to care for a disabled person. Involuntary detention in a psychiatric facility can only be done if the person has a mental disorder or must be detained as a harm to herself or others, and Nancy did not fit either of those categories and so could not be legally involuntarily detained in this manner.  The 72 hour evaluation showed that Nancy would not qualify to be detained any further on an LPS Cal W&IC §5250 hold for intensive treatment, nor could there have been any intensive treatment that could have aided an autistic adult that is scientifically known.  Yet, Stanford physicians at the request of SARC and APS kept illegally holding her involuntarily on a W&IC §5250 14 day hold, which was eventually judicially denied in an in-hospital hearing on November 25, 2001.  This meant that according to State Welfare and Institutions Code §§5150, 5270.35, after the 72-hour hold expired, their statutory authority to continue to hold her had lapsed, Nancy had to be released. SARC certainly lacked any legal authority to hold her after November 25, 2001 when her detention hearing expressly denied the State’s request to detain her further on an LPS hold.

59.  Evidence of Concealed Severe Incident at Stanford (November 2001). Between November 23, 2001 to November 26, 2001, Stanford Hospital nursing and medical records are neatly deleted, as if snipped out with a pair of scissors.  Every 15 minutes in the records, nurses are reporting Nancy’s whereabouts and activities, but during that period, the records are snipped out. Meanwhile in the APS records, a flurry of urgent telephone meetings are shown, also with the content of the conversation cut out, between all of the Defendants, including Stanford Risk Management.  Parents believe from this and other evidence stated herein, and on that basis allege, that this is the most likely period during which Nancy suffered sexual molestation at the hospital, and also allege that the defendants, and all of them including Det. Kratzer, knew of this incident and lawlessly determined at that point to cover it up to prevent embarrassment and financial liability for the hospital, by refusing to release Nancy to go home no matter what. .  In her IPP placement plan at Embee (see §71), the undiscovered severe abuse is mysteriously referred to in the cryptic comment, “There was infringement on her rights due to consumer dilemma during this period”.

60.  Evidence of Coordination of Defendants’ Strategy and Conduct. From telephone logs of APS and SARC, and Stanford medical records it can be inferred that all the Defendants were in communication regularly on this matter regarding legal issues of concern to this matter.

61.  Illegal, Dangerous and Harmful Psychotropic Drugging starting at Stanford (November 2001). Also at Stanford, Nancy was involuntarily started on her first psychotropic drug for the first time in her life, Trazidone, quite hazardous, supposedly “for sleep”, but listed only for treatment of severe bipolar disorder.  The medication is prescribed for psychotic persons to quiet disturbing thought patterns that might keep them awake, not as an ordinary sleep aid.  The dosages were prescribed “PRN” at the discretion and convenience of the caregivers.  Nancy had never been diagnosed with any form of mental illness and this medication was off-label and illegal for Nancy by FDA regulations without informed consent.  It would be hard for Stanford psychiatrists to competently evaluate Nancy for this drug because she us effectively mute and cannot cooperate with an evaluation, and presents no obvious symptoms other than autism.  At this point, Nancy was not conserved or in a guardianship and neither SARC nor APS had the legal right to give her even an aspirin.  Even temporary conservators are barred by local rules from administering psychotropic drugs to temporary conservatees because of the dangerousness of these drugs and the potential for their abuse. If they were actual conservators, they would have had to go to court to get permission to give her psychotropic drugs.

62.   Violation of Unreasonable Personal Seizure, Continued Illegal Detention of Plaintiff Nancy.  Despite the express judicially determined illegality of holding her further after November 25, 2001, SARC and APS, rather than releasing her to go home, secreted her at Embee on November 27, 2001 and defied inquiries by the press and all parties as to her whereabouts, withheld information about her from her former doctors or friends, and denied all visitors not connected with SARC, APS, or County of Santa Clara Agencies, allegedly for her own protection.  When the parents went to Stanford Hospital on advice of their counsel Mr. Dennis Kazubowski to go pick Nancy up because legally Stanford had to release her, the parents were again forced to leave without Nancy when confronted with Stanford security agents and told to leave or face arrest for trespassing.  The police had not tried to perfect the TRO they had initially obtained, they had not been charged with any crime (at that point) and so that had expired as well, as they showed the security detail.  Mrs. Golin was eventually allowed to go up to the floor where Nancy had been kept, but was told that she had been discharged, but to whom?  The staff said they were ordered not to say.  Nancy had been smuggled out of the back of the hospital as the parents waited at the hospital entrance, hustled into a waiting car driven by Embee co-owner Michael S. Dorn[3], who drove her to Embee Manor without notice. This was an unauthorized “placement” by Liske, Duong, Kinderlehrer and Buckmaster, who maintained Nancy in that status until over eight months later on July 31, 2002 when the parents were finally notified of her address on the conservatorship petition by DDS after three prior hearings.

Golins Defamed in Local Paper by Defendants by Fraud to Cover Up Misconduct

63.  Fraud, Slander and Defamation of Character to Press by Defendants in Response to Sympathetic Media Reports, followed by arrest and prosecution to stifle parents’ opposition (November 2001) . In an attempt to keep the parents unavailable, especially after they had contacted the Palo Alto Daily News and had three sympathetic stories published, Buckmaster concocted fraudulent stories in her confidential APS Telephone log records released to the press and the DA that the parents had, a) locked Nancy in a closet when she was little causing her to be retarded, whereas it was a matter of every available record that Nancy had been retarded since birth, or b) that a fictional nurse at Stanford named “Mary Dorn” had spoken to Nancy eight or nine years prior to this and she couldn’t tell Nancy was mentally retarded, impliedly placing the blame for her retardation apparently upon the parents alleged abuse, or c) attempting to depict the ordinary middle-class parents as something approaching notorious career criminals saying that they “both had long criminal histories including assault on a police officer”, all completely false except for minor misdemeanor complaints – Jeffrey has a graduate school degree and professional background in engineering and marketing having been gainfully and legally employed since high school and Elsie has no criminal history at all. Noted San Jose probate attorney Alan Fleishman, frequently employed to represent SARC, and who briefly represented Nancy despite a conflict of interest, on record organized the attack against the parents.  Immediately thereafter on November 30, 2001 the parents were both arrested on felony dependent abuse charges on $50,000 warrants, despite the fact that they had been model parents to Nancy and had made substantial sacrifices during their lives to protect her from institutional care, and despite the fact that there were no signs of abuse or neglect found on Nancy at the hospital or any probable cause found for her removal.  Mrs. Golin was arrested by Palo Alto Police at East Palo Alto FBI Headquarters where had been lured by PAPD’s invitation in response to her appeal for help.  The parents spent the night in jail and were both bailed out the next day, causing panic according to Kratzer in the APS logs of December 4, 2001.

64.  Fraud, Fabrication of Witnesses and Evidence by Defendants to Justify Arrests, to Stop Press Accounts Embarrassing to Defendants. In the APS records of November 3, 2001, a note from Buckmaster of APS states in an earlier conversation: “Jamie called to inform SW (Suk) that she spoke w/ Mary Dorn – charge nurse who has worked at Stanford over 25 years. She has known client for many years. She recalls 8-9 years ago when client [Nancy] was able to carry on a conversation and it was difficult to tell whether client was D.D. (developmentally disabled)…Mr. And Mrs. Golin were arrested as of Thursday, Nov. 29. The bail is set for $50,000 for each person.” There is no such person as Mary Dorn from a rigorous search of Stanford and State Licensing records, nor has Nancy ever carried on a conversation with anyone.  Stanford medical records show that Nancy was diagnosed by a Stanford doctor with incurable autism at the age of two.  The implied relevance of the juxtaposition of these two statements cannot be ignored.

False Criminal Charges Filed, Golins Arrested to Conceal State Abuse

65.  Press Sympathy Reversed by Organized Slander and Character Assassination of Defendants, resulting in Damaging Press Libel. This completely reversed the sympathies of the Palo Alto Daily News reporters, based on the false stories fed them by Kratzer and Buckmaster. It impressed the DA Hey enough to publicly state his opinion quoted in the articles that “the parents had deliberately inflicted pain and suffering on Nancy” and “would most likely spend many years in State Prison”, libelously reported in the News and widely disseminated to north Santa Clara County residents.  Fourteen months later when the parents were exonerated and their charges dropped or deferred, these stories were nevertheless not retracted or updated by the editors of that papers who refused to even listen to the parents after that, and the slander remained uncorrected.

66.  Parents Release Panics Police, Revealing Fears of Parents Returning to Newspapers. When the parents bailed out of jail, the APS records reflect Kratzer’s panic on December 4, 2001: “The Golins were bailed out of jail.  Probably on foot loose on Palo Alto streets somewhere.  Some how they had the money or property to put up bailed (sic) bond to get out of jail.  He [sic] wanted to inform you (Jamie) that they might go back to the reporter at the daily [Palo Alto Daily News reporter Melanie Carroll] and start yelling and screaming.  Just wanted to give you (Jamie) a heads up.”  The inference is that the parents were expressing their First Amendment Rights informing the media, and the response of the police was to arrest them hastily to shut them up to avoid revelations of misconduct, prematurely, before any competent investigation could be conducted that would have proven their innocence. “On foot loose” implies that the police knew and intended the parents’ van to have been impounded after arrest leaving them without any transportation; fortunately this did not happen. The only other possible logical inference was that these actions by the police were pre-planned for such an opportunity and unalterable by discovered facts.

67.  Effective Kidnapping Under Color of Law. Therefore it is clear that Nancy was removed illegally and continuously held illegally by SARC and APS from the date of her being taken into custody and control on November 15, 2001 until a conservatorship was finally established with a temporary interim conservator (Lamb) initially believed to be friendly to the parents on October 15, 2002, almost 11 months of illegal captivity, with 8 months of that time in secret confinement.  This would have qualified as a simple unadorned kidnapping if it had not been carried out under color of State law, and at no time during this period had the authority to keep her.

68.   Plaintiff Parents’ Arrest and Release on Bail, An Attempt to Continue Detention of Plaintiff Elsie after bail, Attempted Psychiatric Hold of Mrs. Golin Fails. The parents were arrested on November 30, 2001, on $50,000 bail each for felony adult dependent abuse, and were bailed out after 24 hours. Mrs. Golin however, was not released immediately.  She was transferred to Elmwood, then to Valley Medical, where officials attempted without success to detain her on a 72-hour psychiatric hold.  An unnamed co-conspirator, later clearly recognized in court to be noted Palo Alto probate attorney Peter Stern, was curiously observed seated in the women’s jail at midnight urgently summoning a psychiatric nurse, who rushed in apparently for the sole purpose of attempting to place Elsie on a psychiatric hold.  The unnamed nurse, keeping her awake walking her backwards and forwards all night in shackles and chains, claimed that she was delusional because she claimed to have sums of cash which they challenged her to disclose the whereabouts of, threatening continued detention.  When Elsie refused to say, a mob of guards piled up on her, placed her in shackles and chains, and chained her to a chair. Parents believe and allege that the true ulterior purpose behind this highly unusual intimidation was to attempt to discover and seize Mrs. Golin’s cash assets in another attempt to drain the parents of financial resources to fight oppressive state prosecution of themselves and conservatorship of their daughter. The grilling failed despite Elsie, fearing police retaining possession of the keys to her shop, refusing to disclose the whereabouts of her personal cash.  Mrs. Golin argued that she could hardly be qualified for psychiatric detention on grounds that she lacked the resources to care for herself, given her obvious resources at that moment.  The parents financial independence was obvious and easily proven from their vehicles, company assets and resources, making it hard for anyone to reach any finding of true “grave disability”. Mrs. Golin experienced painful and alarming symptoms of extreme cardiac distress during the night, which jail officials refused to respond to.  Plaintiff Elsie Golin was finally released when a competent genuine psychologist arrived at Valley Medical Center in the morning to examine her and she was determined to be sound of mind.

69.  Collusion between DDS, Stiles and Santa Clara County DA’s office at SARC’s request to maliciously prosecute parents in order to effectuate conservatorship. At one of the first arraignment hearings in January 2002, one month after her illegal detention, Judge Manoukian’s minute order notes that it was Mr. Stiles (DDS) that had requested a no-contact order against the parents, without any showing of cause. Judge Manoukian nevertheless ordered visits but the TRO had the effect of wrongfully imprisoning Nancy and legitimizing her illegal detention in violation of her fourth Amendment rights.

State Fraud to Conserve Nancy Extra-Judicially in Secret

70.   Evidence of Defendants’ Aversion to Legal Proceedings. That the Defendants had an aversion to legal hearings on Nancy’s detention was made clear in another note in the APS records of March 1, 2002 just before supervised visits were to begin finally showing clearly the conspiracy, “all of us are concerned that nancy is not yet conserved and our ability to therefore keep her safe and prevent her parents from disappearing with her. da [district attorney], jacqui [county counsel] and I [Buckmaster] feel like we want to avoid court if at all possible.” Here this note refers to Hey, Duong and Buckmaster, and possibly unnamed DA Daniel Nichigaya.

71.  Fraudulent Continued Illegal Detention, Forgery. To detain her after her release from Stanford in November 2001, when she was placed at Embee during this period with a fig-leaf fiction of legal authority, SARC fraudulently forged Nancy’s signature on her Individualized Placement Plan (IPP) of January 4, 2002 in an effort to claim that Nancy was held at Embee Manor voluntarily after being released from Stanford Hospital. Nancy has never been able to write her name or even make an “x”, yet a letter to Stanford requesting their records on Nancy, signed by Liske, shows Nancy’ forged signature on a consent to release form, with Liske’s fraudulent statement to Stanford that Nancy “can sometimes sign her name although it is often illegible”.  The word “nancy” is scrawled in longhand on these documents.  Defendants demonstrated by this fraud that they knew they required her signature and could not legally sign it themselves, and knew or should have known that Nancy cannot sign her name.

72.  Illegality Under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act W&IC §4501 et seq, only a consumer [i.e., Nancy], a parent or conservator or guardian can sign such a form and there cannot be a legal agreement made by the Regional Center personnel alone.  The fundamental statutory basis and legislative intent for administering W&IC §4501 et seq in every code section and the express use of special terminology (“client”, “services”, “delivery”, “provider”, “service program”) is shown to be clearly designed to be mutually consensual, not compulsory, and the family is regarded as performing “the leadership role in designing service plans”. Who exactly forged her signature was not disclosed, but it is beyond any doubt that Nancy has never and could never sign her own name at any time in her life.  It is known that SARC and Embee workers also signed this form and that the signature could have been forged in their presence, but no others.  Yet Kinderlehrer in the recent State trial in testimony made the unlikely claim that she did not know that Nancy could not sign her own name when shown the forged signature.

Evidence of Abuse in State Care

73.  Supervised visitation requirements imposed. After the parents were first arraigned on felony abuse charges in Santa Clara County Superior Court, criminal division, Hon. Socrates Manoukian, on January 3, 2002, ordered that the parents were to have one hour per week supervised visitation with their daughter, supervised by APS.  Four months after police seized Nancy, March 2002, after APS was threatened with contempt, visits began one hour per week, oppressively supervised by APS, at an outside visitation center, Clover House, to strictly guard the location of SARC/APS’s hiding place from friends and doctors.  For example, the parents were not allowed to leave until 5 minutes after Nancy had departed with her aides, to prevent the parents from following them and finding SARC’s hideout. The Golins observed Nancy displaying persistent unreported signs of sexual molestation and drugging.  Nancy had never exhibited these behaviors in her parents’ care before.  Now, she kept defensively holding herself, in her private areas, front and back, and this behavior never stopped nor did it change from week to week. After the first few weeks it could no longer be excused as a supposed “yeast infection”.  Parents took photos of this and Mrs. Golin held up photos and demanded to the Manoukian court to know what was going on with this.  When parents tried to ask Ms. Buckmaster who attended the visits why was Nancy always doing this, Buckmaster barked at them that they were not to ask any questions or their visits would be terminated immediately, and for the Golins ask their attorneys that question.  Nancy repeatedly begged her parents to take her home with them by trying to pull them out the door with her, pulling at her mother, or selecting her father’s car key out of his pocket and giving it to him, as she had always done to ask to be taken out. Buckmaster and her aide Suk frequently attended these visits personally.  The parents were treated as criminals.  No questions were permitted.

74.  Nancy’s Demonstrated Abuse in State Care Unreported, Disregarded. At one visit, August 14, 2002, it was discovered that Nancy had a missing fingernail, which appeared to have been ripped off, and it had not been treated.  The parents were shocked and outraged, and called the San Jose police to report the abuse.  Buckmaster of APS, responsible for Nancy’s protection, who had not yet been present at this visit, arrived seemingly from nowhere in less than five minutes, flashed her card to the police that had responded, and alleged to the police that because the Golins were supposedly “criminals” San Jose police should just ignore them, and turned them away.  The police refused to listen to the parents, based on Buckmaster’s characterizations, and not only refused to investigate the complaint or look at Nancy, but also forced Mr. Golin to submit to a personal search for contraband, and then left.  It was never discovered who had been responsible for her injury.

75.   Severe Permanent Personal Injury, Endangerment and Trauma Caused by Inappropriate Use of Psychotropic Drugs on Epileptic Nancy. Psychotropic drugs, according to testimony from SARC psychiatrist Hector Cerezo at trial, “reduce seizure thresholds” leading to reduced efficacy of control by seizure medications, i.e., increased seizure frequency. They are only FDA listed for schizophrenia, and off-label use is only legally allowed by informed consultation between doctor and patient. Nancy has never been diagnosed with schizophrenia or any other type of treatable mental illness.  SARC had no authority to drug her because they had only physical possession of her, not legal custody. For Nancy that meant she would have serious convulsions, the convulsions would cause lower esophageal ruptures, the ruptures would cause hiatal hernias, bleeding and Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disorder (GERD), which could lead to pre-cancerous destruction of the esophageal lining (metaplasia followed by dysplasia). This is exactly what happened in state care as was proven in probate court.

76.  Psychotropic Standards of Care in State Custody. It is also the Standard of Care (SOC) at Agnews. Autistics are automatically given these drugs. Continued administration of these drugs commonly results in a downward course of muscle motor control, loss of ability to swallow, paraplegia, loss of sensation and requirement of intubation or tracheotomy for feeding.  Perversely this only makes the state more money because an incapacitated client draws more federal money for medical assistive care than one that is not.  Agnews families whose relatives are routinely given these drugs are told that this downward deterioration is “natural progression” of autism rather than telling them the truth that the very drugs they are giving them to counter this condition are what is responsible for their deterioration. There is no such “natural progression” in autism without drugs, as demonstrated by Nancy until a few years ago.  These medications are favored by careworkers as the ”standard of care” as well, because they make their wards easier to watch and control. They often tout that they “eliminate mood swings”, whereas they in fact merely eliminate moods.  The major drug companies also give large kickbacks to doctors that prescribe these medications, increasing the incentive of irresponsible administration by untrained careworkers and their doctors.

77.  Symptoms of Tardive Dyskinesia (TD). Prior to being in state care, Plaintiffs allege from their personal knowledge that Nancy never had shown any symptoms of tardive dyskinesia, because she had never had been prescribed or given psychotropic medications in her parents’ care. TD is observed by tremors in the hands and limbs, tongue thrusting and lip pursing, obsessive behaviors, flushing, eventually loss of motor control, coma, blindness, loss of bodily function, drooling, Parkinson’s disorder (muscle rigidity, similar to the condition of ex-prizefighter Mohammed Ali) all of which can become permanent in most cases.  Observation of these symptoms without immediate discontinuation can result in death, as testified by Dr. Cerezo.  Continuing these drugs could cause Extrapyrimidal Disorder, and as Cerezo testified, this required emergency hospitalization.

78.  Lifethreatening Risks from Psychotropic Medications. There are terrifying psychological symptoms of these psychotropic medications.  Abrupt or too-rapid withdrawal from these drugs has been reported to cause psychotic episodes, hallucinations, voices, delusions, the feeling of crawling insects, and all the terrifying symptoms of schizophrenia. There are no benefits to autistic persons like Nancy with these drugs.  In Nancy, who cannot report her experiences or get these drugs discontinued, or refuse medications as the Supreme Court has ruled every person has a right to do, this truly represents cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.  Zyprexa, the psychotropic drug that was resumed under Dr. Masada, has been the subject of a class action product liability lawsuit for causing pancreatitis, diabetes, and heart disease.

79.  Discovery and Discontinuation by the Parents of Risperdal Administration, (October 2002). By October 2002, Nancy was showing all the obvious classic signs of TD from Risperdal.  Her untrained non-English speaking Philippine aides were not instructed to notice these signs, and never reported them.  When the parents got a limited amount of discovery from Dr. Cerezo, they found the records of this and got Dr. Cerezo to stop it. Dr. Cerezo was reportedly alarmed and dropped Nancy as a patient.  Her care was taken over by Masada, a GP who still acts as her primary care doctor and prescribes most of her drugs. Her symptoms improved, her concentration at the new day program, started post-haste in September 2002 after no program or activity at all since her abduction, improved.

80.  Embee Aides Resume Psychotropics in Spite of Conservator. The aides now had to watch Nancy more closely, and objected to the interruption of this drug.  These aides were not about to go to the trouble of watching Nancy in full enjoyment of her life that her mother was willing to do all her life at home. They tried to get another prescription from Masada by fraud, initially behind the back of Lamb.  Eventually they succeeded, in late December 2001, allegedly with Lamb’s consent. Masada switched her to Zyprexa, a drug of the same class with other serious side effects, and expressed the opinion that Zyprexa was safe and “cured” tardive dyskinesia…it actually just masks the symptoms.  By this point, the state had been giving her three different dangerous psychotropic medications and they weren’t even temporary conservators yet, but they intended to fix that problem.

Attempts to Conserve Captive Nancy in Undisclosed Proceedings, by Fraud

81.   Conservatorship Proceedings Initiated by Fraud Concealing Notice to Family, Attempting to Misuse Inapplicable Statutory Authority. In December 2001, SARC attempted to quickly obtain a temporary conservatorship by petitioning DDS under Cal HSC §416.5, believing that this could be done extra-judicially, expressing the hope on the APS record that they wished to “avoid court if possible”. Rogers, with the assistance of Kinderlehrer and Liske and other Does wrote a nomination letter fraudulently and slanderously misrepresenting the parents as unfit on December 5, 2002. Again, prominent San Jose probate attorney Alan Fleishman, who had previously discussed taking the case with the Golins, and then improperly turned around and took the job of representing Nancy for San Andreas during the period December 2001 to April 2002, lead the effort. However, DDS according to APS records initially refused to accept the nomination for “T-Con” despite desperate appeals from SARC, APS and SARC attorneys, saying their information that this could be done extra-judicially was incorrect.  Fleishman had told SARC “this was done all the time in Santa Clara County”.  The reason for this could be simple. According to Cal HSC §416.5, only three classes of persons are statutorily empowered to nominate and thus bring such proceedings: friends, conservators, and the conservatee himself, and Regional Centers are not among them. In Cal HSC §416.9, the Director is again able to petition for the conservatorship without nomination (not what they tried to do) but Cal HSC §416.23 makes the intent crystal clear, that “this article does not authorize the care, treatment, or supervision of any control over any developmentally disabled person without the written consent of his parent or guardian or conservator”.  This Article 7.5 of the California Health and Safety Code is meant to be used only in the last resort for the Director of Developmental Services when a child is abandoned by a parent or the conservatee lacks any legal representative, or there are no parents available. This makes DDS’s petition for conservatorship legally defective on its face with no available remedy.  This argument was presented to the trial judge as a Motion for Nonsuit on October 8, 2003 and this motion was summarily denied. This was a serious judicial error in the State Court that should have thrown out the state’s case, that could not be reviewed on appeal due to the misconduct of the probate court and these defendants that effectively denied appeal.

82.  Statutory Conservatorship Requirement of Abandonment Pursued by Malicious Prosecution of Parents. The fact that the DDS Defendant’s petition for conservatorship requires that there be no parents available to protest according to Sections 416-416.23 of the Health and Safety Code, and the fact that DDS lawyers had to have known this from past rejections of their petitions, proves that DDS was motivated to find a way to make the parents unavailable by any means at their disposal and would certainly have been initially reluctant to accept such a nomination. This was known or should have been to Stiles as DDS’s attorney, given a minimum level of competence in his office.  This would have amply explained the malicious criminal prosecution by Hey of the parents suggested to APS and SARC by DDS as disclosed in the APS records, as a means to make the Golins unavailable for 14 months while the DA went on a fishing expedition during the time when DDS was attempting to gain a conservatorship.

83.  Secret Conservatorship Petition Launched by State, April 2002.  Stiles fraudulently represented to the State Probate Courts in the initial three hearings from May to July, 2002 shown in transcripts that the parents “whereabouts are unknown” because he claimed they were supposedly in jail for abusing Nancy, so they could not be served or informed of DDS’s petition, when at the same time everyone knew their whereabouts, they were having weekly visits with their daughter, and were contacting them through their attorneys.  DDS and SARC filed a false capacity declaration in May 2002 including a dementia claim, purportedly signed by Nancy’s primary care doctor Morgan, who two years later denied signing it in testimony in the October 2003 probate trial, testifying correctly that he was not qualified to make such a psychiatric evaluation.  Judge Hon. Catherine Gallagher finally required DDS in July 2002 to serve the parents, at which point the parents discovered the ongoing proceedings, and filed their own motion for conservatorship, on August 20, 2002. The parents petition hung under a cloud during the remaining portion of their criminal defense proceedings, so their petition was temporarily denied.  To fill in, to prevent the State from winning temporary conservatorship in the meantime, the parents persuaded a third party, Lamb, to petition, and Lamb was appointed by Hon. Gregory Ward for a five month period on October 15, 2002, expecting that the parents would have dealt with their false criminal charges by then.

State Abuse with Unnecessary and Non-Therapeutic Psychiatric Drugging

84.  Defendants’ Beginning of Illegal, Injurious, Improper, Unnecessary and Deadly Psychiatric Drugging of Plaintiff Nancy (November 2001, May 2002). Nancy Golin had never received or been prescribed psychiatric drugs at any prior time during her life, living with her parents, only anti-seizure medications (ASM’s). Nancy Golin started receiving Trazidone at Stanford Hospital during her stay there, and that psychotropic medication was continued for the following year at the convenience of the caregivers.  Nancy appeared at most of the weekly visits (shown in photos) appearing heavily sedated by drugs.  In May 2002, SARC’s selected primary care doctor, Dr. Morgan, referred Nancy to a psychiatrist.  Two of Mantilla’s aides literally dragged her into a psychiatrist’s office to get Nancy dosed by Dr. Hector Cerezo on a much stronger psych medication, Risperdal.  They alleged symptoms of mental illness that Nancy had never previously exhibited, and informed the Doctor that Nancy was there “because her parents were in jail for abusing her”. Dr. Cerezo testified that he had no way to diagnose her because she would not communicate and believed her supposed loss of speech to have been part of the supposed abuse trauma. He testified that the reason he assumed that she might have a psychiatric disorder was that she was already on the Trazidone and said he trusted that Stanford would not have her on such a drug if there were no history of psychiatric disorders. He therefore started to prescribe Risperdal, a psychotropic drug listed only for the treatment of schizophrenia.  Nancy has never been diagnosed as schizophrenic and there is no way to tell if she has any such psychotic disorder because she cannot communicate, but watchful Plaintiff-parents have never observed any behaviors that would suggest such a possibility. Dr. Cerezo testified during the October 2003 trial that he was given no past medical history for Nancy Golin from which to treat her, nor could he really interpret her behaviors, and testified he believed it constituted abuse for SARC to have asked him to treat Nancy without providing her medical history.

85.  Tardive Dyskinesia due to Psych Drugs, How it Works and How it is Given. According to expert testimony at trial,  these psych drugs as a broad class also cause tardive dyskinesia (TD), a neurological disorder, which can only be caused by these drugs, there is no other etiology. They work by severing the neurological pathways between the forebrain and the cortex, by inhibiting dopamine, the neurotransmitter. Everything that makes us human beings, our emotions, thoughts, higher intelligence, artistic expression, is located in the forebrain. This amounts to chemical lobotomy as opined by many top expert neurologists, depriving a person of his very quality of life, turning them into zombies.

86.    Harsher Psychotropic Medications Obtained by SARC, Embee Fraud. Dr. Cerezo naturally assumed, he testified, that Nancy had suffered extreme abuse and mental anguish from supposedly being abused by her parents as he had been misinformed, so he sought to “ease her pain” with these drugs.  He also thought, suspiciously sounding like Buckmaster’s “Mary Dorn” invention, that she had lost her speech as a result of this supposed mental trauma, and testified it was “one of his hopes” that these drugs could restore her speech. In fact, if there was any mental pain and anguish, it occurred after Nancy was removed from her parents, not before.  She suffered from separation from her lifelong parents, a probable rape at Stanford, her aides were abusing her and locking her in her room all day long, and her seizures were not being treated or reported, as well as other unreported abuses.

87.    Embee/SARC Withholding of Vital Medical Information to Obtain Psychotropics. The aides withheld the information from Cerezo that Nancy suffered from seizures, a critical piece of information for prescribing these medications.  They alleged that Nancy was removing her clothing and masturbating after visits with her family were resumed.  Plaintiffs never observed that behavior before and doubt its veracity. Cerezo after one month doubled the dosage and then doubled it again, seesawing up and down during the month.  These drugs must be slowly tapered off or they cause psychotic episodes and neurological damage. Then he reported, “still not talking”. They never told him that Nancy did not talk.  The Trazidone was continued as well, added to the Risperdal.

SARC/Embee Medical Neglect, Personal Injuries of Nancy

88.   SARC’s Perverse Motive in Denying SARC Referred Doctors Nancy’s Medical Records or Contacts with Parents. The denial of medical records would support a fiction, necessary for SARC, that Nancy had been neglected or abandoned and thus no such medical records existed, because Nancy was depicted as a mere street waif to Stanford psych doctors as part of the cover-up, rather than someone with a bookshelf of medical documents.  Parents allege that it would be impossible for the defendants themselves to have avoided knowing such a story was false, and thus knew they were committing a fraud.  Buckmaster told the parents when they complained about the level of services, “Well, NOW she has a doctor!

89.  SARC Assigns Unlicensed Doctors. SARC assigned Nancy a doctor that had lost his license due to “deadbeat dad” regulations, and was thus under the thumb of the county and DA, and brought her to a low income East San Jose clinic for her care. Morgan was given no medical history, told again that the parents were unavailable because they were in jail for abusing Nancy.  The parents attempted to visit his clinic in May 2002 to helpfully inform him about Nancy’s medical history, and he was very curious, but someone from the county, tipped off probably by Lamb, called to tell him that the parents were on their way, so he was not allowed to talk to the parents and by the time they got to the clinic he had been ordered not to talk to them.  Therefore, he was not aware that Nancy was being treated by her doctors the previous summer for GERD and hiatal hernia, which under her mother’s care was in remission.  The doctor, Morgan, did not therefore realize that this medication regimen had to be continued, and therefore the GI condition that had been in previously remission was allowed to return and worsen, and Morgan was not successful in diagnosing this condition.

90.  Dr. Morgan Denied Medical History by SARC with Disastrous Consequences. Dr. Morgan stated exactly the same thing, that he had been denied any medical history for Nancy before her removal and therefore had nothing to go on for treatment of any past conditions, which would have been shown to be chronic, and that this would have been an important consideration in her treatment. There was no information given by the caregivers to indicate that Nancy was being given anti-psychotics, or any information to the parents to warn them of this, and this was not learned until after October 15, 2002 when Lamb was appointed conservator. By that time, Nancy was showing signs of tardive dyskinesia and Parkinson’s disorder, a sign of permanent brain damage.  Thereafter, the Risperdal was discontinued although abruptly by her new primary doctor, Marvin Masada, but then resumed with another psychotropic Zyprexa apparently against the advice of Ms. Lamb. Masada is a general practitioner with no training in psychiatry and lacking knowledge of psychiatric drug side effects or autistic behaviors.

91.  Forced Imprisonment Disclosed. During the period from Nancy’s removal on November 15, 2001 until around September 15, 2002, Nancy Golin was not in any day program and was kept at home in her bedroom with the door locked without any access to visitors or activities.  Lamb attempted to visit her at Embee in August 2002, but was turned away by Buckmaster stridently demanding by telephone to know how she obtained her secret address. One of the charges made against the parents was that the parents deprived Nancy of the benefit of SARC programs, yet when in their care SARC did not place her until the parents discovered SARC’s Petition for Limited Conservatorship and filed their own competing petition.

92.  Accidental Discovery of Recent Unreported and Untreated Orthopedic Injuries of Plaintiff Nancy. At this time also during the conservatorship by Miss. Lamb, Nancy’s visit with her parents to an emergency room on November 7, 2001 at Alta Bates Hospital Emergency Room uncovered the fact from a chest x-ray that Nancy had suffered from an untreated collarbone fracture and a dislocated shoulder in State care.  A previous x-ray obtained by her caregivers from Nancy’s SARC appointed doctor Coleman at Meridian Medical Clinic from August 29, 2001 was uncovered as well showing the collarbone fracture without the shoulder dislocation.  A chest x-ray from shortly before Nancy’s removal from her parents showed no broken collarbone fracture.  Embee caregiver Gelle displayed apparent knowledge about the injury but did not report it, and the injury had to have been reported to her by the Meridian doctors from this x-ray.  Expert orthopedic witness testimony by Dr. Duc Nguyen and Dr. Jerold Kaplan at the October trial opined that it had happened to the best medical probability about four months before the August 29 x-ray, or in March or April, 2001 while under illegal State custody and control. He also opined from the Alta Bates records that the ER doctor there had to spend much time working the subluxated (partially dislocated) left shoulder back into its socket.

Lamb’s Hidden Slander, Collusion and Concealment of Evidence

93.  On January 11, 2005, an article in the San Jose Metro News, entitled “Forgotten Care”, by Najeeb Hasan appeared.  It reported that Lamb knew of additional severe abuses that had occurred to Nancy at Embee Manor in state care and had failed to disclose this critical information during trial.  The outcome of the trial might have and should have been different had Lamb disclosed this information.  In addition it discloses that Lamb was in contact with a key witness, unnamed in the article, but known to the parents from their conversations with Lamb to be Nancy’s aide at Embee, Lynne Gelle, aka Angelina Gelle, and concealed the whereabouts of Gelle to the court and to the family. Some time in mid 2003, parents were informed and thereby believe and allege that Gelle went to Canada to avoid service, and then came back to work for a nursing home nearby. Lamb resumed contact with Gelle when she returned, and gained information from her concerning these defendants and their wrongdoing and abuse of Nancy that Lamb refused to share.  Lamb refused to give the parents Gelle’s whereabouts.

94.  Lamb’s Collusion with SARC, Abusing Nancy. Lamb is unmarried, senior, and childless, a former Social worker who once worked with the San Jose police department and for Santa Clara County Juvenile Hall.  Plaintiff parents/Golins permanently severed their relationship with Lamb shortly after the probate trial, suspecting and on that basis believing that Lamb was suffering from a mental disturbance.  It is not yet known what ties she still has with law enforcement, or what if any her mental history might be.  The parents suspect that her false and malicious rumors might have actually encouraged the entire affair from some time before Nancy’s removal, and seek discovery along those lines.  During the parents’ brief 2001 marital dispute and estrangement (§23) Lamb supported Mr. Golin, and was disappointed at the couple’s reconciliation and reunion (§24). Petitioners discovered from direct firsthand experience and on that basis allege that Lamb proved unable to act in Nancy K. Golin’s best interests and failed to protect her, and covertly at every opportunity abused her position to subvert the Plaintiff’s rights vigorously and knowingly employing scurrilous slander and defamation of character against the initially unsuspecting parents to deter assistance to the family from advocates and attorneys, whom she would privately seek out at every opportunity.

95.  Lamb discloses her withheld testimony to the press, 2004. Lamb went public a year and a half after the trial with the information that she held back during trial that Nancy had been denied permission requested by her Embee care providers for emergency hospitalization, believed to be by Liske, Wendt, Mantilla and other SARC agents while at Embee, when she was lying on the floor in her twelfth epileptic seizure, turning hypoxic, (blue from lack of oxygen).  According to this news article, which the parents believe and on that basis allege was instigated by Lamb, the defendants finally relented when her aides started crying, thinking something bad was going to happen to Nancy, and allowed Nancy to be taken to an emergency room for lifesaving treatment.  Plaintiffs believe and allege that this was motivated by defendants’ desire to avoid embarrassment by concealing public exposure of Nancy’s uncontrolled, and in fact aggravated and deteriorated, epileptic condition, and conceal that her seizures were not under control in their care, since their primary allegation against the parents was that Nancy’s seizures were not under control in the parents’ care.  If that meant she could no longer go to an emergency room for treatment even for lifesaving emergency treatment for fear that their standard of care would be revealed in a bad light, that was apparently acceptable in the eyes of these defendants. All the while this was going on San Andreas was claiming to the probate court through Johnson/Street/Stiles that Nancy was having no seizures while in their care, making her safe with them and comparing their fraudulent record to the actual record in family care.  In fact, these defendants knew that their statements were false.

96.  Parents not notified about Metro article for fact checking, reporting only Lamb slander. Plaintiffs only discovered this article on the Internet three months later by accident, because the San Jose Metro News reporter Hasan inexplicably failed to contact them, Nancy’s own parents, about the article to check his facts.  The parents are never mentioned in this article, as if they never existed, or had abandoned Nancy.  The article speaks about a report that Lamb wrote to State licensing about these abuses, which Lamb claims credit for here.  On November, 2002, when Mrs. Golin was informed by an ER doctor of a broken collarbone and dislocated shoulder Nancy had suffered in state care, dated by orthopedic expert Duc Nguyen who testified at trial, in Nancy’s chest x-rays taken at Alta Bates Hospital, and the other evidence came in revealing that Nancy had been drugged on psychotropics, Mrs. Golin reported this abuse to State Community Care Licensing in San Jose.  Lamb belittled Mrs. Golin for “tattling” by reporting this to Licensing[4].  The report, like Lamb’s report two years later, was labeled “unsupported” and “unfounded”.  On that basis, Mantilla barred Plaintiff-parents from entering Embee Manor to visit their daughter and Lamb supported Mantilla.  The parents were not allowed to receive a copy of Lamb’s report that gave rise to this article, in which Lamb is portrayed as a heroine advocate for doing the same thing that she belittled Mrs. Golin for doing two years later, and revealing information that she concealed two years before.  Reporters at the Metro hinted that there was a considerable amount of slander against the parents in Lamb’s report that they refused to print, and refused to provide the parents with a copy of it.  State Licensing also refused to provide a copy to the parents when they visited their offices, claiming “privacy”, but it is believed and the parents on that basis allege that Lamb’s report slanders the parents.

97.   Lamb reveals uninformed opinion deprecating parents necessary use of ER’s. In fact, when Nancy had breakthrough seizures lasting more than five minutes, her parents always rushed her to an emergency room.  Lamb belittled the Plaintiffs for doing this on several occasions, believing apparently that medical care should only be managed by scheduled clinic visits, not by ER trips.   Lamb flew into a violent rage and told the parents when Nancy was having seizures at her house during a visit on January 5, 2003 that she was not going to allow the parents to take Nancy to an emergency room, because “that was what got [her parents] where they were, taking Nancy to too many Emergency Rooms”.  Lamb’s uninformed opinion was that seizures ought to and could be managed by scheduled clinic visits, not ER visits, even if Nancy were in the throes of seizures. This revealing remark raises speculation, and the parents do believe and allege, that Lamb herself may have withheld emergency medical treatment and knew more about what was going on than she disclosed, that Nancy’s removal from her family had something to do with rationing health care and containment of MediCal costs, by HMO’ing Nancy in state custody.

98.  Additional shocking revelations of second Metro news article. In addition the article reveals that Nancy was kept locked and barricaded in her room at Embee for most of the time she was there, that when she had seizures she lost bladder control and urinated on the carpet, that she had no access to bathrooms, and that her aides were not trained to recognize this as a consequence of epileptic seizures. Her carpet was reported to stink and had to be replaced with linoleum according to the probate court investigator.  These allegations were known to Lamb because parents were told by Lamb and on that basis believe that they were reported to her by aide Gelle.  Lamb promised to disclose Gelle’s whereabouts so she could be called to testify, but refused up to the trial and at trial when asked by Mr. Golin about Gelle’s whereabouts Judge Martin stopped her from answering and refused to let her answer the question.

99.  Wandering. During the Lamb temporary conservatorship, Lamb often excoriated the Golin’s record of controlling Nancy’s wandering behavior in comparison with that of Embee Manor.  She frequently charged, “you were never able to keep her ‘safe’”, raising speculation that Lamb’s misguided involvement may have started sooner than Golins realized.  Golins testified that by their estimates that Nancy managed to get away possibly four times a year, despite their best efforts, given that their goal was not to keep Nancy locked away.  To demonstrate her contention that Embee had succeeded where the parents had failed, she produced a record from Embee that she believed showed Nancy had not wandered more than twice.  She had failed to read it more closely, because this represented only one month, and in fact, the record provided evidence that Nancy had wandered or had been AWOL during the first year 138 times! This was no surprise to the parents. Pointing out that this proved Nancy was far from being kept “safe” at Embee and Lamb should remove her from Embee, Lamb shrugged saying nonsensically that “I have no solution for that”. Lamb then defended Embee by charging that the parents were unable to comprehend her simple notion that these terms had special definitions according to Lamb and Embee, not the ordinary everyday meanings.  Lamb concocted the absurd redefinition of wandering supposedly as meaning merely “wandering around the house”, and AWOL supposedly meant merely “approaching the door leading to the outside”, according to Lamb.  Lamb got Gelle and Johnson to supported this view, at Lamb’s urging, and Johnson prepared a declaration, which she got Gelle to sign, averring this fraud.  If true this would mean that someone would have to be following Nancy around her own “home” counting the number of times she went from room to room, and on certain months she would have only done this once or twice during the entire month. During testimony, Kinderlehrer refused to play the fool by subscribing to this fiction when questioned about it.  Taken in context, the defendants performance in keeping Nancy “safe” by preventing her wandering is proven far worse than the parents’ performance, for which they were criminally prosecuted.

Forced Unjustified Restriction in Contacts Between Family Members

100.          Continued Unreasonable Denials of Constitutional Right to Familial Association. Then after January 29, 2003 when the parents maliciously founded criminal abuse charges were dropped and all visitation restrictions were dissolved, on February 4, 2003, a hearing was held at which the parents expected to be appointed Nancy’s conservator at the expiration of Ms. Lamb’s duties before Judge Thomas Edwards in Superior Court Probate Department and be able to resume seeing their daughter and caring for her without restrictions.  Instead, Street appeared for the first time from the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office claiming to represent Nancy from the Public Defender’s Office along with Johnson representing SARC.  She stood on the side of the State and advocated for the County and SARC against her clients best interests. When challenged, the Courts would not remove her even when the parents offered to retain separate private counsel for Nancy.  Before this hearing, Ms. Street intimated foreknowledge of Edwards’ predisposition to rule in favor of the State to Ms. Lamb.  Ms. Street appeared on the side of the State successfully advocating for Nancy to be conserved by the State of California, to be kept in the same placement where evidence showed that she had been abused and injured, that Ms. Lamb’s conservatorship should be terminated because she had allegedly wrongfully ended Nancy’s drugging on psychotropics which were allegedly benefiting her, and because the State could not obtain medical records unless they were conservators.  She moved that the dissolved supervised visitation orders of the criminal court be reinstated by the Probate Court, and this was granted without discussion.  She behaved in all respects in opposition to Nancy’s actual interests, refusing Nancy her right to a jury trial, blocking Nancy any ability to sue for her injuries and civil rights abuses, and claiming an adversarial relationship between Nancy and her parents that did not exist and acting as an advocate for SARC.

101.          Challenges of Public Defender Representation of Plaintiff Nancy Rebuffed, Conflicts of Interest and Failure of Duty to Represent Client.  In August, 2002, after discovering that the Public Defender’s Office had been appointed to represent Nancy and that they had acted in grave conflict with her best interests and the interests of the parents by committing a fraud upon the courts, claiming that the parents whereabouts were unknown, the parents objected to the Gallagher Probate Court against the Office of Public Defender coming to court claiming to represent Nancy.

DDS Improperly Gains Conservatorship After Parents Are Cleared

102.          State gains temporary conservatorship purportedly in order to resume psychotropic drugs and gain discovery rights (Feb 2003). On January 29, 2003, the parents’ false criminal charges were dropped and they expected to be appointed conservators.  Instead they got a new judge, Hon. Thomas Edwards, and walked into an ambush on February 4, 2003 in Probate Court, one year after Nancy was removed from her family, Santa Clara County Superior Court, with an attorney they had hired for the moment in a hearing that was supposed to be only a status review. The state showed up with four lawyers to their one, and asked for Nancy to be transferred to temporary state conservatorship pending a trial. One of those attorneys was Malorie Street who was appointed to represent Nancy.  She teamed up with the regional center attorney Nancy Johnson who both claimed that it was abuse to deny Nancy the [dubious] benefits of Risperdal and asked that they be made conservators in order to resume this drug’s use.  They also asked for the powers to control medical records, which Street used to shut down the parents access to discovery of what they were doing, and resumed supervised visits to control the parents’ access to observations of her condition.  Edwards gave the State everything they asked for, without any showing of cause. The parents later challenged this judge and beat them to the courthouse with their papers but his rulings stood anyway. DDS was appointed by the probate court, as Nancy’s temporary conservator, and on November 18, 2003 was appointed limited conservator. SARC was assigned to become the every day agent for DDS in the execution of the conservatorship of Nancy, and has remained in this position at all times relevant herein since that appointment.

Aggravated Abuse by State Drugging Resumes During Temporary Conservatorship,

103.          Resumption of Zyprexa in State Conservatorship (February-March 2003), and subsequent personal injury and abuse by defendants. Immediately afterward, in state control, Dr. Masada resumed Zyprexa.  Two weeks later, twice, on February 19 and later on March 2, she wound up dumped by herself at San Jose Medical Center ER fighting for her life, vomiting blood and quarter inch chunks of her esophagus, with lower esophageal tears, ruptures, GERD, with a hiatal hernia, the direct result of seizures caused by lowering of seizure thresholds and resulting convulsions from resumed administration of Zyprexa.   This condition continued in the months to come and was made chronic because despite all of this her unskilled, untrained Philippine aides were continuing to give her Zyprexa, claiming through SARC’s attorney that the parents were misinformed, overconfident meddlers unqualified to challenge a licensed medical doctor’s professional judgment, supposedly unable to get along with most doctors and medical professionals, and distrusting authority.  This characterization continued through the trial, as can be seen from Judge Martin’s distorted opinion.  No further releases of information were given through this last period, except for selected records produced voluntarily by SARC.

Public Defender Misconduct

104.          Fraudulent Obstruction of Discovery of Medical and Care Providing Evidence by Public Defender Sanctioned by Probate Court. Street opposed discovery of Nancy’s medical records by counseling obstruction of subpoenas to all parties in March 2002, when it was discovered that Nancy was gravely ill with gastroesophageal ulcers and reflux disorder, and a moderate hiatal hernia. Nancy’s primary care doctor Masada deceived the court about Nancy’s actual medical condition claiming it was old and relatively benign compared to her true condition.

105.          Street’s Attorney Malpractice and Misconduct. Street contacted all parties served with subpoenas and instructed them not to comply. Street alleged, fraudulently and slanderously, that the subpoenas were invalid, alleging to their attorney Eric Conner and to the parties served that the parents had forged Kiri Torre’s (the chief executive officer of Santa Clara County Court) signature on the form. In fact, the forms were legitimate and Torre’s signature was properly pre-printed on the form. The parents moved ex-parte to compel discovery in April 2002, with sanctions against Street.  Conner confirmed to the Golins in a declaration that the subpoenas were valid.  Street appeared and defrauded the probate court judge that the subpoenas were invalid, claiming that the federal privacy law HIPAA barred releases of information, even by subpoena. In fact, HIPAA makes express provisions for just such a situation, where records are requested by court order or subpoena[5].  The unrepresented parents were unable to research and rebut Street’s legal tactics in time.  The court thus accepted a compromise where Johnson would voluntarily provide copies of whatever records she obtained to the Golins, but refused to compel formal discovery based on Street’s bad faith representations, which had the effect of covering up evidence of abuse of her own client. When parts of the medical record showing emergency hospitalizations produced this way was offered as evidence, it was discovered that Johnson and Street had deliberately withheld the verification of the record needed to admit the hospital documents as evidence, and refused to do so at trial, and the evidence of lifethreatening events, the consequence by Street’s own advocacy of resumed drugging, and Martin tolerated this and denied these key records admission as evidence.

106.           Street’s Obstruction of Nancy’s Discovery. In the October 2002 trial, Street raised evidentiary objections against every introduction of records and testimony which would disclose medical neglect or mistreatment due to ignorance of her past history and help her own alleged client, even objecting to introduction of records that were originally provided by Johnson representing SARC, and even though the certification of records was in their possession would not release it so that medical records from San Jose Medical Center and elsewhere could be introduced revealing injuries and medical deterioration of her own client.

107.          Street’s Unrestrained Misconduct During Trial. During trial, Street abandoned all but the pretense of representing her client.  She appeared on the side of the state, and joined in Johnson’s pleadings, advocating for Nancy Golin to be conserved by the state.  Her demeanor was that of a prosecutor, prosecuting the parents.  She acted as her own client’s most hostile witness.  She raised objections to any evidence or testimony that would show abuse of her client, Plaintiff Nancy Golin, in state care.  She sought to keep Nancy out of court as much as possible.  She never evaluated the parents’ relationship with their daughter or considered supporting their conservatorship bid. For example, the parents showed they had sufficient resources to care for their daughter, in part due to Mr. Golin’s independent business and in part due to Mrs. Golin’s recent inheritance, now dwindling.

108.          Street Acts As Nancy’s Adversary, Not Advocate.  During closing arguments Street cried out, “she drew blood”, impugning the non-dangerousness of her own client to try to claim a cause to conserve her based on supposed harmfulness to others, because when Nancy’s neurologists, as Mr. Golin explained in his testimony, briefly tried Tegretol in early 2001, for anti-seizure medicine, and Nancy scratched Mr. Golin on the arms and legs under the influence of this medication, which was soon discontinued.  Plaintiffs allege from their personal observations that Street was seen intimidating witnesses in the hallway during recesses, alleging that the Golins were “out to get [them]” and they had better help her.

109.          To counter live medical evidence that the Golins were not overmedicating Nancy, Street introduced what she called “updated” [altered] medical records from Stanford Hospital.  This meant records that were altered from their original notations, supposedly by the doctors, in ways unflattering to the Golins.  Urged by Street and Johnson, Judge Martin abused his discretion to trump the Golins’ live expert witnesses, such as Dr. Kaplan, who had studied the entire medical record, using this type of documentary hearsay evidence.

110.          Public Defender and Counsel for Regional Center Covertly Counsels Refusal of Key Witness to Testify, Suppression of Evidence. Street counseled a doctor subpoenaed by the Plaintiffs party to not appear at the end of the trial, who could have testified that Nancy was in grave danger from a neglected huge hiatal hernia and precancerous reflux disorder confirmed to have deteriorated further into a lifethreatening condition in June 2003. The Martin trial Court refused to suspend the trial to give time so that this witness could be compelled to come to court to testify.  The court also refused to compel a witness that was called by the Plaintiffs to testify that was already present at the court, to compel a witness that was served to testify who was served on his attorneys present, and other witnesses that had been properly served but who were objected to by Nancy’s court appointed attorney Street on the grounds of privacy of “her client”.  The Martin court also imposed arbitrary time limits on testimony and argument that cut off rebuttal testimony and left important late testimony by the Defendants unanswered. Most importantly after a firm foundation had been laid and a reasonable offer of proof given, testimony was kept out that could have shown the neglect and deliberate indifference of medical treatment, including denial of medical records or history to treating physicians, that caused Nancy Golin serious permanent injury and grave deterioration in State custody and control.

111.          Suppression of Opportunity to Explore Discovery of Shocking New Evidence, Fraudulent Derailing of Discovery. Evidence from MediCal billing which had been delayed by obstruction by SARC’s Liske and Street since March 2003 finally yielded shocking information in late September 2003 that MediCal had been billed for Nancy Golin to be taken to San Jose Medical Center Emergency Room on March 2, 2003 for a fractured skull and fractured femur and seen by a Dr. Tony Yuan there.  The clerk at the MediCal third party recovery office that responded to the subpoenas revealed that Liske was calling her as well trying to get her to limit her releases of information to the Golins. The parents were unable to confirm a verbal report that this had resulted from Nancy convulsing off an examination table and hitting the floor while having a seizure, possibly in the care of her neurologist, Gaskins.  Visits were mysteriously cut off during this period to conceal these hospitalizations, and Masada misrepresented and covered up the condition.   MediCal also revealed that San Andreas had made Nancy a debtor for thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars, in MediCal claims. But the Superior Court would not extend discovery by even one week to allow that this evidence be investigated further or subpoenas to be issued.

112.          SARC’s, Street’s and Johnson’s Bad Faith in Pre-Trial Hearing Discovery. At the time that these original subpoenas were being obstructed by the Defendants in April 2003, the Defendants brokered a solution that was stipulated by the Gallagher Superior Court in which they would voluntarily provide copies of all medical records and other subpoenaed information to the Plaintiffs.  Yet, when they were in trial, Ms. Street and SARC attorney Johnson both objected to the introduction of many vital pieces of the very evidence that they themselves had provided to the Defendants, and the Martin trial court allowed this information to be kept out of evidence, on the grounds that a certification of the record had not been provided.  They withheld that certification which must have been in their records since they obtained it even though they had agreed to share “all records” presumably including the most important record, the certification.

Trial by Error in Probate Court

113.          Lack of Due Process. Four petitions contended for appointment for conservatorship of Nancy.  Three of them opposed the state, including the Golins, but two of them dropped off or were dismissed on procedural grounds  That left the State v. Golins.  Golins were forced to proceed unrepresented. Twelve witnesses appeared for the Golins, four for the State, including Kratzer and Kinderlehrer. The matter was heard in a court trial, Hon. William F. Martin, presiding.  A jury trial was denied on motion by Street.  Plaintiffs allege from their personal direct firsthand knowledge that Martin abused his discretion at the urging of these defendants in every way possible to help the state win. Despite the odds, Golins produced abundant evidence that Nancy had already been seriously abused, mistreated, injured and subjected to medical indifference in two years of state care, and that the claims made against Golins by the state were unfounded, which the probate court one-sidedly chose to ignore. Golins were able to prove that Kratzer committed perjury in her reports and in her testimony.

114.          Admission of a Conflicted Non-Party to Play Key Role for State in Martin Proceedings. The Martin Court made many substantive due process errors, the first of which was to allow Johnson from a powerful tort liability law firm Berliner Cohen to remain as an active party when they lacked standing as a Petitioner and had a serious conflict of interest with Plaintiff Nancy Golin, since they represent the insurers of SARC in defense of any liability claims that Petitioner Nancy Golin may have.

115.          SARC’s Psychologist witness Mulhoe. SARC’s lead witness and novice psychological expert, staff psychologist Carrie Mulhoe, engaged in savage irony in her testimony, praising her employer SARC as conservator, blaming the mother for refusing offered services in speech and language right at the most critical time in Nancy’s development in her early teens, the very thing that Elsie had fought so hard for that was refused by the Defendants, to allege that the mother was unfit.  She argued that Nancy would benefit best from SARC custody because she would be able to enjoy maximum freedom and self-reliance, even though she then proposed removing all but one of her civil rights and handing them to SARC.  She floundered under cross-examination showing that she had merely reviewed a selective biased record provided her by SARC and was unaware of most of the facts of the case, and had never evaluated the Golins herself independently or met them before.

116.          Premature Resting of Case by Probate Court, at Key Juncture and Conclusion of Trial. The Martin trial Court in Superior Court in October 2003 rested the parents’ case before they had put on all their witnesses, and kept out much evidence of medical neglect and physical abuse. Ms. Street successfully objected to many important pieces of evidence, and advocated aggressively for Nancy to be conserved by the State.  Stiles refused to agree not to place Nancy in a State Hospital for the Developmentally Disabled such as Agnews after being conserved by the State, “if the treatment professionals determine that it is what is appropriate for her”, and went so far as to dubiously claim he would place his own daughter there if circumstances required it.

117.          Trial Court Forced to Concede Close Relationship Between Plaintiffs, but Discounts It, Refusing to Hear Constitutional Underpinnings of Statutory Parental Preference. Nancy was brought to the trial every day, but whenever she wandered away from the Courtroom to walk around the caregivers whisked her away back to her home with the Court’s approval and her leaving was noted in the Court record.  She often seemed distant and dazed.  A SARC psychologist Dr. Mulhoe testified that Nancy’s “behavior modification program to deal with wandering and AWOL appeared to be working well”.  Street fought to keep Nancy out of the Courtroom as much as possible and away from her parents presence, after Nancy initially displayed to the Court obvious affection and affinity for her parents.  The Martin Court admitted that it was obvious that the parents showed great love for Nancy and she in return, and this had to be admitted by Street and Johnson.  The Martin Court also declared that Nancy was under the custody and control of the State.

118.          Excessively Intrusive and Irrelevant Scrutiny of Family, Despite Refusal to Concede Serious Proven State Abuses, Fraud on the Court by Defendants. During the Martin trial in Superior Court, urged by Street, Johnson and Stiles, the parents were subjected to a microscopic examination of their 30 year past histories with little regard for remoteness delving into every aspect of their marriage, occupations, finances and child rearing.  At the same time, evidence of relatively recent state abuse was discounted as “in the past”  Twice during the trial, the parents were denied a motion for a mistrial, and twice were denied a motion for nonsuit based on sound legal argument that HSC §416.5 and 416.23 barred DDS from petitioning for this kind of suit over the objection of available parents.

119.          Skeptical Scrutiny of Family’s Proven Financial Ability to Care. Most especially, at the urging of these defendants, the probate court unfairly scrutinized Plaintiff-parents for their present financial condition, which after two years of litigation has been tactically depleted by these very defendants’ schemes.  Had none of these actions by these State actors had occurred, the parents would be well fixed and comfortable, Nancy would be living in their own nice house well cared for, and none of this trauma would have occurred.  The parents have virtually given up gainful employment by working their long established neon sign and lighting business for the past six months or more, in order to do their own preparation for this trial, yet the Superior trial Court on that basis expressed doubt of their ability to care for their daughter given their present thus-impaired financial circumstances, and doubted their ability to resume their business activities and recover from the financial harms caused by the defendants.  This is another affront to the  “clean hands doctrine” in which the defendants were able to claim superior ability to care in comparison to the plaintiffs’ due to the financial harms they themselves inflicted through the necessity to spend time to prepare a defense and hire attorneys and experts and thereby reduce the parents’ ability to contest for conservatorship.  This even though the parents continued to rent a nice house and keep a semi-prosperous lifestyle, while Mrs. Golin has had to spend her entire father’s modest inheritance defending her daughter from the State. Street argued to the probate court that the parents should “get jobs and stop sponging off Nancy and their relatives”.

120.          Appeal of the state decision. The parents appealed the state conservatorship decision to the Sixth District Court of Appeals in November 2003.  Street was opposed to her clients’ conservatorship being appealed, and did everything possible to defeat the appeal.  She could have, for example, ordered the trial transcripts, but instead she opposed allowing them to be provided to the parents.  Without the transcripts, no appeal on the record was possible.  Whereas during the trial Street and Johnson impugned the ability of her parents to financially care for their daughter, when the parents declared that they were made destitute by the legal proceedings, Street and Johnson switched positions, now declaring that the Golins appeared to have more than sufficient resources to purchase their own transcripts.  In four separate appearances, Street and Johnson derailed any chance of appeal by denying the parents either transcripts of settled statement proceeding, with Judge Martin.

Medical Neglect and Abuse in DDS Care

121.          Ongoing Conservatorship Abuse. Nancy was again seen to be suffering from tardive dyskinesia from drugging (tremors, involuntary lip and tongue movements, head contracted towards shoulder, and mus­cle rigidity).  Her hand often shakes from tremors due to the long-term off-label use of psychotropics.  Her left arm and hand has atrophied. The parents cannot have other doctors see her or obtain records from her caregivers.  She is alleged to still have seizures, but to maintain the pretense the parents negligently failed to control them[6], seizures are well concealed.  SARC general practitioner Masada, who improperly resumed Zyprexa resulting in her being hospitalized in serious condition in February-March 2003 and lied about her condition, is still supervising her care.  Her drugging is causing her edema, circulatory and heart failure.  Doctor appointments are always scheduled as non-emergency routine office visits, and follow-ups are haphazard.

122.          Osteoporosis. She is now bent over like an old woman and has imminent tooth loss from 20% bone loss due to osteoporosis due to the resumption of Dilantin for anti-seizure medication in November 2001 that the Golins warned against[7].  Where she used to appear completely normal in public and be able to run and hike all day and feed herself she is suffering from muscle rigidity and contractures from the psychotropic drugging to the extent that she can only walk and move very slowly.  She still has had no urgently needed dental care for three years.  The parents see signs she is still being physically and chemically restrained behind their backs.  The parents are unable to protect their daughter in any way and are either lied to or told to mind their own busi­ness.

123.          Mental Cruelty from Familial Separation Called Abuse by Expert Witness. Dr. Kaplan opined that it is mental cruelty to Nancy to be separated from her parents.  Nancy is always delighted to see her parents come and depressed to see them leave.  Her security and innocent trust are battered when her parents appear, seeming indifferent to her plight by not responding to her desperate efforts to be taken home.  This creates the appear­ance in her immature mind of rejection and collaboration of her par­ents in dumping her in State custody.  SARC thus forces the parents to become accomplices in SARC’s emotional abuse of Nancy.  Except for caregivers, she mostly sees only retarded people.

124.          Defendants including but not limited to Street, Johnson, Stiles, Kinderlehrer, Wendt, Liske, Lamb, Masada, Mantilla (Embee), Tallas, Stanford Hospital, and various other Does, had or should have had full knowledge that the defective and dangerous conditions rendered by the administrations of their drugs in indifference and ignorance to strongly contraindicated conditions, and for psychotropic medications that were unwarranted, dangerous and debilitating, that resulted in pain, severe physical and emotional impairment and emergency hospitalization.

125.          Plaintiffs allege that Defendants including but not limited to Buckmaster, Kinderlehrer, Wendt, Lamb, Liske, Tallas, Mantilla (Embee), Allenby, Stanford Hospital, Masada, employment of unqualified and uncertified medical practitioners and nurses to monopolize and make critical decisions about psychotropic medications and complex medical conditions without proper medical records or knowledge about their patient constitutes abuse and malpractice.

126.          Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ including but not limited to Kinderlehrer, Rogers, Liske, Wendt, Street, Johnson, Lamb, Stiles, Allenby and other Does refusing to allow Nancy’s parents to take her for medical examinations by qualified specialists when her care was being neglected or mismanaged represents another form of medical malpractice.

127.          Plaintiffs allege that Liske, Kinderlehrer, Wendt, Rogers, Masada and Lamb knew that by refusing to allow Nancy to receive emergency hospitalization when needed represents medical malpractice, and the practice of medicine by non-physicians including but not limited to Street, Johnson, Stiles, Tallas.

128.          Defendants’ failure to remedy the defective and dangerous conditions constitutes aggravated medical malpractice in that defendants violated residential health and safety laws, standards, codes, regulations and statutes.

129.          As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ medical malpractice, plaintiff has suffered physical injuries, impairments, handicap, loss of habilitation, pain, suffering, emotional trauma, and is entitled to personal injury damages in amounts according to proof.

Constitutional and Statutory Wrongs

130.          Need for Guardian Ad Litem for Nancy Golin. Plaintiff Nancy Golin is effectively mute and cannot verbally protest violations of her civil rights other than through her expressions and gestures, object to abuse or misrepresentation by attorneys appointed to represent her, or caretakers who take her to doctors for treatment misrepresenting her symptoms for their own convenience. Nancy is nevertheless able to enjoy an active lifestyle as a developmentally disabled adult.  She cannot complain about violations of her civil rights, equal protection of the laws, or wrongful misrepresentation of her wishes by appointed counsel.  She needs a dedicated family to advocate for her that can understand her needs and respond to them, and that role cannot be fulfilled by any State institutional care. Being placed in an institutional setting, when there still are caring fit parents ready, willing and able to advocate for her, is the gravest deprivation of her civil liberties. When Nancy Golin was living at home, there were no restraints upon her liberty presumptively placed upon her by a conservatorship. Nancy Golin was never previously conserved, yet now all her civil liberties have been taken away from her. The State argued that under a limited conservatorship, she would be given the greatest opportunity for independence and choice, but then contradictorily imposed six of the available seven powers to be taken away from her, leaving only marriage, a worthless power in Nancy’s case. This was doubletalk on the part of the State. The only thing being limited by this conservatorship was Nancy’s freedom. The State Court allowed the defendants the right to fix her residence at any place — including a state hospital – not at her home; the power to make contracts – and therefore to prevent her from suing them or objecting to the imposition of a false legal representative that refuses to request her right to a jury trial; the power to make medical decisions for her – and therefore the power to impose deliberately indifferent medical providers at the least expense merely under the control of Wendt and Masada, and to administer dangerous psychotropic drugs; to control medical records – and to therefore conceal evidence of neglect and abuse away from probing concerned relatives and friends; the power to control social and sexual contacts – and therefore the right to prevent her from seeing her parents or friends or to object to the imposition of abusive caregivers or co-inmates. All of these are affronts shocking to the contemporary conscience to the basic liberty interests of Nancy Golin and a denial of her right to due process and equal protection of the laws.

131.          Unconstitutionality of State’s Actions. In O’Connor v Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) the Court ruled that “A State cannot constitutionally confine, without more, a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends, and since the jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, it properly concluded that petitioner had violated respondent’s right to liberty. Pp. 573-576.”

Unjustified Denial of First Amendment Familial Association

132.          Violations of First Amendment Right of Familial Association, Extended to States by Fourteenth Amendment. SARC has done its utmost to destroy family ties, until recently barring parents at birthdays, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, Halloween and family outings. SARC, advised by Johnson, pressures careworkers and doctors to attest that the parents were disruptive or demanding, or to call the police or security if they show up, or just to claim they were called when they weren’t, or pick fights with the parents, or twist accounts of events, for no reason at all even when relations were quite cordial, in order to continue concocting a false record. Visits have been terminated for many months at SARC’s whim. This denial would not even pass the rational basis test.

133.          Supervised Visitation Continued Indefinitely At Sole Discretion of SARC, Johnson.  Judge Martin approved SARC-requested authority to impose supervised visitation[8] but did not mandate visits to be supervised, leaving it entirely up to the discretion of SARC under its powers to control social contacts, under the control of Liske and Kinderlehrer.  Plaintiffs are not aware of any, and thus believe, that they are the only persons Liske or Kinderlehrer require to have their visits supervised.  SARC will not agree to unsupervised visits, contrary to what is in Johnson’s October 2003 proposal letter to Judge Martin.  SARC and Talla routinely incites disputes as justification whenever it appears the time has come to meet any of their promised goals, purely an exercise in dominance.  SARC had until recently limited parents to one 4hrs/wk scheduled visit at Nancy’s RCF only.  The parents formerly, until could walk outside with her for 2hrs/wk. only with a chaperone, but may not take her home.  Now visits have been severely limited, since June 1, 2006. The parents have not seen their daughter without supervision for four and a half years and no end is in sight, despite SARC’s original “plan”.  Neither the court nor SARC seriously attempt to justify these restrictions which seem only centered with SARC’s obsession with preventing the parents from taking her to independent doctors or discovering her true condition, saying only “supervised visitation should continue for some period of time while the Golins adjust to the reality of a DDS permanent conservatorship (P1)”. Parents allege there is no reasonable causal connection or salutary benefit between their demanded submissive behavior and supervised visits, and that this is an exercise in dominance, retaliation and oppression against the parents, using their daughter as a hostage and sword, for opposing SARC, and one way to stubbornly defend discredited past contentions without which their entire justification dissolves.

134.          Tallas and their Aides Staged Arguments at the RCF to Justify Cutting Off Visits. Immediately after the state appeal was dismissed because the parents were not able to afford to procure the transcripts and Judge Martin denied their request to obtain them, on December 2, 2005, Nancy’s parents were visiting Nancy at Talla House, when the aides staged a mock uproar between themselves alleging the parents had insulted them by the parents’ behavior.  Until that time the parents were being allowed to visit their daughter for four hours every weekend, without a visit supervisor.  The house staff provided an aide to go out with them on visits. Everyone else’s behavior is always presumed by SARC personnel to be correct and the parents behavior is presumed to be faulty.  For no reason at all they threatened to call the police if the parents did not leave immediately.  They claimed that the parents could no longer visit Nancy within Talla House, because of “the effect their behavior had on others”.  In fact, there was nothing wrong with the parents’ behavior.  The problem behavior was SARC’s. This was fraudulently staged in order to create an excuse to stop the parents from visiting their daughter within the home and observing her conditions, and thus requiring them to get a visit supervisor for all visits and thus restrict contacts, and justify the continuation of supervised visits rather than the Johnson-promised suspension of that requirement after six months.

135.          No Reunification Plan Offered or Contemplated. Since November 15, 2001, Nancy has never been allowed to return home or see her parents without supervision. There is no plan to remove the supervision restriction. Under SARC’s continuing care and control, Nancy suffered TD, has seizures, and is still under the care and supervision of SARC general practitioner Masada, who improperly resumed Zyprexa. Her drugging has caused her edema, circulatory and possible heart failure. Where she once was able to run and hike all day, she is now suffering from muscle rigidity and contractures. She appears no longer to be able to use either hand, and her elbows are rigid. She has suffered severe neurological damage from recent drugging.  She now sometimes drools, has a grimace rather than a smile, demonstrates tongue thrusting, and often has a blank expression with little or no eye contact. She has dark circles under her eyes. She is unable to use her hands, which are clenched into a fist constantly, and her left hand is mysteriously and constantly bent at a right angle at the wrist, possibly due to the long-term use of restraints.  These are signs of loss of motor control due to neurological damage. classic symptoms of tardive dyskinesia.  Her former doctor said he never saw her in this condition before, and opined these were Parkinson-like symptoms. Her face is puffy. Her shoulders are deformed and she has no flexibility in either elbow. She hands shake. She can no longer tie her shoelaces, feed herself, or remove her pants to toilet herself.

Continued Abuse and Medical Malpractice in SARC Care, Concealed

136.          Emotional and Physical Abuse of Nancy. Nancy looks absolutely miserable and hopeless.  Her eyes well up with tears. On March 4, 2006 she came out absolutely bawling with tears she was so miserable, the parents have never seen her so unhappy.  She coils herself into a fetal ball and shuffles along with her head bowed parallel to the ground. She is constantly in a stupor and cannot make eye contact.  She is looking more like an institutional person every day, the same way all their other drugged wards look.  She is terrified of running water to wash her hands for some reason. Why?  Has someone scalded her? The sudden deterioration has become marked within the last two months.  Has she suffered additional fractures? How can we know?

137.          Tallas and SARC Contrived to Cut off Visits to Cover Up Results of Medical Neglect.  On April 12, 2005, San Andreas Regional Center Service Coordinator Suong Nguyen, working under Liske, sent a letter to the Plaintiffs listing the medications that Nancy was on.  It also admitted that in December 2004, when visits were artificially terminated on December 4, 2004 by accusing the parents of bad behavior, Nancy had been in serious medical trouble again.  She had been vomiting blood from an eroded esophageal lining, with GERD, again, as she had done the previous year on February 17, 2003 and March 1, 2003.  From this the parents reached the conclusion, and from this do allege, that the Regional Center had contrived to stop the visits from December 4. 2004 to January 13, 2005 during the Christmas holidays just as the parents had suspected for the real purpose of concealing a lifethreatening condition from her parents, and to continue maintaining the pretense that under their care Nancy’s seizures were under control.

138.          Bad Medicines. The letter revealed, inter alia, that Nancy is receiving Keppra, a drug that causes depression so severe in 30% of the cases that users report strong urges to commit suicide, and may not even be that effective in aiding control of anti-seizure medications. This would not be so serious in someone that can make an effective complaint about emotional side effects to her doctor and request that the drug be discontinued or changed.  However, if Nancy is being given a drug that causes suicidal depression, she can’t complain to her doctor about it to make him stop giving it to her. No one can tell. This is cruel and unusual punishment for an autistic adult unable to complain.  Masada and Wendt are giving Nancy one drug after another, with a new drug designed to counteract the side effects of the last drug, and so on.

139.          Discovery of clues of unsupervised delivery of medication by injection. (January 2005). During their first renewed visit in January 13, 2005, open sores, deep pits and needle track infections from improper and repeated injections were discovered and photographed in improper facial gluteal sites that could only have resulted from repeated unsupervised and unskilled administrations, raising the suspicion that the aides at the home, unskilled, untrained immigrant aides, barely babysitters, had been given instructions to administer medication to Nancy off-record.  This was reported to the ombudsman who visited the home but refused to look at Nancy or inspect her records, and left the house satisfied with the explanation that these were merely boils.  Other facts lead one to suspect another explanation: injections of Ativan “as needed” to bring Nancy out of seizures on an emergency basis, referred to in the April 2005 Nguyen letter, or possibly sites where stupefying nighttime medications were administered “as needed”.

140.           Reports of Abuse to State Ombudsman Sidetracked by SARC. The parents reported this with photographs to a nursing home advocate and she reported it to the state ombudsman, who referred it to the local county ombudsman, who visited Nancy but, impressed with Mrs. Talla, failed to review her medical records or look any further.  Talla explained that these were merely boils.  Liske and Kinderlehrer explained that they were “medically necessary”, inconsistent with Talla’s explanation unless they meant that boils were somehow medically necessary.  Inspection of the photographs clearly shows they did not have the appearance of boils. The case was closed without investigation.

141.          Mandated Reporter Crowder Reports Abuse. On April 6, 2005 during an attempted visit with Nancy by parents and nurse Donna Crowder, LVN, it was found, and on that basis we do allege, that the care home operator Mr. and Mrs. Talla had apparently left her teenage children in charge of the home where Nancy was being held while they vacationed in the Philippines, in conjunction with the ubiquitous Filipino aides. These untrained non-English speaking aides, no more than babysitters in fact, had been delegated a prescription for Ativan according to Wendt to use as needed (PRN), whenever it appeared that seizures were not stopping and it was not deemed necessary to take her to an emergency room.  In or about February, 2003, an incident occurred at Embee involving Mantilla’s elderly mother raising the suspicion that Nancy was being routinely locked outside in the backyard in the cold for punishment, like a bad pet. In August, 2003, Nancy showed up at a visit with an unexplained black right eye.

142.          Secret Hospitalization. On April 19, 2005 just two weeks after the revealing Nguyen letter declaring to be an attempt to “improve communications”, Nancy Golin was rushed by paramedics to El Camino Hospital in Mountain View, California for emergency hospitalization.   No one came with her to the hospital.  No one explained why she went.  Subsequently she was admitted to the hospital and placed in the transitional care unit on monitoring.  Plaintiff-parents saw her there for ten minutes in the ER.  Nancy was in very bad shape.  Parents could do nothing.  Parents could find out nothing.  She was there in secret for one week. The events of this week are affirmed in federal court affidavits.

143.          Blackout of Medical Information At El Camino Hospital to Cover Up Neglect and Abuse, April 19, 2005. By orders of Liske and Wendt, all information about her condition and treatment was cloaked with a blanket of secrecy, which applied to all inquiring parties.  Hospital representatives were ordered by them not to acknowledge even her presence in the hospital to any outsiders including reporters, parents, advocates and nurses, and outsiders calling for her were informed there was no one by that name in the hospital.  Only limited contacts were permitted with her, and we parents saw her there.  Plaintiff parents were permitted three 5 minute visits over an 18 hour period, under guard.  Curtains were carefully maintained closed to prevent eye contact between Mrs. Golin and her daughter the rest of the time, and then Plaintiffs were confined to a waiting room.  Then the parents were ushered out to the parking lot by two security guards, on April 20 at 6pm. Doctors would not reveal the nature of the emergency, the treatment or the possible outcomes to any of the inquiring parties.  Doctors acting on orders from Wendt imposed a “no-information request” in spite of the fact that Nancy is incapable of understanding or requesting such an order.  Inquiring parties trying to visit were hustled out by security guards. Her state conservators directed by Wendt interfered with the scope of her medical treatment at the hospital in an effort to cover up their apparent blunders, intimidating outside doctors.  Patient advocates at the hospital, which the Golins were referred to, would not intervene when requested. Her state conservators, backed by the full faith and credit of the State of California with all the powers of licensing over the hospitals, doctors and nurses, virtually took over the hospital and told everyone what to do and not to do.  Nancy remained in this hospital for one full week and then was discharged back to the same care provider.  The only explanation that was given to the nursing home advocate when she inquired was “medication related issues”. This has happened before but never found out before in this way. Our notification apparently was a mistake absent which we would never have learned of this event.

144.          Lack of Qualified Supervision at Embee, Tallas. There is no reliable onsite medical supervision at the home.  Many of not most of these conditions could have resulted in the undisclosed “knock out drugs” that the medically unsupervised attendants at the home are believed to have been irresponsibly administering “as needed” in secret to her every night to render her comatose at around 6pm at the care home.

145.          Follow-up Farr GI exam reveals further deterioration, SARC slanders parents to doctors. In June 2003, another endoscopic examination of Nancy revealed that her GI symptoms had gotten much worse. SARC ordered doctors in April 2003 not to talk to the Golins about their daughter’s care and to call the police if they showed up, to bolster their unsupported contention that the parents could not get along with doctors.

146.          SARC prejudices doctors against parents. In fact, plaintiffs allege that all doctors retained by SARC were misinformed by SARC, especially Wendt, that Nancy had been conserved because her parents went to jail for abusing her, or that she had been abandoned by her parents, or that SARC’s actual neglect of her dental condition was due to the parents’ dental neglect five years previously,  that the parents could not get along with doctors, or various other calculated frauds and slanders, which hearsay these doctors dutifully memorialized in their medical records as fact.  The parents’ lack of access to these doctors was facilitated by these doctors’ belief, urged by SARC, that the parents had in fact abused their daughter, and could not be trusted to inform them correctly about Nancy’s medical history, and the banning of any communication between the doctors and the parents.  The doctors perpetuated this myth by passing these records among each other. In this manner, SARC fraudulently concocted an unbroken line of falsified medical records to support their continued wrongdoing.

147.          Continued use of Dilantin despite warnings, (about August 2003). What was given showed that by now there was a significant risk of tooth loss due to the continued use of Dilantin, resulting in 20% bone loss due to osteoporosis.  Her neurologist Gaskins opined that the Dilantin should be discontinued and her dentist Santos agreed.  SARC’s nurse Wendt quickly intervened and stopped this, we contend the only possible reason because it would have vindicated the parents from their warning that Dilantin was harmful and their Phenobarbital was the best after all, just before the conservatorship trial.  The Dilantin was continued, and danger of tooth loss worsened.

148.          Post Trial  (October 2003-January 2005). For about the next year, after the trial and during the state appeal and the civil suit in federal court, Nancy’s medical history is obscure, because the parents’ discovery rights were cut off.  State attorneys in January 2004 successfully argued that since Nancy now had a lifethreatening disorder [resulting from their care], it was necessary on an emergency basis for the court to abstain from the normal course staying the conservatorship judgment during the pendency of the appeal, instead granting them immediate full powers. Yet they kept insisting that Nancy’s seizures were “now under control”, implying that this was technically feasible with competent care implying the parents’ former care was negligent and inferior to their own in that regard. However, privately the new care home operator admitted during the weekly visits that she had seizures from time to time and had gone to various hospitals.   At some time after the trial, after the state had no further need to defend itself from the drugging issue, the psychotropics were finally reportedly dropped. No verification was available.

149.          Evidence of Use of Heavy Duty Psych Drugs for Chemical Restraint. In November, an incident occurred that convinced the parents that Nancy often was being kept in a constant psychiatric comatose state when the parents were not expected.  After a visit, Mrs. Golin went back with a blanket for Nancy, because she was worried about her being cold at night. Around 6-7pm, she breezed past the care aides at the door to go to Nancy’s room.  She found Nancy lying motionless on her back in her bed, her eyes wide open but unable to move or respond to her mother, or look at her.  She left the blanket.

150.          Letter from SARC belatedly explains (April 12, 2005). A letter from SARC’s service coordinator Nguyen on April 12, 2005 belatedly explained the events apparently lying behind this farce.  Nancy’s illness had provoked serious breakthrough seizures which had caused convulsions that had led to a flare-up in her old GI lower–esophageal problems, vomiting blood, and this letter explains they had taken her to a specialist who prescribed Reglan, as needed (PRN).  SARC’s formerly bragged to the satisfied probate court that seizures in their care were “now under control” [unlike with the parents], so the embarrassing occurrence of seizures could not be disclosed.  They had misled the probate court to believe the false notion that it was possible in epilepsy for all seizures to be controlled when proper care they could provide was given, thus criticizing the parents’ care. Thus, visits had to be suspended while they worked in private on the problem. There are good safe permanent laparoscopic surgical repair procedures for the lower esophageal, hiatal hernia, and GERD condition that Nancy suffered that Nancy critically needed, but apparently, these were not considered.  Reglan is very dangerous, and must be only used on a very short-term basis, no more than 6 weeks.  Otherwise, it can cause severe permanent tardive dyskinesia, and there is information on large product liability lawsuit wins by people injured by Reglan with tardive dyskinesia.  She had been given TD before, when they gave her psychiatric drugs Risperdal and Zyprexa, so she is vulnerable to a repetition of these conditions. Eventually it was found that Nancy was on Reglan more or less constantly at least from January through May or June, possibly longer.

151.          Further clues of possible unskilled unauthorized administrations of medication by RCF aides (April 6, 2005). On an April 6 visit, parents brought a nurse with them to see Nancy, but were denied entry.  The nurse, Donna Crowder, was told that the care homeowners, the only skilled personnel on site, were in the Philippines on vacation, leaving only their teenage children in charge, and the visit could not be authorized. When they returned with the official visit coordinator at 6pm, they were told that “everyone is “resting” now”…at 6pm? See declaration of Donna Crowder.

152.          Secret Hospitalization, April 19-26, 2005. Parents were called by ER doctors at El Camino Hospital, Mountain View, telling them Nancy had been rushed by herself by ambulance to El Camino Hospital, asking them for information on her.  They found out that the parents were not her conservators, and tried to stop them from coming, and refused to give them any more information, on orders by SARC’s Wendt.  They came anyway, and were allowed to see her for only a few minutes that evening.  She was in post-ictal phase, having had a bout with seizures.  They came back the next day and were told Nancy was not there, but the parents were finally told the hospital had orders not to acknowledge that Nancy was a patient there.  They went up to her room, but were denied the right to see her in her room.  They waited outside while the nurses carefully drew the blinds so her mother and Nancy could not view her mom and she could not view her other from the corridor. Doctors huddled around her in emergency. The parents tried to alert doctors to the possibility that Nancy had been given unauthorized psychiatric medications, but were told that they were not allowed by the conservator to get aid from any doctor not approved by the conservator, and they were not allowed to delve into any issues or questions not authorized by the conservator, and the conservator did not want them to investigate those issues.  The conservator’s nurse had taken over the hospital and overrode the medical judgment of these qualified doctors necessary to protect Nancy from abuse.  No releases of information to the parents were allowed.  Security guards stood over them in the waiting room. The parents sought the help of the patient rights advocate, and on that, they were told to leave.  They were given two closely guarded five minute visits with their daughter and then escorted out to the parking lot by two security guards and told not to come back.  They were never told the reason for the emergency or her prognosis or condition, not until almost one year later.

153.          Reasons for SARC’s secret emergency hospitalization revealed by Wendt more than a year later. In a series of e-mails to Jeffrey Golin in February 2006, Wendt finally revealed the reason for the April 19-26, 2005 covert emergency hospitalization at El Camino Hospital, ten months later.  She disclosed that Nancy had been in “status epilepticus”, meaning that she was having seizures so severe that the Tallas could not stop it even with Ativan, usually considered more than half an hour.  This is a serious lifethreatening disorder, with a 20% mortality rate and the possibility of blindness or coma. Masada, not a neurologist, had finally tried to withdraw Nancy from the bone destroying Dilantin the parents had warned SARC about himself, and had failed because he disregarded the requirement to taper off the medication and replace it with another effective one. In the parents care, Golins had succeeded in prior occasions in withdrawing their daughter from Dilantin under the supervision of their neurologist without precipitating status epilepticus.  Wendt disclosed that the care home operators do have a prescription for Ativan, to be administered PRN, as needed.  Ativan is a powerful injectible narcotic medication, used to stop seizures. Parents allege that this drug was used frequently previously by the unskilled care home operators in previously unreported seizure episodes, resulting in the needle track infections from multiple administrations over time. It had happened at least twice before and more than likely more than that, but SARC did not want to embarrass themselves by releasing information about it after having used the excuse that “seizures are now under control” to pillory the parents’ care to the Martin probate court and justify SARC’s continuing custody in preference to the natural parents.

154.          Risk of tooth loss due to Dilantin (current). Wendt’s lengthy e-mailed letter admitted there was a serious problem with osteoporosis and tooth loosening because of use of Dilantin for ASM now. There was a serious risk that Nancy’s front teeth would have to be pulled out, because they could not qualify her for braces and could not find a dentist to take MediCal.  Her mother had planned to have braces put on her to stabilize and correct past damage just before she was removed four years ago.  The parents have been screaming about dental neglect in state care for four years to no avail.  Aides were taking Nancy to the dentist, who looked at her and sent her away with no examination or treatment because they could not get her to cooperate the way her mother had been able to do.  Dentist Santos revealed, “I have never seen the back of her mouth”.  However, the aides kept taking her because they could record a visit to the dentist that way.  Care provider Talla lied to the parents telling them that they had taken a full set of x-rays using a Panadex machine, but Santos told the parents directly that he had no such machine and had never taken any x-rays.  Now, Plaintiffs were informed that SARC were considering removing her front teeth.  However, there was a problem finding the funding to do it.  Parents objected, arguing that they could help overcome the difficulty and were even willing to pay for it.  Wendt with her neurologist Fisher started a program of Fosamax to restore bone density, while maintaining Nancy on the same drug Dilantin that caused bone loss.

155.          Fosamax and Reglan. Wendt was determined not to take Nancy off Dilantin, no matter what, even as she started administering Fosamax for restoring bone density.  But this is a very dangerous course of action, because Fosamax cannot be taken by people such as Nancy with chronic GERD or lower esophageal problem, because it aggravates those conditions, and Dr. Fisher told the aides to discontinue the drug immediately if any signs of vomiting such as had been seen before were observed.  Last summer, Nancy was brought to a Stanford GI doctor who did another endoscopy of her esophagus and said that all her conditions there had reversed, but he had not been informed of past endoscopic exams or prior conditions, and the parents are skeptical of the veracity of these results claming that this condition could have been so miraculously cured overnight. During the past three months Nancy has been seen at visits displaying obvious and alarming symptoms of tardive dyskinesia and muscle rigidity, and extreme emotional distress, crying, and finally recently drooling for the first time.  In addition to all of that, they have been giving her Keppra, a drug to assist her seizure medications, a drug of questionable effectiveness, which causes suicidal depression in 20% of cases, something that Nancy cannot object to or refuse.

156.          Evidence of Continued Reglan. Plaintiffs based on the evidence have concluded and on that basis believe and allege that Nancy’s esophageal reflux and hiatal hernia, and polyploid lower esophageal injuries have returned in force due to Fosamax administration and, in response to that, the aides have resumed giving her Reglan “as needed”, discussed above, which can only be given on an emergency basis for a short time, has already been given for long periods in the past last year, and causes severe tardive dyskinesia. They are seeing that tardive dyskinesia, alarmingly, more than ever before, but the aides swear that they are not giving her any more psychotropic drugs.  The Reglan would explain all of those facts.

157.          Polypharmacy in SARC care. Defendants have engaged in the classic error of polypharmacy, practiced by Nancy’s GP Masada.  One drug administered to counter the side effects of another drug, to counter the side effects of a third drug, and a fourth and so forth.  Nancy is right now on ten medications that SARC admits to and they are considering adding another one to counter tardive dyskinesia, a dubious possibility since there has been no way found to restore neurological damage from these drugs.  Meanwhile she is not getting a critical operation for her hiatal hernia, GERD and ruptured esophagus, and they will not take her off the Dilantin that has resulted in this chain of events. This is a dangerous house of cards, which could collapse at any time. In her parents’ case, Nancy was on only two drugs, Phenobarbital for seizures and Protonix for GERD, and she was happy and active.

158.          Disclosure of Drugs and Dangers. Parents were informed by Wendt that Nancy was on ten different drugs, including Reglan (PRN) and Fosamax. Instead of discontinuing anti-seizure medication Dilantin, they are using Fosamax to try to restore her bone density so SARC can avoid tooth removal, while at the same time they are continuing to use the Dilantin which reduces bone density and which caused this problem in the first place.  Fosamax is a drug that is severely contraindicated for a person like Nancy with a history of esophageal ruptures and Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disorder (GERD), and Nancy was nearly killed on February 19, 2003 and March 2, 2003, with esophageal ruptures, caused by the psychotropic drugging resulting in lowering of seizure thresholds and uncontrolled seizures, as testified by Dr. Cerezo.  SARC concedes that this is a “delicate balancing act”, which could collapse at any time.  SARC insists that Nancy has not had any seizures since April, and this may, or may not be true.  It is equally possible that seizures could have become an even more closely guarded secret, which would be very dangerous to Nancy.  Without closer inspection of her medical records, it is not possible to tell.

159.          Dangers of Reglan. Reglan had been used from January 2005 to at least April 12, 2005, when the Nguyen letter was written, to cure the vomiting and heal the esophageal damage and ulcers, GERD and lesions that had been originally caused by the psychotropic drugging, and the resulting seizures, which had reoccurred in December 2004 to January 2005.  However, Reglan has another publicly recognized serious side effect, tardive dyskinesia, and has been the target of successful product liability lawsuits for damage inflicted on patients.  The manufacturer recommends that this drug be used only for a short period, no more than six weeks, to avoid risk of tardive dyskinesia.  When this fact came to the attention of Mr. Golin, he requested Wendt to provide him with the dates of usage of Reglan.  She responded in an e-mail, dated March 23, 2006, “Reglan was started on or about 04/22/05 and d/c’d  05/18/05”, which if true would be consistent with the manufacturer’s directions to limit the time of administration.  Mr. Golin’s question had included information that four to six weeks was the time limit, so therefore Wendt knew the right answer would be six weeks or less.  However, Nancy was discharged from El Camino Hospital on April 26, 2005 and Nguyen’s letter reveals that Nancy had already been on this drug before the date of her April 12, 2005 letter, apparently since January.  Thus the information given by Wendt is inconsistent with the information already given by Nguyen, revealing that the drug was given for far longer than the recommended safe period, and could have thus caused the severe tardive dyskinesia observed, without Talla having to have administered further psychotropic drugs to Nancy.  When Wendt was asked where this information came from, she replied in an e-mail also on March 23, 2006, “That’s what I was told by her care provider” [Talla]. If true we allege on this basis this means that Talla is not providing accurate medication information to Wendt, or does not keep accurate information or no information at all, or Wendt is covering up medication misadministration, and that dangerous medications are being administered “off the books”, and may have been for some time for any number of medications.  When questioned if this was safe, Wendt merely asserted that Nancy was safe.

160.          Dangers of Tardive Dyskinesia. Nancy in the most recent visits has been observed and on that basis, we do allege to be suffering from rapid unexplained deterioration from tardive dyskinesia.  Given that Nancy is receiving Fosamax, according to Wendt, to help her save her teeth by restoring the osteoporosis caused over four years by the Dilantin anti-seizure medication, that Fosamax is counterindicated for persons with history of GI ruptures, GERD and esophageal damage, and exacerbates those deadly conditions, it is reasonable to believe, and the parent-plaintiffs do believe and on that basis allege, that Reglan is again being administered PRN, as needed, and “off the books” by the care provider Talla, in order to counteract further GI damage resulting from the Fosamax, and that is causing severe deterioration of her tardive dyskinesia that has had severely crippling effects during this past four or five months, as noted.

161.          Dangers of Fosamax. A further medication related complication results from the recent revelations of other, even more severe side effects from Fosamax, as reported in the April 3, 2006 L.A. Times article, “Bone drugs’ reverse danger”, by Linda Marsa,  (“Rare instances of jaw decay are being linked to medicines used to prevent bone loss”), including, a high frequency of osteonecrosis [bone death] of the jawbone (ONJ), which has in some cases led to the necessity of surgical removal of the jawbone, especially following dental trauma which is exactly the situation that was envisaged for Nancy. See also professional medical journal articles cited in §173, fns 10, 11, 13. The manufacturers of Fosamax are now the subjects of a class action product liability lawsuit on that basis. All that Wendt needed to do was to merely follow the August 2003 reported advice of Nancy’s neurologist Gaskins and her dentist Santos, and the warnings of her parents and their doctors, and remove Nancy from the bone-destroying Dilantin, tapering off gradually instead of discontinuing it abruptly the way Masada was doing, accepting that the parents did know what they were talking about when they tried to warn them in 2001 of the dangers of Dilantin.

162.          Parents Denied Independent Medical Opinions. Her parents are prohibited from taking her for medical care, or accompanying her with others on medical visits, or consulting with her physicians, on Lamb/Liske/Kinderlehrer/Johnson’s trumped up excuse that the parents supposedly are disruptive with doctors, which is entirely unsupported by the record.

Extreme Emotional Distress of Golins and Nancy

163.          Emotional Distress. Plaintiffs observed and on the basis of their ability to interpret their daughter’s emotions and thinking do allege that Nancy is not able to understand why her parents are seemingly indifferent to her plight, and return her to the RCF after every visit despite her pleas to go home.  Nancy appears to think her parents have betrayed her and abandoned her, placing her into institutional care that she is desperate to get out of. SARC has barred the parents at birthdays, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, Halloween, and family outings. Visits have been terminated for many months at SARC’s whim. SARC limits parents to one two hours per month visit at Nancy’s RCF. The parents have not seen their daughter without supervision for four and a half years.

SARC’s Five Years of Dental Neglect/Endangerment Fraudulently Blamed on Golins

164.          Damage to Nancy from dental neglect. After five years of dental neglect and dietary inadequacies in state conservatorship, many of Nancy’s rear teeth rotted out and became infected.  This represents several of the causes of action present in this lawsuit, including medical malpractice and failure to care. SARC has shown Nancy’s parents pictures of her teeth, broken and blackened.  They have withheld disclosure of the x-rays, which are believed to reveal more disturbing information. In her parents’ former custody, her dental care was well managed and in relatively good shape, as clearly evidenced by her prior dental records. However, Wendt once again knowingly and slanderously claimed to Nancy’s dentists that this condition was “the way [SARC] had ‘found’ her”, and misinformed them that this neglect was due to the parents’ neglect, five years earlier, despite the fact shown by available records that Wendt herself had examined Nancy before she was removed and found her to be in “pretty good shape” including her dental condition.

165.          Continued damaging use of Dilantin. In addition, due to SARC’s continued choice of Dilantin anti-seizure medication (ASM) in state conservatorship, a type of ASM that has the side effect of causing bone loss and threatening tooth loss, four of her front teeth were seriously loose and needed stabilizing to prevent loss.  In her parents’ care, Dilantin was discontinued ten years ago when it was discovered that Nancy’s teeth were becoming loose, and after that, her front teeth substantially re-stabilized. The parents were advised that it was possible to have braces put on these teeth to better stabilize them, but that plan was thwarted by SARC’s imposed conservatorship and resumption of Dilantin, and continues to be thwarted.  SARC insisted on simply removing these front teeth, substituting a four-tooth bridge as a more cost effective solution, an unworkable and medically dangerous plan in this case.  The care home operator said that the reason for not doing this was that “braces are too hard to clean”. Nancy is unable to use dental prosthetics A second reason is that MediCal rules require for a bridge to be paid for by insurance they have to remove a certain number of teeth.  .

166.          Independent dental opinion sought by the parents. However, SARC arranged for the proposed dentist to examine Nancy when the family was not present to work at their behest instead, and SARC arranged and paid for the examination, thereby thwarting the Golins sought for independent medical examination.  SARC would not allow the parents to take their daughter to their chosen doctor-dentist, Dr. Lim, themselves, insisting on knowing the identity of the dentist in advance, and contacting her separately in advance to influence her opinion to agree with their own.

167.          Irresponsible, medically dangerous dental procedure proceeds without caution. This dangerous, disfiguring and disabling removal was done against the parents’ horrified objections on June 23, 2006 and at least eight teeth were removed at one time rather than gradually, after this lawsuit was filed. The parents were informed and on that basis believe and allege that the operation, involving general anesthesia, was performed by dental students at a low-income dental school in San Francisco affiliated with DDS for care of DDS’s developmentally disabled wards, rather than by a professional private dental surgeon.  The parents believe based on their conversations and e-mails with SARC and on that basis do allege that this was done in this careless and cavalier manner in retaliation against the parents for this present lawsuit.  Nancy was afterwards unable to retain the temporary bridge, as the parents warned would happen, removed it herself, and to date no permanent bridge has been installed.

168.          SARC and particularly Wendt further demonized the credibility of the parents, to bias this opinion, telling Dr. Lim that Nancy’s current dental condition was “the way [SARC] had ‘found’ her”, and made other slanderous allegations to turn the sympathy of the dentist/doctor.  This misrepresented Nancy’s history, and failed to explain why, even if this were true [which it is not], in five years they had not yet done anything about it.  Wendt misrepresented the length, frequency and duration of her Fosamax treatment (see ¶173, below), to soft-pedal the appearance of risk to Dr. Lim. SARC’s Wendt again conjured the false image that Nancy was “found” and not illegally seized from her family under false pretenses, as if she were an abandoned waif or street urchin who was lucky to have any care, let alone a high standard. It also facilitates the continuation of an unbroken line of tainted medical records by SARC doctors under SARC care influenced by SARC misinformation blaming the parents for her ill treatment.

169.          SARC’s fraudulent claims of parents’ dental neglect. SARC had claimed over the past five years that it provided dental treatment in the past, using MediCal dentists, but in fact she was merely brought to dentist, such as Dr. Joel Santos, for routine treatment, and this dentist was unable to examine or treat her.  These trips did not accomplish anything except check off another visit to the dentist.  SARC thus claimed she was getting dental care when in fact they were neglecting it. Then, SARC sought other dentists to care for her, but could not accomplish anything because SARC insisted it had no money of their own for dental care unless MediCal paid for it, and few dentists take MediCal.

170.          Evidence of severe infection. Nancy Golin’s jaws were observed by her parents at Talla House between 7pm and 8pm on June 10 to be severely inflamed from infection, and her face was contorted in pain and her eyes shut tightly.  Her dental condition can be seen to undermine her entire physical and mental condition. Nothing was being done about this and no one seemed concerned. No pain medications were being given. The home operator insisted at the orders of SARC that no pictures of her could be taken in this condition, preventing this from being documented.  She had obviously been in this condition for a long time without anyone helping her.  SARC’s Wendt has intimated that the x-rays show infection in the roots of her teeth and possibly in her jawbone itself, but will not allow the parents to see these x-rays. It is common knowledge that before any dental procedures where an infection is present are normally undertaken within normal community standards of care, it is absolutely essential that a course of antibiotic therapy precedes and follows extraction, especially now given the nature of the Fosamax risk (see ¶173, below). Special antibiotics for bone infections should have been employed before this procedure. Yet, SARC’s Wendt and Roselily Talla affirm that Nancy is still not on any kind of antibiotic therapy for her infected teeth and jawbone, as late as today, and insist that it is unnecessary.  Even if the outcome turns out to be successful, as Plaintiff-parents hope, the exposure to unnecessary risk and endangerment is abusive.

171.          In addition, SARC has not been allowing Nancy to rest and build up her strength and immunity.  Nancy appeared in her last several visits to be severely exhausted. The group home aides are continuing to get her up at dawn to send her out every day to the “program”, sick or not, which prevents her from getting the rest she desperately needs to recover.  Her caregivers are impatient to send her to this program so they would not have to watch her during the day.   This stress has a great effect on her ability to defend herself against infections, and affects her morale and spirit.   The most infected wisdom teeth are urgent and require prompt attention, but a course of antibiotics is necessary and standard practice preparatory to extraction of any infected tooth. Further, Mrs. Golin is advocating standard safety precautions that she is most willing and able to provide to help insure Nancy’s survival. The treatment plan and resources available to Nancy in helping to alleviate the severe damage caused her by the state should not be limited to what little MediCal is willing to fund.

172.          Current condition of teeth. Under SARC’s plan, all these back molars and wisdom teeth, four of them, and the four front teeth, were removed in one oral surgical procedure on June 23, 2006, without preparatory antibiotic treatment.  In addition, some of the other molars will have to have root canals.  Mrs. Golin believes that, while extremely urgent, this should be done with proper attention to antibiotic treatment in advance, and done more gradually, with attention paid to maintaining the extraction sites post-operatively to minimize risks of infection. She believes that the plan to further remove the front teeth and install a bridge is medically dangerous, disabling and unnecessary, representing further dental trauma, but representing a less costly solution for SARC.

173.          On or about February 1, 2006, according to e-mails received from Lisa Wendt, R.N. of SARC, Nancy’s doctors had started her on a program of Fosamax (bisphosphonate), a new drug that, administered weekly, is used to reverse bone loss, in preparation for her dental surgery.  This well-intended measure backfired with widely published reports that Fosamax has been shown to cause osteonecrosis of the jawbone (ONJ) in connection with dental trauma, leading to heightened risk of infection and death of bone cells and, occasionally, dead or removed jawbones[9].  Numerous personal injury and product liability lawsuits against its manufacturer Merck & Co. have resulted9. This news article, while not itself scientifically authoritative, is backed by numerous other reputable medical journal articles cited below, and elsewhere. Given the nature of the risk, it is obvious that the risks are heightened where there is a pre-existing untreated infection[10],[11]. Patients intending to use Fosamax for geriatric protection of hipbones are now being advised to do all their dental work first[12].  Only a single dental extraction, or a deep cleaning, might cause ONJ, even if careful measures were used.  Studies involving larger patient numbers have shown that nearly 80% of cases were initiated by tooth removal[13]. SARC has first said it started this on February 1, then claimed it was only on March 9, and first said it was administering Fosamax weekly, and then changed their story to monthly, attempting to minimize the claimed usage.  The Fosamax is or was being administered by the medically-unlicensed group home operator. Given that most people without Fosamax would have experienced dental trauma, risk of infection and swelling having more than one or two wisdom teeth removed at one sitting, it multiplies the risk many-fold that eight teeth are to be removed at one operation.  It also questions the necessity again of removing the four front teeth at all if they could be saved by braces, if the added trauma is unnecessary.  In addition, since the risk from Fosamax stems by increased risk of bone infections due to reduced blood circulation to the jawbone, the fact that SARC has done nothing to stem the existing infections before operation, using strong antibiotics, demonstrates carelessness and neglect. Post-operative care to maintain the cleanliness of the wound sites is critical, and given the history of care of the group home operator, where there is no medical support onsite, this is a serious concern.

174.          SARC’s dental neglect in state care. The parents also discovered alarmingly that it is uncertain that either of the dentists (Dr. Karl Blende and Dr. Harold Baumstein) who evaluated Nancy Golin for SARC when designing SARC’s plan had been informed by SARC that Nancy had been treated with Fosamax, because at least one of them (Dr. Baumstein) disclosed he not yet been informed that Nancy was given Fosamax or even learned of this Fosamax risk.  Dr. Blende’s office, at the urging of SARC, refused to speak with the parents, accept from, or provide any information to them.  It is also not certain whether the Fosamax has actually been discontinued now, because one recent report e-mailed by Lisa Wendt, R.N. of SARC states that Dr. Masada, Nancy’s primary care doctor, has decided that she should remain on Fosamax “for life”.

175.          The rate at which SARC did the extractions, all at once, severely compounds the dental trauma involved in this procedure, especially considering the pre-existing infection and the prior use of Fosamax, and thus the risk of jawbone death and loss.  This SARC plan exposed Nancy to an unnecessarily high and dangerous risk of ONJ, which may yet lead to a severe handicap in the near future.

176.          If Nancy suffers unmediated dental trauma because of dental extractions following Fosamax treatment, it could necessitate jawbone removal, intubation, grotesque disfigurement, disability, or loss of life. It would make it impossible for Nancy to ever have a normal life again at home such as she had with her parents. Installing a bridge to span the four lower front teeth would only weaken the neighboring anchor teeth, and Nancy could easily bite down too hard and break the bridge or cause her neighboring teeth to come loose, or swallow the bridge.  Some of these requirements are mandated by unreasonable and parsimonious MediCal rules. This is not a safe or satisfactory solution, especially since every additional unnecessary extraction heightens the risk of ONJ.

New Unjustified Harsh Visit Restrictions and Abuses to Nancy Resulting from Defendants’  Retaliation to Suit

177.          Visitation rights severely restricted by SARC in wake of suit. Now the parents’ visitation rights have all but been cut off completely, SARC fearing the parents will take her to an independent doctor or dentist that SARC does not control getting an opinion that disagrees with their own. The parents, before their attempts to take her by themselves to see Dr. Lim, were able to visit all day with a visit supervisor, take her outside and offsite and take pictures.  The parents complain that the imposition of any supervised visitation requirement was unnecessary and retaliatory in the first place, even for one year let alone five. Visits now have been cut back by SARC to one hour per visit, confined to the home, no photographs allowed for the first time since this matter began, no leaving the house to go outside, and requiring the unneeded and burdensome presence of a friend as a visit supervisor in addition to the house staff.

178.          Likewise, Defendants appear to be further abusing and crippling Nancy by flaunting their conservatorship powers.  On their last visit, August 13, 2006, the parents observed both of Nancy’s arms to be stiff and weakened to the point of non-functionality, apparently further crippled by some means. She has apparently lost the use of both her hands. The muscles appeared atrophied. Her thumbs are both mysteriously permanently curled inside the palms of her hands, both paralyzed.  A second wheelchair is now in Nancy’s room, along with that of her roommates. Nancy has never before required a wheelchair.  There was no bedding or blankets on her bed. This again raises the possibility that Nancy has been crippled by some means, perhaps surgically, to keep her from resisting, and by being bound into her wheelchair for lengthy periods.  It also raises again the suspicion that she may not actually reside there but may have been placed elsewhere, without notice. This requires full investigation in discovery to unveil the nature of these withheld circumstances


179.          Venue. Venue is proper because of the number of State defendants headquartered in Sacramento County, who have supervisory capacity over the other defendants and are ultimately responsible for their actions. Schwarzenegger, Belshe, Allenby, Delgadillo, and Greenwood have been informed directly or through their deputies by letters, faxes, and e-mails of their duties and these offenses for a significant time period, had the supervisory authority to intervene to remedy them and have refused to do so, and thus are more responsible than any of the other defendants in continuing these wrongs.

180.          Tolling of Statutes of Limitations. On October 23, 2003, plaintiffs filed a federal complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985 and other causes of action similar to the present suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, docket number 03-04884), asserting claims arising from the same facts alleged herein. Their claims were dismissed by that court merits without accepting jurisdiction on procedural grounds not affecting the, on March 25, 2004[14]. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 04-15900), which affirmed the judgment of the district court on June 20, 2005, and declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.  Plaintiffs were denied rehearing on August 16, 2005.  On March 27, 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.  No federal court ever accepted prior jurisdiction over this case. Contrary to the repeated mischaracterizations of various of these defendants which appear to have so effectively mesmerized the federal courts, it has always been clear from the face of the complaint that this was at all times a lawsuit for damages and injunctive relief intended to vindicate the rights of the plaintiffs, never a conservatorship appeal or an conservatorship challenge which would arguably be barred on jurisdictional grounds. While parents would like nothing more than to overturn this abusive conservatorship, the present venues lack the jurisdictional authority to do so here in this case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, the statute of limitations for the filing of this action has been tolled at all times that the federal action was pending and for a period of thirty days following denial of the petition for certiorari.

181.          Equitable Estoppel and Equitable Tolling. In addition, plaintiffs claim that the doctrines in equitable tolling and equitable estoppel apply here, further tolling the case during the time, previous to their federal filing, that they were being prosecuted for criminal abuse, from November 28, 2001 until January 29, 2003 (Mrs. Golin) and August 8, 2003 (Mr. Golin), at which time they were both cleared in the interests of justice, their charges were dismissed, they were exonerated and their files expunged.  This for two reasons.

182.          Equitable Estoppel Applies. First, because the actions of the plaintiffs themselves, by continuing a criminal prosecution long after it was clearly demonstrated that it lacked probable cause, acted to intentionally defeat the purposes of the Statutes of Limitations, detaining the possibility of litigation by rendering it impracticable during the pendency or their malicious and unfounded criminal prosecution.  Their ability to represent the interests of their daughter was amply demonstrated by the District Court, when their standing as next friends was clouded, even after their criminal case was dismissed.  Being under a cloud of criminal prosecution would certainly have barred them in any practical way from the possibility of pursuing a lawsuit for damages in her name.

183.          Equitable Tolling Applies. Second, the information on which to base a cause of action was largely kept from the parent-petitioners, Jeffrey Golin and Elsie Golin, throughout this period, and in fact, they did not even know the address of their daughter or her caregivers, for a long time up to around August 2002 during this period.  Nancy’s doctors were told not to talk to her parents. Discovery of sufficient facts concerning injuries and deprivations necessary to pursue a cause of action did not take place until much later.

184.          No Statute of Limitations Defense Claimed Previously. Plaintiffs perceive and thereby allege that foiling this lawsuit by running out the clock was one of the true purposes of the Defendants in pursuing their schemes. At no time prior did any of the defendants to the federal case raise a statute of limitations defense in federal court.

185.          Adequate Notice of Statutory Failure. Buckmaster, Duong, Kratzer, Stanford Hospital and other defendants certainly knew that this psych hold was illegal, because on November 26 we find in the APS logs a note from Jim Rafael of the Mental Health Advocacy Project in San Jose putting Buckmaster on notice that this was illegal: “message from jim rafiel (sic) with mental health advocacy project in san jose, calling about nancy golin they are the designated mental health patient rights program in santa clara county, he is calling because he says that she has been on an involuntary hold at Stanford on psych unit. He understands that after talking with a Stanford social worker today that there will be a meeting today to determine placement. he says that he was told that placement has been approved already…he says that it is inappropriate to have her on a hold since she is DD. He doesn’t want to do a certification hearing on her hold. He hopes that all can be resolved….”

186.          Qualified Immunity Considerations. Defendants’ revealed in their own records of their prior knowledge of illegality and abuse, which defeat any claims they may make of immunity under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The Defendants admitted on the records that their actions were illegal in detaining Nancy secretly without authority.  In the APS telephone records of the next day November 15, 2001, Kinderlehrer stated that “if somehow the clients found out where nancy was placed by SARC, and showed up the RCF manager would have a hard time keeping them away and keeping them from taking nancy if nancy wanted to go with them”. This is the same as admitting that Nancy should not have freedom of choice with whom she lives or whom she associates with, according to SARC.  This could be justified as in Nancy’s best interests if she were unsafe with her parents but by that time the Defendants had to have known that this was not the case from any competent investigation. Later in this record, Buckmaster states that [the SARC attorney Fleishman] was going to pursue an emergency temporary conservatorship. “That way it’s in place before we serve the parents” (illegally).  However, this, too, fell through when DDS refused to pursue a temporary conservatorship.  Instead, DDS’s attorneys told SARC’s Liske according to a conversation recorded in APS records on December 20, 2001 to Buckmaster that DDS’s attorneys recommended getting the DA Hey to get a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Hey’s slanderous statements to press published by the Palo Alto Daily News in and around November 30, 2001 disqualify him from claiming absolute prosecutorial Immunity (See §63), by virtue of the fact that making prejudicial advance public allegations to the press is not held to be within the scope of the prosecutorial role.

187.          Government Tort Claims Act Compliance. Before the filing of this action and the filing of the federal action, plaintiffs presented timely claims under Government Code section 910 to County of Santa Clara, State of California Government Claims Board, San Andreas Regional Center, and City of Palo Alto. Each of these public agencies promptly denied the claim. Plaintiffs timely filed their complaint in federal court following denial of their claims.  County of Santa Clara raised a claim of failure to file a timely tort claim in the Ninth Circuit on appeal; however, this was soundly defeated by plaintiffs’ production of the allegedly non-existent documents in their timely-filed reply brief (which the Ninth Circuit refused to file).

188.          Good Faith. At all times herein, plaintiffs acted in good faith without intent to harass or delay, in the reasonable belief that their claims of federal court jurisdiction over Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits had solid merit, under controlling statute and case law. Several if not all of the grounds for dismissal were backed during the proceedings by intervening and preceding case law handed down by the Supreme Court and yet not applied to their case as they should have been.

189.          Issues of Standing. The egregious civil claims of Nancy K. Golin have yet to be heard by any court, due to denials of standing to her parents to represent her rights either as next friends or guardians ad litem.    This was the very purpose of the defendants’ scheme in pursuing their conservatorship, to attempt to block any other interested parties from suing them on Nancy’s behalf.  Here, the now-represented parents petition this court to represent their daughter’s interests as guardians ad-litem.  Cal. C. Civ. Proc.§372(a) allows an incompetent to be represented by a guardian ad litem. Cal. C. Civ. Proc. §372(a):

” … that person shall appear either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case…” (emph. added).

190.          Radical Departure from Well-Established Procedures of Standing. In fact, if Nancy Golin’s own parents do not qualify for Whitmore next friend standing, who does? These are not aunts, brothers, or grandmothers.  According to the District Court, “It would thus appear that respondent [DDS], if anyone, would have standing to challenge Nancy’s custody” How could the state challenge its own custody? Nancy’s is similarly situated to the adult incompetent plaintiff in O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975).[15] However, without a representative willing to defend her right to liberty, her liberty interests exist only in the air. The District Court cited United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat County, State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 804 (9th Cir.1986), which is exactly the situation here: “if an incompetent person is represented, it is only where the representative refuses to act or whose interests conflict with the person represented that the incompetent may sue by next friend” (Id. at 805) (emph. added).

191.Guardians Ad Litem, Duty of Court to Protect. This standard conflicts with FRCP Rule 17(c) that requires a court to take whatever measures it deems proper to protect an incompetent person during litigation. Instead of taking necessary steps, the District Court presumed that the interests of Nancy were not in conflict with her state conservator or her personal representative, in opposition to the proper reading – on a preliminary Rule 12(b)(6) motion for summary judgment – of the facts alleged in the complaint as true and in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.

192.          Representation of Incompetents Where General Representative is Named as a Defendant. In the Third Circuit, in Gardner v. Gardner by Parson, 874 F.2d 131 (3rd Cir., 1989), a next friend was appointed over the general representative because the general representative was named as a defendant in the suit. The U.S. Supreme Court in Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 114-5 (1976) held:

If the enjoyment of the right is inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant wishes to pursue… the relationship between the litigant and the third party may be such that the former is fully, or very nearly, as effective a proponent of the right as the latter.”

193.          Preclusivity. A court of a differing jurisdiction may not take judicial notice of disputed extrinsic findings of another court at the pleading stage, without violating the well-established rule that all factual allegations set forth in the complaint “are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to [p]laintiffs.” [[16]] Indeed, factual challenges to a plaintiff’s complaint have no bearing whatever on the legal sufficiency of the allegations.

194.          Issue Preclusion of Probate Court findings. Adverse findings of the probate court may thus not be preclusive in this matter, and are subject to reasonable dispute that was never subjected to review on the merits, and so may not be judicially noticed for the truth of the matter, but only the fact of their existence.  ‘Only a final judgment that is ‘sufficiently firm’ can be issue preclusive.’ Luben Indus. v. U.S., 707 F.2d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 1983). To ascertain ‘firmness’ courts look to various factors, including whether the decision was tentative, the parties were fully heard, the court supported its decision with a reasoned opinion, and whether the decision was subject to appeal or was actually reviewed on appeal. Luben, at 1040 (quoting Restatement(2d) of Judgments S 13 cmt. g (1982)).[17] Luben affirmed the infirmity of a district court’s determination regarding an interlocutory order issued by another judge in the same district, Id.

195.          Brokaw v. Weaver on preclusivity.  In Brokaw v. Weaver, 305 F.3d 660 (7th Cir., 2002), an adult foster child A.D. Brokaw having reached the age of majority sued county officials under §1983 for fraudulently removing her from her home when she was 3-years-old by trumping up false child abuse charges against her parents. The district court held that “A.D.’s suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because, in effect, A.D. was challenging the validity of the state removal proceedings.”  A.D. appealed. The Seventh Circuit reversed because, “[n]otwithstanding the doctrine of collateral estoppel, redetermination of issues is warranted if there is reason to doubt the quality, extensiveness, or fairness of procedures followed in prior litigation”.

196.          Questions about Martin Probate Opinion. The probate court record renders Judge Hon. William F. Martin’s claim of applying a “clear and convincing” standard unpersuasive. Importantly, he did not recognize the fundamental rights of care and companionship between parents and their children. His principal findings relied entirely on now-excludable testimentary evidence by the new rule of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Martin’s one serious claim of abuse centered on “finding” that the parents had inaccurately administered anti-seizure medication for Nancy, that parents’ medical experts refuted.

197.          Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity Not Applicable Here. In United States v. Georgia, 126 S.Ct. 877 (2006), the Court explained that Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.  may be viewed as a valid exercise of Congress’ Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 enforcement powers “insofar as Title II creates a private cause of action under §1983 for damages against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment”, validly abrogating Eleventh Amendment State Sovereign Immunity claims. The parents alleged facts that state actors conspired to have Nancy Golin removed from her family and keep her in unlawful detention without due process, exigency or probable cause, and deprived her of her rights inter alia under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, extended to the States by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including but not limited to freedom from unreasonable seizure and interference with familial relationships. Respondents Allenby and Stiles via the State Attorney General’s Office, filing on February 4, 2004 their motion to dismiss to the District Court under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) (DC #20), invoked an Eleventh Amendment claim of sovereign immunity, whereupon petitioners countered on February 20, 2004 (DC #39, pp11-12) with arguments not very unlike those pleaded by the petitioner in United States v. Georgia. The District Court failed to reach the issue of State sovereign immunity in its opinion (Pet. App. a7), and ignored Count II without comment, as detailed in the parents’ petition for certiorari, and similarly ignored all other valid federal claims in the complaint.  So did the Ninth Circuit, in their June 22, 2005 three-judge panel decision misapprehending the Golins’ lawsuit as merely a conservatorship appeal[18].

198.          Failure of State Supervision. During the time period material herein, public officers or employees including State Community Care Licensing, State of California, responsible for the enforcement of adult residential care facilities, codes, laws and regulations, on frequent occasions were notified by the parent/plaintiffs, reporting to them of the injuries and abuses at Embee Manor, asking them to abate their abuses and torts at these residential care facilities, but no action was subsequently taken by them.

199.          Compensatory Damages. Defendants conspired by pretense to close down Mr. Golin’s business premises as a premeditated strategy to deny him resources to fight the removal of his daughter from her family. As a direct and consequential result of the further conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff Golins’ business had to be shut down, in order to pursue advocacy for their daughter, and to reunite their family.  This has resulted in a loss of wages and contracts and income to the Golins, and in fact, it has made any profit making or wage making pursuits almost impossible. Defendants’ conduct was knowing, willful and intentional, and was designed by Defendants, and all of them, to deprive and exhaust Plaintiffs of any financial means to legally oppose them while their resources, coming from the public funding stream, were virtually limitless, causing severe privations and sacrifices. Therefore, Plaintiff Golins allege that they are entitled to compensatory damages for the four years of lost wages and business caused by the conduct of these defendants, in an amount to be determined as just and reasonable, in addition to attorney’s fees, bail, and general damages according to proof.

200.          Clean Hands. The conditions complained of herein were not caused by any act or omission of the plaintiff/parents.

201.          Clean Hands Doctrine, Applied to State Actions. Plaintiffs allege that acts committed by the State in removing Nancy without warrant, emergency or probable cause reinforce the risk that a public guardian could rob, imprison, injure, abduct, drug, or deprive a citizen of all of her rights with absolute immunity merely by virtue of a state conservatorship appointment, granting them rights to exclusive standing to represent their victims. This violates the common law Doctrine of Clean Hands, codified under Cal. Civ. C. §3417: “No one can take advantage of his own wrong.” “Known as the clean hands doctrine…, this equitable principle forms a possible defense in all actions in which the plaintiff has overstepped the bounds of acceptable conduct”, (2 Cal. Affirmative Def. §45:1 (2005 ed.))  The state’s exclusive standing derives in large measure from the unfair advantage against her parents their unlawful and oppressive conduct gave them, in removing Nancy and continuing her wrongful imprisonment and custody without authority well beyond the time their statutory authority to detain her had lapsed and keeping her sequestered so that her parents could not have her seen by doctors, psychologists or advocates. These defendants, and all of them, intentionally misused their physical possession of Nancy, disregarding that they did not have legal custody, to block discovery, monopolize her representation, administer dangerous drugs, use her as a virtual litigation hostage, impose unwarranted statutorily barred supervised visitation restrictions, conceal injuries and abuses, and did so for a period which included a long period prior to the appointment of a conservator or even adjudication of incompetence.  Conversely, state actors with unclean hands cannot invoke federal immunity. In Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996): “Conduct by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42 U.S.C. §1983 or §1985(3) cannot be immunized by state law. A construction of the federal statute which permitted a state immunity defense to have controlling effect would transmute a basic guarantee into an illusory promise; and the supremacy clause of the Constitution[19] insures that the proper construction may be enforced.”

202.          Venue. This is the proper court in which to bring this action in that the principal state defendants having the duty of supervisory oversight of the majority these other defendants are located within this county. The State and it’s officials are not charged with any injury or wrongful death in this action.

203.          Cooperation Between Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that ground alleges that at all times mentioned herein, several of the defendants were acting in cooperation with several of these other defendants, at various times, and in doing the things herein alleged, acted within the purposes of their scheme and such acts were consented to and ratified by several of the other defendants.

204.          Compensatory Damages. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer mental distress, emotional distress, discomfort, annoyance, anxiety, physical injuries, medical costs, illness, pain and suffering, property damage, lost income, all to their damage in an amount to be determined at trial and in an amount within the jurisdictional limit of this court.

205.          Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order enjoining defendants from continuing to engage in these practices.


(Denial of Freedom from Unreasonable Personal Seizures and Warrantless Searches , Fourth Amendment extended to States by Fourteenth Amendment – Constitutional Tort – Section 1983)

206.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-205 of this complaint.

207.          Plaintiffs Jeffrey Golin and Elsie Golin allege violation of their constitutional Sixth Amendment rights of freedom from warrantless, non-consensual search of their commercial premises on November 15, 2001, without exigency or emergency.

208.          Plaintiff Nancy Golin alleges violation of her constitutional Sixth Amendment rights of freedom from unreasonable seizure, by various state actors and defendants herein named acting under color of law, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.

209.          By removing Nancy Golin from her family on November 15, 2001 without warrant, emergency or probable cause and by retaining illegal custody of her from then until around October 15, 2002, and against her will, by use of fraud, deception, falsification of evidence and malicious prosecution, and by forcibly entering or causing to be entered the premises of Plaintiff’s workplace without emergency or consent on November 15, 2001, Allenby, Kratzer, City of Palo Alto, Hey, County of Santa Clara, Buckmaster, Stiles, Allenby, Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, SARC, Stanford Hospital, and various other Does all violated Nancy Golin’s Fourth Amendment constitutional rights to freedom from personal seizure, extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and her parents’ rights to freedom from warrantless search and seizure, crushing her civil liberties and derivatively those of her family.

210.          Defendants, and each of them named in §209, had actual and constructive knowledge of their violations, had the authority and duty to correct their violations, and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time.

211.          The conduct of the defendants, and each of them named in §209, in failing to correct these wrongs when it was proven to be without probable cause as they had sufficient time to determine was knowing, intentional, and willful, and was done with full knowledge of the discomfort, annoyance and injury that the failure would cause plaintiff..

212.          Punitive Damages. In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants cited in §209 acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants cited in §209 in an amount sufficient to punish them[20].


(Denial of Natural Right of Familial Association, Loss of Consortium, Free Speech, First Amendment extended to States by Fourteenth Amendment – Constitutional Tort – §1983)

213.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-212 of this complaint.

214.          All plaintiffs, the Golins and Nancy, allege prima fasciae violations of their constitutional First Amendment rights of familial association, established under the freedom of assembly clause, at all times relevant herein.  The Golins also allege violations of their constitutional First Amendment rights of free speech, which the Palo Alto police and various other named defendants attempted to squelch by embarking on a campaign of public slander in response to the local press coverage and by falsely arresting them. The First Amendment is extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

215.          By removing Nancy illegally from the care, companionship, love, affection, respect, and consortium of her natural and traditional family, with whom she had enjoyed a lifelong bond of trust and affection on November 2001 and then proceeding up to the present time by continuing indefinitely to severely restrict or bar contacts between parents and Nancy by way of cutting off contacts entirely, by requiring unnecessary and burdensome supervised visitation, restrictions in the duration and length of contacts, restrictions in their ability to take photographs, and various other illegal restrictions see §177, Defendants City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, Kratzer, Buckmaster, Lamb, SARC, Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, Stiles, Allenby, Delgadillo, Belshe, Schwarzenegger, Mantilla, Talla House, Stanford Hospital, Duong, Street, Greenwood and others, inflicted unconstitutional violations of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to familial association, grounded on the right of assembly, extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and enunciated by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases.  Defendants then capitalized on these constitutional violations and their illegal custody to gain advantage over the parents in advocating for Nancy’s conservatorship by the state rather than in the custody of her family.

216.          A parent has a “fundamental liberty interest” in “the companionship and society of his or her child” and that “[t]he state’s interference with that liberty interest without due process of law is remediable under [42 U.S.C. §]1983.” Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2d 651, 654-55 (9th Cir.1985) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)).

217.          Moreover, “the First Amendment protects those relationships, including family relationships, that presuppose ‘deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs but also distinctively personal aspects of one’s life.’ Board of Dir. v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537, 545 (1987) (quoting Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619-20 (1984)); see also Conti v. City of Fremont, 919 F.2d 1385, 1388-89 (9th Cir.1990).

218.          Defendants listed in §215, had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time.

219.          The conduct of the defendants cited in §215, in failing to correct these wrongs when it was proven to be without probable cause as they had sufficient time to determine was knowing, intentional, and willful, and was done with full knowledge of the discomfort, annoyance and injury that these privations would cause plaintiffs.

220.          Punitive Damages. In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants cited in §215 acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants, and each of them, in an amount sufficient to punish them20.


(Denial of Due Process, Fifth Amendment extended to States by Fourteenth Amendment – Constitutional Tort – §1983)

221.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-220 of this complaint.

222.          This cause of action is claimed by all the Plaintiffs herein.

223.          At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs had a right under the due process and equal protection clauses of the state and federal statutes and constitutions not to be deprived of their constitutionally protected interest in their liberty, rights of association, right to due process.  Defendants, and all of them at all times relevant herein, conspired to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under color of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985.

224.          During the period between November 15, 2001 and October 15, 2002 defendants Street, Greenwood, County of Santa Clara, Johnson, Stiles, SARC, Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, Hey, Duong, Buckmaster, Stanford Hospital, Mantilla, City of Palo Alto, Kratzer  violated Nancy Golin’s Fifth Amendment right to due process extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment when they wrongfully deprived of her freedom without a shred of legal authority  From the period between November 15, 2001 and November 27, 2001 Nancy Golin was wrongfully detained in a psychiatric ward as presumed to be “gravely disabled” in spite of the fact that she was merely retarded. When the State’s petition for a temporary LPS conservatorship was denied, SARC and APS had no choice but to release her, unless they could obtain consent from her or her parents or her guardian.  Doe v. Gallinot, 486 F.Supp. 983, aff’d (9th Cir. 1981) 657 F.2d 1017 (C.D. Cal. 1979) .  However, they could not obtain that and did not seek permission from her parents, the Plaintiffs. So instead, they fraudulently forged her name to an IPP to place her alleging voluntary placement, and kept her whereabouts secret keeping her incommunicado from parents or friends.  Then they imposed psychotropic drugs on a mentally retarded, autistic adult, with no other mental disorder that could benefit from such drugs.

225.          Defendants cited in §224, had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time.

226.          Punitive Damages. In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants cited in §224 acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiffs. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants cited in §224, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants cited in §224, in an amount sufficient to punish them20.


(Fraud, Forgery, Misrepresentation – Civil Tort)

227.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-226 of this complaint.

228.          This charge is alleged by all the Plaintiffs.

229.          Defendants Kratzer, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, Buckmaster, Liske, Stiles, Wendt, Kinderlehrer, Rogers, SARC, Lamb, Hey, Duong, Mantilla, Tallas, Johnson,  conspired to detain Plaintiff Nancy Golin by forgery, fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, oppression, destruction of records, denying her access to legal process or to others that would represent her interests.  They also conspired to commit fraud upon the courts, particularly the Santa Clara County Superior Court probate division, in their effort to conserve Nancy as a means to attempt to pre-emptively thwart a possible liability lawsuit.

230.          In each instance, plaintiffs allege that the conduct of these defendants cited in §229, in abusing their considerable powers, was so unlikely, egregious, outrageous, unbelievable, abusive, brazen, unchecked, corrupt, cynical, and unethical, that merely for the Plaintiffs to truthfully recite these events was calculated by these defendants to fraudulently portray plaintiffs as delusional, mentally disordered and undeserving of serious attention, regardless the true seriousness of these events.

231.          To provoke a panic reaction in the parent petitioners that could be characterized to the courts as troublemaking, uninformed, untruthful, violent or deranged, and thus defeat them, all that was required of the defendants cited in §229 was to inflict some kind of neglect, injury or emotional abuse on Nancy that the parents would learn of but were not able to immediately document or remedy, or to cause one of the people they were in friendly contact with to switch and make fraudulent allegations against the parents.

232.          Defendants cited in §229 had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time.

233.          Punitive Damages. In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants cited in §229 acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants cited in §229, and each of them, in an amount sufficient to punish them20.


(Obstruction of Justice, Concealment of Evidence, Concealment of Witnesses, Suborning of Perjury, Witness Tampering, Corruption)

234.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-233 of this complaint.

235.          This charge is alleged by all the Plaintiffs.

236.          In hiding witnesses, intimidating witnesses, coaching witnesses to perjure themselves, to make false statements to authorities, to get them to knowingly sign false declarations, suppress evidence, destroy evidence, Kratzer, Buckmaster, Hey, Johnson, Street, Masada, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, Allenby, Stiles, Lamb, Wendt, Liske, Kinderlehrer, Rogers, SARC, Stanford Hospital, Embee Manor, Edna Mantilla, here committed multiple frauds upon courts, obstructed justice, and conspired against the Golins to remove their daughter from her family.

237.          Punitive Damages. Defendants cited in §236 had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants cited in §236, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants cited in §236, and each of them, in an amount sufficient to punish them20


Common Law Conspiracy of State Officials to Deny Civil Rights
of Protected Handicapped Persons Under Color of Law – Civil Tort)

238.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-237 of this complaint.

239.          This cause of action is claimed by all the plaintiffs.

240.          The conspiratorial purposes were pre-emptive, secretive, financial, exemplary, vindicatory and discriminatory.

241.          Allenby, Delgadillo, Belshe, Stiles, Kratzer, Johnson, Street, Hey, Lamb, Stiles, Buckmaster, Duong, Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, Wendt, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, Embee, Talla, and other unnamed Does’ intent was to permanently deprive the Plaintiff Nancy Golin of her liberty and deprive the parents of the company and care of their daughter, at all times relevant herein.

242.          The first purpose was to pre-emptively protect defendants named in §241 against a perceived possible threat of litigation by Plaintiffs for wrongs and injuries to plaintiffs[21], by 1) attempting to conserve Nancy and getting appointed a public defender (Street) that would obstruct rather than advocate for her civil rights and tort claims, removing from Nancy the power to contract and thereby any right to litigate against defendants by claiming themselves as her legal representatives denying Nancy due process and by keeping her in State captivity as a hostage, 2) maliciously prosecuting Elsie and Jeffrey for alleged crimes which bore little or no merit, crippling them financially with legal expenses and consumption of time away from gainful pursuits, attempting to shut down their business to prevent them from having access to money to fight them, attempting to steal money from Elsie and drain her financially, attempting to keep them incarcerated without resources, impugning their reputations, burdening their qualifications and ability to compete with defendants for conservatorship, and generally denying them due process.

243.          A second purpose was to enable defendants cited in §241 to conceal injuries and harms caused to Nancy in their initial incompetent efforts at removal and in her wrongful drugging, by secreting her from parents and friends and restricting their access to medical and other records on alleged grounds of privacy and discretionary conservatorship powers to control medical records, which would have exposed them to even greater potential liability for injuries and harms to Nancy.

244.          Another purpose was financial.  (See also Count 21). In State custody and control in a State institution, Nancy is worth up to $350,000 in State and Federal Funding to the Regional Centers and to DDS, whereas in family care the family is lucky to get as much as $1,400/month.  In a Residential Care Facility, Nancy is worth $5,000 per month to the RCF, plus all the special needs programs and Social Security benefits, and a wide spectrum of financial benefits to the state.  The State now has a lien on Nancy’s estate of possibly several tens of thousands of dollars for her care for the past two years, which has been deferred but which is now being posted.

245.          A fourth purpose is desire for avoidance of an adverse exemplary ruling that would encourage others in DDS’s custody to come forward and claim other damages additionally impairing their financial motives by other similar claims, and to discourage other families from feeling free to remove their children from Regional Center programs that failed their children, or create a precedential ruling that parents have an absolute parental right to opt out of Regional Center programs without fear of reprisal from CPS/APS as they choose other services than State offered ones which would cause financial losses to the Regional Center and DDS from parents that drop out. Kinderlehrer in her trial testimony informed the Martin Court that SARC has a memorandum of understanding (MOI) with CPS/APS that whenever parents remove their children from programs that they may deem inappropriate or even harmful, SARC “feels a concern” and reports those parents to CPS/APS, raising the specter of a private corporation under contract to the State using County resources to coerce parents into placing children into their programs with a financial incentive to bring in as many children as possible. She also stated that they presently conserve as many as 75 persons of which possibly a third are placed against the wishes of their parents.

246.          A fifth motivation was to reverse and prevent adverse embarrassing press coverage of the wrongful removal of Nancy from her parents in the early stages of removal by defaming the parents to the press and causing them to be arrested with accompanying press exposure.

247.           A sixth motivation is vindicatory, to prove that the plaintiff Elsie Golin’s very vocal criticisms of Regional Center programs over the years that plaintiff family perceived as harmful, or harsh criticism of the professionalism of Regional Center staff, or that the Regional Center is unable to keep their clients safe from serious injury or death in institutional care, or that their claims of clients that they had no services rendered to were fraudulent, are groundless, by asserting their administration of service programs over the objections of parents while concealing any harms caused In these programs, making an example of the Golins for their criticisms, and avoidance of embarrassment by APS officials of the faulty and malicious reporting systems that they maintain which could lead to diminution of their absolute and authoritarian powers.

248.           Another purpose is pecuniary interest by County officials and the industry of child removal and foster care in Santa Clara County. It has been alleged and the parents thereby believe that the system of administratively driven child and dependant adult removals in Santa Clara County constitutes a significant cottage industry which has led to a pecuniary interest on the part of these State Courts to take as many developmentally disabled children into State custody as possible. This has been alleged and the parents believe that this is motivated by State and Federal funding for every child removed on the excuse of allegations of child abuse and includes CPS and APS, and is aimed primarily at the lower classes including parents of ordinary means whose means to oppose them in family, juvenile or probate court is limited.

249.           The last purpose was discriminatory, institutional and segregatory displaying an invidious discriminatory animus.  All the defendants are culturally enamored with professional and institutional biases favoring State custody and care.  .  SARC witness psychologist Dr. Mulhoe stated in her October 2003 trial testimony, with SARC approval, touted Nancy’s present placement as giving her “opportunities to socialize with her peers” saying that “everyone needs to socialize with their peers”, that “it would not be ‘appropriate’ for Nancy to socialize with lawyers and judges”.  Peers in this view means other retarded people, not people from the community.  An unvarnished decoding of this notion leads to the long-outdated suppressed concept that retarded people should be kept out of public view, segregated among their own kind, in order to avoid disturbing normal people, and a common complaint of the plaintiffs was that they were unwilling to place Nancy in residential care where it was apparently felt that Nancy belonged.  In her parents care, Nancy was very visible in the community.  The same issue arises with retarded people remaining segregated in day programs and off the streets during daylight hours.  Nancy and Elsie were often denied available housing due to property owners not wanting to rent to Nancy.  This flies in the face of Olmstead v. LC, 138 F.3d 893 (1999), but old ideas die hard, and the process that Nancy is undergoing is the reverse of what Olmstead mandated, towards institutionalization rather than inclusion In the least restrictive setting. SARC employees have repeatedly expressed an institutional and personal bias against parents that attempt to care for their children at home rather than accepting so-called outside professional placements.

250.          The scheme of the conspiracy was 1) to remove Nancy from her parents on the excuse of alleged abuse and neglect, 2) attempt to hold her on an initial psychiatric hold s gravely disabled, 3) secrete her without any legal authority to hold her or treat her in SARC placement under the “protection” of APS, 4) falsely arrest and imprison the parents for said alleged abuse on greatly inflated bail requirements to keep them in jail and unable to fight back, 5) slander the parents to an extreme degree to prevent them from obtaining effective legal assistance, 6) attempt to maintain them in jail while their business was destroyed and building inspectors shut it down, 7) leave them bankrupt and unable to obtain private counsel or free to investigate the evidence, 8) secretly apply for conservatorship of Nancy under HSC §416.5 as an abandoned child without available parents to object, 9) prevent visits from anyone that previously knew her, and 19) when Nancy is conserved place her in a state hospital and cut off the parents visits with her, 11) prevent Nancy from legally asserting her tort claims by SARC and OPD alleging to be her legal representatives, 12) keeping anyone else away from any records about her care, and 13) attempting to cause alienation of affection of Nancy from her parents by severely limiting her from their regular contacts and subjecting her to behavior modification treatments and drugging with psychotropics.

251.          The parents were told by the DA by implication on a number of occasions that if they dropped their opposition to Nancy’s conservatorship that the criminal charges would be reduced to a mere slap on the wrists.  Stiles admitted privately to Jeffrey in September 2003 that the criminal abuse charges were dropped “merely because they didn’t need them anymore” when they had the check conviction which was pursued in parallel and aggressively prosecuted as a felony far out of proportion to the offense[22].  Claiming this “need” states clearly a conspiratorial purpose among all the defendants and the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office whom they sought for assistance in their scheme.  Stating this purpose was an open confession by Stiles to a deliberate malicious prosecution for the purposes of conserving Nancy Golin.

252.          Punitive Damages. Defendants cited in §241 had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants cited in §241, and each of them, in an amount sufficient to punish them20

253.          As a direct and proximate result of said breach, plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in amounts according to proof.


(Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Eight Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment)

254.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-253 of this complaint.

255.          This charge is alleged by all the Plaintiffs.

256.          Here, Defendants Lamb, Stiles, Johnson, Street, Kinderlehrer, Liske, Wendt, Allenby, Belshe, Schwarzenegger, Delgadillo, Mantilla, Tallas, Stanford Hospital, Masada, Kratzer, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, SARC have inflicted severe emotional distress on plaintiff Nancy Golin by having her freedom stripped from her, having her normal familial contacts with her family reduced to a very short period of time, to have her security and loving family bonds inexplicably stripped from her.  Nancy is unable to understand why her parents have betrayed her and placed her in an institution, after loving her and being devoted to her for 31 years.  She hates to be segregated with other developmentally disabled persons, and hates for her parents to see her as a developmentally disabled person. She has no idea why her parents always bring her back to the RCF, when she begs them to take her home with them.

257.          Similarly, the Golins suffer extreme emotional distress from having to watch helplessly as their daughter, whom they love, is being emotionally oppressed and slowly destroyed before their eyes, her medical care carelessly mismanaged by unqualified doctors and neurologically deteriorates, and guilt for not rescuing her. The parents are not informed when Nancy is having a medical emergency, and are barred by Wendt from contact with her or her doctors at her hospital.  The parents are treated like criminals rather than being accorded the respect that families are normally accorded when visiting their relatives admitted to the hospital. The parents are kept in the dark, in terror, without being told what is wrong with her when she is ill.  Many times, they suspect she is ill but are denied knowledge of this when her visits are mysteriously cut off.  They worry about her, but are told to go mind their own business, because the state is in charge now, and Wendt has said they have no rights to know anything more about her care, because allegedly in her view they are no longer allowed to be involved in her life.  Defendants, and all of them, have made her a captive of the state, a mere creature of the state without any rights at all.  Their rights as parents to their accustomed lifelong caring, association and companionship are denied, as they are to Nancy. Nancy feels humiliated to be forced to spend her days shredding paper in the restricted company of other developmentally disabled persons instead of enjoying the company and security of her family, one of her only real pleasures in life.  Her paper shredding activity is something she does not want to do and does not do without constant oversight.

258.          Plaintiffs believe and allege that they do not even know all the instances where Nancy was hospitalized, and are always prevented from being with her at the hospital even when her condition may be lifethreatening and there is a risk she could die without the comfort of seeing us, as any normal and traditional family would have the right to do.

259.          In direct retaliation for this lawsuit, Defendants including but not limited to Stiles, Johnson, Rogers, Liske, Wendt, Talla, Hey, Lamb, and others, have imposed harsh new draconian visit restrictions between parents and Nancy since May 30, 2006, since the original filing of this lawsuit, see §177.

260.          The parents believe and therefore allege that the infliction of this distress by these defendants cited in §256 is both negligent and intentional, punishing them for their opposition of their putative authority, vindictively flaunting their unchecked power, and playing a bullying game of cat and mouse with the helpless parents.

261.          The parents have had to devote their entire efforts to fight the defendants cited in §256, watching as their nest egg dissolved and their retirement years destroyed without their beloved daughter, whom they devoted a lifetime protecting and pleasing. The parents have had to give up working their business and have retired in order to have time to carry on their fight to protect their daughter from further abuse and seek her return home.  The parents have had their privacy with their daughter violated, for no reason, have to impose on friends to interrupt their lives to come with them just to be able to see their daughter, are weary from the suspicion, hostility, slander, fraud, obloquy, public humiliation, disgrace, and victimization. The stress has thus caused the parents and their daughter serious health problems, depression, hopelessness and anger.

262.          State psychologists Dr. Mary Lynn Weber and Dr. Megan Nolan warned SARC in a December 29, 2001 report evaluating Nancy saying that she would suffer severe psychological abuse from separation anxiety (she waited at the door for her parents to come for her) and told RCF operator Nancy may have been sexually molested [while in State care].  These defendants persisted in their aim undeterred to destroy the Golin family despite their warnings.

263.          Said conduct was the direct and proximate cause of severe emotional and psychological distress to plaintiffs.

264.          As a direct and proximate result of said breach, plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in amounts according to proof.

265.          Punitive Damages. Defendants cited in §256, had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants, and each of them, in an amount sufficient to punish them20

266.          As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ cited in §256 breach of their constitutional rights, plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer mental distress, emotional distress, discomfort, annoyance, anxiety, physical injuries, medical costs, illness, pain and suffering, property damage, lost income, all to the damage in an amount to be determined at trial and in an amount within the jurisdictional limit of this court..


(Breach of Statutory Duty–Welfare and Institutions Codes §§4502, 4503, 4620.1, 5250, 5150.05, 5152, 5250, 5270.35, 5270.10)

267.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-266 of this complaint.

268.          This charge is alleged by Plaintiff Nancy Golin.

269.          Allenby, Kratzer, Buckmaster, Kinderlehrer, Rogers, Liske, Hey, Duong and other Does, had a duty under statute to investigate probable cause before detaining Nancy on a §5150 hold on November 15, 2006, which failed.

270.          Allenby, Kratzer, Buckmaster, Kinderlehrer, Rogers, Liske, Hey, Duong, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara and other Does, had a duty under statute to release Nancy when Kratzer’s application for her §5250 hold for grave disability was denied on or about November 23, 2001, Cal. Welf. & Inst. C. §§5152 and 5270.35, subjecting them to civil penalties under Cal. Welf. & Inst. C. §§5270.10 (failure to release), 5150 (knowingly false statements).

271.          Defendants cited in §§269, 270 were notified by Jim Rafael of the Santa Clara County Mental Health Advocacy Project of violations. He warned Palo Alto Police, Buckmaster, the County of Santa Clara and Stanford Hospital through Stanford doctors on November 26, 2001 that Nancy’s §5250 detention was inappropriate for DD and could not be certified, as shown in APS records.  Thus, defendants could not claim they were unaware of the illegality of their confinement.

272.          Allenby either knew or should have known that the acts of his agents at SARC were illegal, because several of his deputies were contacted by telephone by Plaintiff Elsie Golin complaining about these illegal events in the time period following November 15, 2001 and prior to the parents’ arrest on November 30, 2001, and had the supervisory authority and sufficient time to correct them within a reasonable period of time and yet failed to do so. Plaintiff Elsie Golin also called County of Santa Clara Supervisors during the weeks following November 15, 2001 to the same purpose.

273.          Said violations were not caused by any act or omission of the plaintiff.

274.          Punitive Damages. Defendants cited in §§269, 270 had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants, and each of them, in an amount sufficient to punish them20.


(Breach of Title II, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. §12132) – Statutory Tort, adopted by state Uhruh Act, California Civil Code 1801 et seq)

275.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-274 of this complaint.

276.          This charge is alleged by Plaintiff Nancy Golin.

277.          Defendants Allenby, Stiles, Delgadillo, Schwarzenegger, Johnson, Street, Buckmaster, Kratzer, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, Stanford Hospital, SARC, Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, Lamb at all times relevant herein have failed in their duty to seek the least restrictive placement of Nancy, in her own home. San Andreas staff psychologist Ms. Mulhoe reflected the view of Defendants when she testified Nancy would benefit from a limited conservatorship because it “facilitated socialization with her peers,” ignoring Title II of the ADA’s integration mandate[23]. The parents’ unique understanding from lifelong observations was that Nancy hated segregation with only DD persons as company.

278.In United States v. Georgia, 126 S.Ct. 877 (2006), the Court explained that Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq may create “a private cause of action … for damages against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment”.

279.42 U.S.C. §12132: (Title II of ADA) Discrimination of the handicapped: Subject to the provisions of this title, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, pro­grams, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimina­tion by any such entity.

280.          Here, Plaintiff Nancy is segregated by the actions of these defendants, and all of them, according to disability in a community of other retarded persons, is no longer able to associate with whomever she chooses, spends all day in a state “program”, a boondoggle that does not benefit her but in fact harms her, humiliates her, degrades her self-respect and self-reliance, and habilitation, but benefits the defendants financially, and is categorized, discriminated, and not allowed to return home where she wishes to go, merely because she is developmentally disabled, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12132, adopted in its entirety into state law under the Unruh Act, California Civil Code 1801 et seq).

281.          Therefore, as a direct and proximate result of said breach, plaintiff Nancy has suffered general and special damages in amounts according to proof .

282.          Punitive Damages. Defendants cited in §277, had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants cited in §277 acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants cited in §277, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants cited in §277 in an amount sufficient to punish them20.


Negligence and Indifference to Medical Care, Breach of Fiduciary Duty

283.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-282 of this complaint.

284.          This charge is alleged by Plaintiff Nancy Golin.

285.          Nancy Golin in state custody has been subjected by Defendants including but not limited to: Kratzer, Street, Johnson, Mantilla (Embee), Tallas, Stanford Hospital, Lamb, Wendt, SARC, Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, Masada, Kratzer, Buckmaster, City of Palo Alto, and other as-yet unnamed Does, to injuries including but not limited to: Broken left clavicle, subluxated (partially dislocated) left shoulder, ripped out fingernail, signs of sexual molestation, permanent brain damage from chemical assault and chemical restraint from use of inappropriate and illegal drugging on psychotropics, prolonged series of seizures and convulsions due to undermedication by careworkers, neglect of prior chronic gastroesophageal hiatal hernia, leading to huge hiatal hernia and esophageal ulcers, pre-cancerous metaplasia of the esophageal lining (Barrett’s esophagus) left to deteriorate, Mallory-Weiss tears, dental neglect, osteoporosis, Parkinson’s disorder, Tardive dyskinesia, fractured skull and fractured femur.

286.          We do not even know all the instances where Nancy was hospitalized, and are prevented from being with her at the hospital even when her condition may be lifethreatening.

287.          In each instance, Defendants named in §285 sought to cover up evidence of these injuries, and in many instances, they were left untreated. Defendants sought to prevent knowledge about these injuries and neglects, and sought to prevent an independent medical examination of Nancy Golin by claiming the right to conserve her and exclusive medical powers.

288.          During the Martin trial, Dr. Jerold Kaplan requested an opportunity to examine Nancy Golin briefly. At first, Judge Martin said he would allow Dr. Kaplan to inspect her foot injury only, claiming that was his only expert field of knowledge. Dr. Kaplan is a licensed medical practitioner who had been Nancy’s attending physician, who has been in charge of basic medications for her and who also qualifies as an expert orthopedic surgeon.  Nevertheless, Judge Martin ultimately refused to allow Dr. Kaplan to examine her and no examination took place, due to the objection of the Public Defender Street who claims to be representing Nancy.

289.          Defendants cited in §285 had absolute direct and immediate supervisory control of the placement of Nancy Golin but were negligent in the manner in which they maintained controlled, managed, and operated the premises.

290.          As a result of the negligence of the defendants cited in §285, plaintiffs were hurt and injured in their health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to their nervous system and person, all of which have caused and continue to cause plaintiffs great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering.

291.Defendants cited in §285 and other Does all failed in their duty to protect Nancy from harm in state care, or to report abuse as mandated reporters when known.  Johnson in particular assumed a elevated duty of care beyond her duties as mere attorney for San Andreas Regional Center pursuing the conservatorship of Nancy Golin during a trial and post trial proceeding, when Nancy Golin became a conservatee of her client. These duties are fiduciary in nature, not those of a trial advocate and are therefore not subject to any form of immunity. At that point Johnson made many day to day decisions affecting Nancy’s care either directly or indirectly, that failed her needs and inflicted pain and emotional suffering, such as the decision to require plaintiff-parents to maintain unnecessary, punitive, and retaliatory supervised visitation requirements in order to see their daughter, and failed to counsel her clients to do otherwise as legally and scrupulously consistent with Nancy Golin’s constitutional and statutory rights. Or the decision to resume psychotropic medications while her clients were legally unauthorized to administer them, and many other direct decisions.

292.          It has long been acknowledged that when the state enters into a special relationship with a particular citizen, it may be held liable for failing to protect him or her from the private actions of third parties.  Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake, Ala., 880 F.2d 348, 352 (11th Cir.1989). This liability attaches under § 1983 when the state fails, under sufficiently culpable circumstances, to protect the health and safety of the citizen to whom it owes an affirmative duty. See Cornelius, 880 F.2d at 353. Citing the discussion by Susavage v. Bucks County Schools Intermediate Unit No. 22, 2002 WL 109615, E.D.Pa.(2002).  “Under this doctrine, a state assumes such a duty when it takes physical custody of a person or otherwise prevents him from helping himself, D.R. by L.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational, 972 F.2d 1364, 1370, C.A.3 (Pa.), 1992.. The duty arises from “the limitations which [the state] has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty,” DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 190, and is breached where the state, “under sufficiently culpable circumstances, [fails] to protect the health and safety of the citizen.”  D.R., 972 F.2d at 1369.  Sufficiently culpable circumstances exist where the conduct in question is “deliberately indifferent.”  Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798 (3d Cir.2000).”

293.          Plaintiffs believe from personal observation allege that Defendants cited in §285, failed to exercise their powers in Nancy Golin’s best interests, and grossly failed to exercise them diligently, ethically, morally, responsibly, professionally and humanely in their duty of care to her.  Indeed, they acted with malice, vindictiveness, personal interest, pecuniary interests, corruption, and bureaucratic self-interest.

294.          Because of such injuries, defendants cited in §285 have incurred general damages and special damages including medical and allied expenses all in an amount according to proof.


Attorney Malpractice – Failure of Duty to Client, Advocating Chemical Assault, Sixth Amendment Denial of Representation, Fraud upon Courts, Concealment of Evidence, Obstruction of Discovery, Denial of Due Process, Wrongful Imprisonment, Conspiracy

295.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-294 of this complaint.

296.          This claim is alleged by Plaintiff Nancy Golin against Street, Johnson, Greenwood and County of Santa Clara.

297.          Defendant Street was appointed by the Santa Clara County Superior Court Probate Division to represent Nancy Golin in her defense against the state’s petition to find her incompetent and impose a state conservatorship removing all her civil liberties and granting them to the state.  Accordingly, she undertook a duty to represent her interests to preserve her rights, independence and freedom to the maximum extent possible.  Insofar as she conducted her responsibilities, Plaintiff Nancy Golin alleges that she breached her duty and thus is liable for damages.

298.          According to the Sixtb Amendment, Nancy Golin had a right to effective legal counsel.  Her counsel was Street, assigned by the Superior Court Probate Division.  Searches of the Santa Clara County Court Records, done in 2003, revealed that Street/Johnson/Stiles have worked as a team in the past for up to ten years, in numerous such cases.  Incredibly, after this allegation appeared in a pleading, later searches failed to produce any of these cases, either online or in the records department computers, except the Conservatorship of Nancy Golin and one other.  Based on this data, Plaintiffs believe and allege that these defendants have powerful friends in the Santa Clara County Superior Court staff, and for this and many other reasons plaintiff-parents believe and allege that it is therefore impossible for the Plaintiffs to have a fair trial in that county.

299.          Attorney Street undertook a duty to represent her client, but did the opposite.  A conservatorship proceeding is adversarial, where the allegedly incompetent person faces total loss of his liberty, and thus the attorney representing him has a serious duty to defend her client from that loss of liberty.  Doing otherwise, to the extreme case displayed here, constitutes clear attorney malpractice.  For an attorney to advocate for her client, in effect, to be convicted and sentenced to a life of deprivation and imprisonment stands in stark contrast to the ethical duties an attorney is sworn to uphold. Street has stripped her client of any rights to remedies in court for any wrongs inflicted on her.  It cannot be divined how she could know her clients wishes or consider them. We are informed and on that basis believe and allege that Street threatens to sue anyone in Nancy’s name that tries to do anything to help free Nancy or advocate for her to escape state care.

300.           In fact, we allege that attorney Street did not represent her client, but in all her acts and deeds represented County of Santa Clara, SARC, Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, Buckmaster, Allenby, Kratzer, Buckmaster, Lamb, Masada, Stanford, Mantilla everyone else but her client.  Plaintiffs allege that she never thought for one minute of her client’s welfare.  Plaintiffs allege that Street’s sole purpose, in cooperation with Johnson, was to protect the county and San Andreas and these Defendants from a justifiably feared pending liability lawsuit. Street continued to represent her client even when challenged by Plaintiffs concerning the conflict of interest that she had, following the severe neurological and nearly fatal Gastro-Esophageal personal injuries that her own advocacy of resumed forced drugging was instrumental in causing, which exposed her to liability for personal injury and damages, concealing her injuries rather than protecting her from abuse, producing evidence that acted as a witness against her own client, concealing evidence helpful to her parents, maintaining her at the same board and care facility where she had already been proven to be abused, destroying her rights to have visitors every day and restricting visits as provided by statute, by advocating to have her visits with her parents remain supervised and restricted, slandering her devoted parents in an effort to remove them from consideration as her conservators.

301.          Even if Street had honestly believed that Nancy would benefit from a state conservatorship rather than living with her family, which we do not believe, it would be hard to find a way to justify her protection of her abusers, and discrediting of clear evidence of their abuse as she did. Plaintiffs are prepared to show, and do here allege, that this is part of a pattern and practice of conduct for Street, (along with Johnson and Street) regularly representing the county and state agencies instead of her disabled clients, railroading her clients into permanent state and county conservatorship profitable to the county, based on Plaintiffs personal knowledge of other cases in which she has represented clients.

302.          Plaintiffs have been informed of several incidents relating to the conflict of interest that the Office of Public Defender, now headed by Mary Greenwood, has with respect to Nancy Golin in this case going back to May 21, 2002 when the public defender at that time Ms. Beverly Chan, not named as far as a defendant, participated in the fraud and fiction perpetrated on the Gallagher court in alleging that the parents could not be served because they were either in jail for abusing Nancy or on parole, and in either case their whereabouts could not be found, and thus the parents were not served for three or four months while the conservatorship was being pursued in secret by the State and the Court investigator was writing reports based solely on false and biased information provided by the Defendants.

303.          The only excuse that Ms. Street offered to object to the parents’ petition for her removal in or around May 7, 2003 was that Nancy was indigent and therefore the Public Defender’s Office was mandated to represent indigent clients.  However, the parents objected to this argument saying that they were not indigent and could give Nancy the money to hire an effective private attorney, and no law would be broken.  When the parents tried to substitute a private attorney, Michael Chapnik, at their own expense, the Court on May 7, 2003 refused to allow it and reaffirmed Ms. Street.

304.          While this may have been the custom and practice of this Court, in this case the practice was performed in an unconstitutional manner that in effect railroaded Nancy Golin into a State Conservatorship and likely soon into a State Hospital for the Developmentally Disabled.  Ms. Street conspicuously denied Nancy her right to a jury trial, on the very issue of her liberty interests, which she should have been protecting. Plaintiff family objected to Nancy being denied a jury trial in pre-trial motions in several appearances all of which were denied.   In the guise of Nancy’s legal representative, she has fought to keep Nancy’s medical records out of the hands of any outsiders, and has refused to allow Nancy to sue for her injuries or accept services from private attorneys wishing to do so for her. She fought to keep Nancy’s parents under supervised visitation orders that had only the effect of removing Nancy’s access to her parents.  She sought no information from the parents, only from the Defendants. She presumed to know Nancy Golin’s best interests and wishes, without having any ability to study her or know what she wants. Meanwhile she presumed an adversarial relationship between Nancy Golin and her parents that was manifestly non-existent.

305.            The entire matter of Ms. Street purporting to represent Nancy Golin while in fact opposing her interests, for a person like Nancy that cannot speak or exercise informed consent about the legal process, is a disgusting fraud and a fiction upon the Courts.  Her conduct while purporting to represent Nancy has been so “so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience,” substantiating a due process violation claim against Ms. Street, whose immunity is only a qualified immunity, not an absolute immunity.

306.          Ms. Street’s decisions, objections, arguments, and standing all represented in every single instance a perversion of her role as public defender and a violation of her natural interests and a prosecutor of the parents rather than an advocate for Nancy.  It was testified that even psychological experts disagreed on what Nancy Golin would want or what her ability to make choices was, so how is it possible for this lawyer to presume to know what her client’s intentions or interests were, better than parents that had lived with her all of her life.  Based on Ms. Street and Ms. Johnson’s objections to the introduction of medical evidence that revealed the harms caused to her client, in the name of privacy, Plaintiffs allege that these attorneys represented the interests of the county and state and did not represent Nancy Golin’s interests.

307.          On or about May 7, 2003, parents attempted to relieve Street of her duties by requesting the court to permit them to substitute an effective private attorney without any conflicts of interest, who would advocate vigorously for her interests.  They brought attorney Michael Chapnik to the hearing, prepared to represent Nancy. The court refused to permit him to substitute for Street. Johnson supported Street in this opposition. Ms. Street argued that she could not be replaced, allegedly because Nancy was indigent and could not afford an attorney, despite the fact that her parents had money and were able to afford an attorney for her.

308.          At all times relevant herein, plaintiffs allege that it has been the policy and practice of the Public Defender’s office, condoned and sanctioned by the supervisory authority of the County of Santa Clara, to impose ineffective representation on allegedly incompetent persons in probate conservatorship actions by the state or the public guardian that is in fact adversarial rather than defensive, and monopolize their representation to the exclusion of effective representation of counsel as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

309.          Street and Johnson also went to great lengths to defeat any possible appeal in the Sixth State Appellate District of her own clients’ loss of liberty under the state conservatorship, moving to prevent release of transcripts without the parents paying for them, which they were entitled to receive for free, urging the Martin court to deny an alternative settled statement hearing, and generally using her influence over the probate courts.

310.          This attorney along with Johnson advocated for Nancy to be conserved by the State of California because her former conservator Ms. Lamb had discontinued harmful psychotropic drugs.  Ms. Johnson stated on the record, which was later whitewashed, that “Nancy Golin simply blossomed on Risperdal”. The medical facts speak otherwise.  When the DDS was in fact put in charge and these drugs were administered, it ended up causing her serious injuries that could trace their causes directly back to Ms. Street’s and Ms. Johnson’s’ advocacy of this dangerous medical treatment despite the fact that neither she nor Ms. Johnson are doctors according even to their own statements.  This means that the Plaintiff Nancy Golin has a serious cause of action against Street and Johnson, a serious conflict of interest exists, which was known as far back as March, 2003, and in spite of that fact Ms. Street has refused to allow herself to be disqualified or replaced and the Probate Courts of Santa Clara County have condoned this abuse of discretion.  This is a fundamental deprivation of due process and equal protection of the laws under the 4th and 14th Amendments

311.          Punitive Damages. Defendants Street and Greenwood had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants Street and Greenwood acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against Street and Greenwood in an amount sufficient to punish them20.


(Abduction, Wrongful Imprisonment – Tort Claim)

312.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-311 of this complaint.

313.          This claim is alleged by Plaintiff Nancy Golin.

314.          Here, defendants City of Palo Alto, Kratzer, County of Santa Clara, Buckmaster, Hey, Stiles, Stanford Hospital, Duong, SARC, Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, and Mantilla, in all of their actions in removing Nancy without legal authority from her family and refusing to release her when their statutory authority to detain her further was denied, constituted nothing short of a kidnapping under color of law and subsequent exploitation.  Defendants, and all of them, knew according to records that they were falsely confining and imprisoning Nancy at Embee Manor in secret where Plaintiffs allege Liske forged her signature, and in fact are still falsely imprisoning her today under color of law. Plaintiffs believe and allege that all Nancy Golin’s civil rights were merely crushed and exploited by these defendants. None of the statutes that defendants attempted to use for this action were intended to coercively apply here, but was statutorily barred from due process misuses like this.

315.          Plaintiffs do not know if Nancy is taken to Agnews Developmental Center, but they know she has been evaluated there in the past, and if she is, she is being subjected to conditions even worse than those that the parents are aware of. Stiles advocated for Nancy to be placed there, and would not give any assurances that she would not be placed there.  Agnews Developmental Center is a very short distance from Talla House.  Nancy could be covertly shuttled from Agnews to visit her parents at Talla House in a short time. Since her parents are not allowed to visit Nancy within the house, there is no way they can verify this is not happening, More discovery is needed to uncover this and may be amended to include this allegation.

316.          Punitive Damages. Defendants cited in §314, had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants cited in §314 acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants cited in §314, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants cited in §314, in an amount sufficient to punish them20.


(Slander and Defamation of Character)

317.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-316 of this complaint.

318.          This claim is alleged by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Golin and Elsie Golin.

319.          At each step in the scheme, Defendants especially including but not limited to Allenby, Delgadillo, Buckmaster, Hey, Duong, Stiles, Johnson, Street, Lamb, Kratzer, SARC, Rogers,  Kinderlehrer, Liske, Wendt, Masada, purveyed knowingly false and slanderous information about the plaintiff-parents and their care of Nancy Golin, falsely alleging abuse and mistreatment in order to carry out and justify their scheme.

320.          County’s APS headed by Buckmaster were found to negligently, or purposely maintaining old records of flagrant, inflammatory, malicious, unfounded, frivolous and uninvestigated anonymous false reports in their files, which had been investigated by APS workers and shown to be without factual support, fail to keep accurate records reflecting the investigator’s findings that those reports were found to be false. These reports were brought out again by Defendants including but not limited to Hey, Kratzer, Johnson, Street, Stiles, SARC, Buckmaster, and other Does without the information that these reports were false, failing to clear the parents of wrongdoing after an investigation proved no wrongdoing, representing a slander against the plaintiff-parents used to deprecate their parenting, to maliciously prosecute them and remove their daughter from their custody on November 15, 2001, and keep her in state custody since that date.

321.          In each and every instance where defendants including but not limited to Kratzer, Street, Johnson, Stiles, Lamb, Liske, Kinderlehrer, Wendt,  had contact with Nancy’s state doctors or care workers or psychologists, they fraudulently slandered the parents to achieve their schemes falsely alleging that Nancy was in state custody because the parents had abused and neglected her, or were in jail for abusing her, or were convicted for abusing her, or that the deteriorating condition that Nancy was suffering in state care was “the way we found her”, or that they were dangerous, violent, mentally ill, that Nancy was a homeless street urchin, an abandoned waif, that the parents had been “determined” to be unable to care for her, or a spectrum of other creative allegations.

322.          Street in particular during the hearing on February 4, 2003 where Nancy was first temporarily conserved by the State, made the outrageous inflammatory statement based on no foundation whatever, believed to have been based on an idle, malicious and knowingly false rumor started by Lamb, that she “was aware of an allegation that Mr. Golin perpetrated a rape of Nancy”.  Street later denied making that statement, but it was recorded in the transcript for that hearing, and accurately so.  Once made, the suspicion was hard to quell, because for most people it is hard to imagine a presumably reputable public official making such a frivolous claim without some grain of truth behind it. Street later recanted her claim and did not reallege it at any further occasion but it was believed to have been privately propagated nevertheless.  Mr. Golin wrote a letter to Greenwood, at that time Street’s direct supervisor, complaining about the slander and demanding to know on what information or belief she had made this exceedingly damaging claim in open court.  Greenwood never responded to this question. In 2006, after Ms. Greenwood became Santa Clara County Public Defender, Mr. Golin repeated his request in an e-mail, to Ms. Greenwood again without any satisfactory answer.  Mr. Golin ever since has suffered extreme humiliation, loss of reputation, defamation of character, rumors and suspicion, despite the fact that there have never been any such allegations or facts on which to base such an unspeakable idea in the first place.  The appearance to be created by Kinderlehrer, Liske and Wendt continuing requirement that the parents continue to have unjustified supervised visitation after five years misappropriates the natural suspicion, trust and confidence of average people who want to believe their public officials have some integrity.

323.          Nancy Golin has a high profile of exposure to APS as a retarded adult who frequently has to be taken to emergency rooms for treatment for seizures, vomiting due to a yet undiscovered hiatal hernia in the late 90’s and early 00’s. Her mother being a cautious, educated and conscientious parent, and Nancy being a mute developmentally disabled person that cannot report her symptoms, she more than usual requires to have her medical needs looked at by doctors.  She is constantly in danger of some sort of medical condition that the doctors cannot find because Nancy cannot tell how she feels or where it hurts.  Nancy has complex medical problems that need constant attention.

324.          As a result, Plaintiff Mrs. Golin made herself always available any time there was a medical emergency, and pursues a cautious policy of care. There has resulted a pattern of false reporting to Adult Protective Services of alleged neglect, involving many so-called incidents with perfectly legitimate purposes underlying them.

325.          For example, early in 1992, the parents were forced to take Nancy out of Stanford Hospital because they were not treating Nancy for her vomiting. The parents were anxious to find the underlying cause of this medical condition.  Instead ER interns were sending social workers, such as Scott Skiles (§14) to “look at the whole family”, in an attempt to turn it into a psychological evaluation while the parents watched Nancy helplessly continue having dry heaves. Stanford is a teaching hospital where newly graduated unlicensed doctors – interns — may practice.  Skiles asked at what age Nancy had stopped talking and was told around 18 months.  Skiles put down 18 years.  Then a nurse came in and asked why Nancy had stopped talking recently, at age 18. When the parents tried to explain they had said months not years, the nurse expressed skepticism. The situation only got more confused and out of hand after that, and no medical help was provided. In frustration the parents signed Nancy out AMA (against medical advice) just to get out of there, and took her immediately to Sequoia Hospital, where the doctors there treated her and stabilized her condition. Skiles and others, sniffing at being rebuffed by the parents and losing their chance to diagnose Nancy for a psychological condition from which she did not suffer, reported the parents to APS for leaving against medical advice. An APS investigator called the parents, who explained what they had done. When reports of this incident were discovered in the subpoenaed records, the parents explanation of what had happened was nowhere to be found in the records, and the impression was left with anyone going back to those incidents that there was an instance of abuse.  This happened in similar circumstances at least 10 other times in variations of the situation, with never once a correction being recorded.

326.          Then on November 15, 2001, all of these fraudulent and unreliable records were unearthed and disseminated to SARC and the police to justify claims of abuse.  Scott Skiles was shown by Stanford records to be deeply involved in the admission of Nancy Golin to Stanford at November 15, 2001, almost ten years later, and it is not yet known how much he influenced the doctors there to make medical errors they made.

327.          APS records are unavailable to review for false statements and corrections, allegedly to protect the reporters.  This constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause right, in a situation like this when the liberty interests of both parents and the child are at stake and deserve as much protection as that of a criminal defendant, Conservatorship of Roulet, 23 Cal.3d 219(1979)

328.          In addition, Kratzer filed a knowingly false police report alleging statements that were not made, with witnesses that denied making the alleged statements, and conducted an incompetent or fraudulent investigation attempting to railroad the parents into jail for alleged abuse and slander. Social workers such as Scott Skiles and doctors such as Chris Hayward at Stanford Hospital were told that Nancy was “found living in a shed behind a pile of garbage”, which was refuted by the building owner, saying there was no such shed on his property, and that he never saw any signs of abuse. Kratzer alleged that the parents had seriously abused Nancy as previously alleged herein. She alleged at one time that the parents did not report her missing for 24 hours.  She alleged that both parents had long criminal histories, implying that they were career criminals or worse.  All these statements were conveyed to the reporter at the Palo Alto Daily News who relied on them and published a libelous story based on these statements, intended to wreck the Plaintiff’s reputation in the community and destroy their business for the same reasons alleged in Count 2.  Ms. Kratzer declined to admit making those statements when under oath at the trial.

329.          When Nancy was removed to Embee Manor, the parents are informed and on that basis believe and allege the careworkers there were told that the parents were in jail for abusing Nancy and whatever her condition was at that time was blamed on the parents and that therefore no one could be found to give Nancy’s history, and disseminated those claims to others that inquired.  The circle of slanderous accusations grew wider, spread primarily by Buckmaster, Kratzer. Liske, Kinderlehrer, Hey and possibly Lamb. Buckmaster particularly had much to cover up in her behavior, because when it was discovered that Nancy in the care and control of SARC and under the protection of APS had suffered harm by being removed from what was clearly a safe place to a psych ward full of mental patients that were deemed to be of harm to themselves and others, it questioned the integrity of the very agency that was supposed to protect her.  Damage control of these incidents meant that information about abuses was being suppressed, even though APS is the agency that is chartered to receive complaints about merely suspected abuse.  Now APS found itself in the business of suppressing reports of suspected abuse in their care, and this implicated Buckmaster in her official duties.

330.          The parents are informed and on that basis believe and allege Buckmaster conjured up wilder and more bizarre scurrilous fabrications and slanders against Golins, and disseminated them widely, causing Golins to be ostracized and humiliated in the community.  These included claims purported by the careworkers that Nancy would go back to Embee and masturbate after visits, or be very disturbed, or show anxiety after visiting with her parents.  The goal of these rumors was to slander the Golins as having some sort of abnormal relationship with Nancy that would support cutting off visits, and this was reported in the records and used to justify drugging Nancy further on Risperdal at the psychiatrist’s.  These statements were even disseminated and widely rumored to lawyers that were interviewed to take the case to defend Golins which resulted in a great difficulty getting effective and affordable legal representation, untarnished by Ms. Buckmaster’s statements.  In this way, the Defendants caused the Plaintiff’s access to due process to be gravely impaired.

331.          The parents are informed and on that basis believe and allege that Lamb conducted a covert campaign of scurrilous slander against the parents for deeply disturbed personal reasons, alleging that she was on Nancy’s side but not on her parents’ side, that she was “saving Nancy”, and seeking out anyone that might assist the parents to try to stop them from assisting them, all the while maintaining friendly contact with the parents and assisting them in insubstantial ways in order to keep them close and in order to derive information from them that she found useful to sabotage their efforts to save their daughter. (See §15).  It is not yet known to what extent Lamb’s slander may have provoked the other defendants to act, or what current ties to the defendants she has, and this would be the focus of discovery efforts.

332.           The parents are informed, on that basis believe, and allege Lamb embarked on an obsessive campaign of slander against the Golins, and still carries on this conduct.   For example, the parents are informed and on that basis believe and allege Lamb concocted scurrilous fabrications, and secretly met with and spread an unspecified and fanciful allegation that there existed an allegation of molestation of Nancy by Mr. Golin to Malorie Street, who appeared in court the following week as Nancy’s court appointed attorney, to state it as fact on record to Judge Thomas Edwards on February 4, 2003.  Judge Edwards gave conservatorship to the State at that hearing on a temporary basis pending trial and reinstated supervised visitation dissolved by the criminal court proceedings, partially on that basis.  No such allegation had ever existed, the parents never heard such an allegation and in fact it was an outrageous lie.  Street was challenged to justify her sleazy and sensational statements, which then she claimed she never made, and expressly backed away from her remarks in later court pleadings, claiming the transcripts were in error, but the claim remains on the record and is still heard being rumored from time to time.  This charge was never again heard during the probate trial or since. Mr. Golin wrote a letter to her then-supervisor Greenwood, now Public Defender, in March 2003, challenging her or Street to produce a single scrap of evidence or to state where the rumor came from to support this statement, but Greenwood refused to reply.  Greenwood in her present office again refused to reply to this demand in February 2006.  This, even though there is no factual basis behind that statement, no records, no dates, no reports, nothing, ever, and Mr. Golin has always behaved with the highest integrity in this regard.  This conduct has severely undermined the Golins’ ability to advocate for their own daughter, is malicious, cruel, and insensitive to the feelings of the Golins.

333.          The parents are informed and on that basis believe and allege that Lamb still seeks people out that the Golins might receive help from to get them on her side, using this pattern of conduct, as a sort of psychological cat-and-mouse game where she feels she is outfoxing the Golins.  In another allegation, Lamb told numerous parties that “there was terrible abuse with the Golin’s”, that they were violent, crazy, “street people”, disgusting, filthy, “capable of anything”, that they had been responsible for their daughter’s tragically accidental burn injuries in 1995 which had been proven twice to have been the result of an unfortunate accident. She always sought to persuade her targets with shocking statements that she was in fear of her life from the Golins in order to gain her target’s cooperation to help her keep her words from filtering back to them. However, it didn’t always work and on several occasions, the Golins did receive reports, which they initially greeted with disbelief.  Lamb privately persuaded reporter Najeeb Hasan to let her draft a newspaper article about the Golins when the Golins sought media attention to their plight, and infused the story with her own peculiar slanderous slant, calling the parents filthy, claiming that they had a record of domestic violence, and that she knew the family well, and the parents were unable to get a retraction.  Mr. Golin in particular according to the article was cited for domestic violence, a charge that he has never faced.

334.          Lamb was well aware that these allegations were false, but sought to wildly embellish any information she received from the Golins all the while pretending to be their friend.  She slandered them to their attorneys, persuading one they hired at considerable expense to prematurely quit, and to other prospective attorneys to prevent them from taking their case.

335.          Hey engaged in slanderous remarks to the press that were published in the Palo Alto Daily News in or about November 30, 2001. (See §52)

336.          These defendants cited in §319 at one time or another, have engaged in character assassination and defamation against the Plaintiffs, as a means of justifying and achieving their purposes and deflecting responsibility for their real and ongoing damages.  Plaintiffs are prepared to show that this is a persistent pattern of conduct for state actors in similarly situated cases.

337.          As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ fabrications, invasions of privacy and slander, and resulting libel, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer mental distress, emotional distress, discomfort, annoyance, anxiety, medical costs, illness, pain and suffering, humiliation, lost income, lost reputation, employment or contract opportunities, opportunities to advocate for their daughter’s safe return, all to their damage in an amount to be determined at trial and in an amount within the jurisdictional limit of this court.

338.          Punitive Damages. Defendants cited in §319 had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants, and each of them, in an amount sufficient to punish them20.


(Malicious Prosecution – Tort Claim)

339.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-338 of this complaint.

340.          This claim is alleged by Plaintiffs Jeffrey Golin and Elsie Golin.

341.The plaintiff Golins allege that defendants DDS, Allenby, Stiles, County of Santa Clara, Hey, Buckmaster, Duong, San Andreas Regional Center, Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, Wendt, Street, Johnson, Stanford Hospital and other Does conspired against them to maliciously prosecute and litigate against them as a means of preventing the Golins from defending Nancy against an attempt to conserve her and to cover up civil liabilities against themselves. The parents allege on the basis of available evidence and letters sent by the Plaintiff’s doctors and presented to District Attorney Hey, as well as voluminous evidence subpoenaed by the Santa Clara County DA’s office, that no probable cause existed for parental prosecution, and that after the DA knew no such probable cause existed he continued to prosecute for another 14 months – before dismissal. The record is replete with evidence of the DA’s office improperly aiding the state in its conservatorship bid urged by the other defendants. (“DDS emphasized the DA and the TRO”), and the record shows that Stiles also used his and Allenby’s influence to instigate the DA’s office from the start of the case to pursue this malicious prosecution, a prosecution for a wrongful purpose, to facilitate the abduction and wrongful imprisonment of Nancy Golin, and to get appointment as state conservators. In addition, Buckmaster and Kratzer misused their quasi-prosecutorial roles employing fraud and deception, to get the DA’s office to pursue the groundless malicious prosecution.

342.          Both parents’ charges were groundless and no abuse or neglect ever happened, as the DA finally conceded after a 14-month in-depth investigation.  There never was any “long history of abuse and neglect”, or evidence of parental unfitness shown, despite the State’s efforts at reaching back 30 years into their archives of hearsay reports, ignoring the reams of positive and complimentary reports in their files. The criminal prosecution was maliciously pursued without probable cause as an attempt to aid SARC in their conservatorship bid in their conspiracy against Nancy.  In November 2002, the DA first reduced all charges to a misdemeanor with only a slap on the wrists.  The parents would still not plead to any charges.

343.          Then on the day of trial, January 28, 2003, the DA trying again to salvage something struck a final bargain.  If either of the parents, it didn’t matter which would initially plea nolo contendere to only one count of supposedly allowing Nancy Golin to wander away one time, on November 14, 2001, he would drop the charges against the other parent immediately, and agree to drop the charges against the other parent in 6 months.  The remaining parent would be allowed to withdraw his nolo plea and enter a plea of not guilty under the usual provisions of Cal. PC 1203.4(a) and his case would be dismissed with full expungement of the record and exoneration.  The DA had already reduced them to a misdemeanor under Cal. PC 368(c), and the DA amended the complaint to remove all clauses of that statement that claimed abuse or willful neglect.  It was stipulated in writing in the order that this outcome would have no effect upon the conservatorship petition.  The no-contact orders were immediately dissolved.

344.          Mr. Golin, deeply concerned with the immediate safety and welfare of his daughter, and wishing to save his wife and Nancy’s mother from unnecessary emotional trauma of a trial, volunteered to agree to these terms and plead nolo contendere with the only supporting probable cause being that Mrs. Golin (?) had supposedly “let” Nancy wander away one time, on November 24, 2001.  Had it not been for the stipulation that this outcome would not affect the conservatorship, or that there would be a dismissal of his own charges in 6 months, he would not have agreed to this.  Mr. Golin followed the advice of his attorneys that there would be no long term consequences to accepting this agreement in either the conservatorship or any succeeding lawsuit for recovery of damages, and that he was giving up nothing of substance other than a $100 fee as long as the terms of the agreement were followed.

345.          Mr. Golin completed the 6-month informal probation period, and then was allowed to change his plea to not guilty so his charges could be dismissed on August 9, 2003 in the interests of justice.  Therefore, all charges against both parents were ultimately dropped after both parties plead not guilty, in Mr. Golin’s case as is normally provided by Cal. PC 1203.4(a).  The order of August 9, 2003 states that Mr. Golin’s record is expunged and Mr. Golin is exonerated.  It is hard to see how a more favorable outcome could be required of them.

346.          Plaintiffs allege based on available evidence that SARC and APS realized when DDS rejected their first conservatorship bid in December 2001 there was no way back. Nancy had been seriously violated and could never be released. The parents believe based on circumstantial evidence and signs of molestation exhibited by their daughter after being held at Stanford, that a hospital aide or patient molested or raped Nancy at the psych ward, that it was discovered, that three days of hospital records were snipped neatly without a trace out of the records from 11/23/01-11/26/01 that defendants, and all of them, met and conspired with Stanford Risk Management about a way to hush it up rather than report it as legally mandated, in order to defend the hospital from a lawsuit, that the necessary police reports were suppressed, and that the defendants and all of them, decided that Nancy could not be released and the truth exposed in order to cover up the defendants had done.  SARC’s 1/4/02 IPP admitted: “there was infringement on her rights due to ‘consumer dilemma during this period’”. There had to be a cover-up. DDS assisted SARC advising to enlist the local DA to prosecute the parents for something, “emphasiz[ing] the DA” in order to get a TRO that would stop the parents from seeking Nancy’s release. Defendants used Nancy to shield themselves from liability for civil damages by conserving her and thus monopolizing her representation. To give up Nancy would give her parents access, now being denied, to her medical and other records, which could produce evidence that could result in a very large lawsuit and possibly even criminal prosecution if the facts became known.

347.          In California, malicious prosecution is a legal question, left for the trier of fact or the jury.  “In malicious prosecution actions, when evidence bearing on question of probable cause is in conflict, it is province of jury to determine whether facts exist which will warrant inference of probable cause), and, Fleishman v. Superior Court, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 383 (2002);  [W]here it is shown that prosecutor either knew that information was false, or had no personal knowledge of the truth, or made no investigation as to its accuracy before instituting a prosecution, there was want of probable cause)”, Centers v. Dollar Market, 99 Cal.App.2d 534 (1950).

348.          The DA never formally stated probable cause from the time the parents were arrested on November 30, 2001 until the day of their dismissal January 29, 2003. The warrant literally quoted the statute, Cal. Penal C. §368(c) with no statement of particular acts alleged. For fourteen months, the DA “went on a fishing trip” seeking some other ground to continue the prosecution after finding that the original claims of Kratzer had no merit, while the state had time to get appointment and then the charges were dismissed. When the parents’ attorneys persisted in asking the DA for specifics, DA Randy Hey would not discuss the case until the day of dismissal when the only underlying cause that could be mustered was one frivolous count of Mrs. Golin “allowing” Nancy to wander away one time, on November 14, 2001, and this was ultimately dismissed on the DA’s motion with a court stipulation that it was not to affect the conservatorship petition.

349.          The tort of malicious prosecution requires only: “An attorney may be held liable for malicious prosecution for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause, that is, one that any reasonable attorney would agree is totally and completely without merit. See 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, §452, as discussed in Zamos v. Stroud, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, Cal (2004).

350.          The probable cause for Nancy’s removal was also never shown. Cal. Welf. & Inst. C. §5150.05 provides conditions for proving probable cause in a §5150 hold. By refusing to interview the parents or investigate their claims regarding their daughter’s mental health history, the conditions went unfulfilled,

351.          Compensatory and General Damages. Damages for malicious prosecution include loss of time and liberty, injury to reputation, mental suffering and losses to business. Consequently plaintiff-parents therefore claim real and compensatory damages including the amount of bail and emotional suffering, in an amount to be determined as just and reasonable.

352.          Punitive Damages. Defendants cited in §341, had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants cited in 341 acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants cited in §341, in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants cited in §341, in an amount sufficient to punish them20


(Wrongful Termination – Tort Claim)

353.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-352 of this complaint.

354.          This claim is alleged by Plaintiff Elsie Golin.

355.          Plaintiffs allege that at the time of Nancy Golin’s wrongful removal from her family, Mrs. Golin had employment from the State’s In Home Health Support Services, earning wages of approximately $2,400 per month at the time of her termination, for her caregiving labors for Nancy, for 9 hours a day.  Mrs. Golin belonged to a caregivers’ union, was accruing social security withdrawals towards her retirement, and had medical insurance.  Following Nancy’s wrongful removal abduction and continued illegal confinement, as a direct or indirect result of the conduct of these defendants including but not limited to: Allenby, Kratzer, City of Palo Alto, San Andreas Regional Center, Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, Wendt, Lamb, Buckmaster, Street, Stiles, Stanford Hospital, and other Does, Mrs. Golin’s employment was wrongfully terminated without just cause, and with prejudice so that she may not be able to seek employment in any other caregiving position, despite her ample qualifications.

356.          Mrs. Golin alleges that she is entitled to compensatory damages for lost wages for the past 57 months, because this termination was wrongful, oppressive and malicious.  Plaintiff has been damaged by defendants’ conduct in an amount equal to lost wages during the 57-month period immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

357.          Mrs. Golin thus claims additional damages and protection under the False Claims Act (whistleblower employee protection), 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3730(h), since at all times her discharge was in probable part due to her complaints about misconduct by the Regional Center and defendant.

358.          Mrs. Golin therefore claims general and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined according to proof.


(Chemical Assault and Battery– Tort)

359.          Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1- 358 of this complaint.  See especially §§75-80.

360.          This cause of action is alleged by Plaintiff Nancy Golin.

361.          Plaintiff-parents are informed by the record and on that basis thereby allege that from on or around the first week of state detention until a recent time uncertain, defendants including but not limited to: Allenby, Stanford Hospital, SARC (including Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, Wendt), Mantilla (Embee), Tallas, Street, Buckmaster, Greenwood, Stiles, Johnson, Masada, Lamb, Kratzer; either directly or indirectly were responsible for the chemical assault of Plaintiff Nancy Golin by the unauthorized off-label non-consensual administration of dangerous, degenerative and debilitating psychotropic medications including but not limited to Trazidone, Risperdal, Ativan and Zyprexa, for chemical restraint.  These agents include classes of drugs counterindicated for epileptics, because as testified in the record by witness Cerezo, they lower seizure thresholds and thus lead to more intense and frequent seizures.  Mantilla, directly and through her employees on or about May 2002 obtained prescriptions for Risperdal from psychologist Cerezo by fraud and deception. Masada was not qualified to prescribe psychotropic medications as a primary care doctor without any training or experience in psychiatry, yet starting in or about December 2002 Lamb persuaded him to resume psychotropic drugging with Zyprexa, and under DDS starting from February 2003 Masada continued to provide prescriptions to Wendt to continue it.  Risperdal and Zyprexa were at all times relevant herein known to be FDA approved only for schizophrenia as a drug of last resort, and are not listed for autism. They have inflicted neurological damage on Plaintiff Nancy Golin, in many ways permanent and severe, for the convenience of the state caregivers.  Long term possible side effects of Zyprexa and Risperdal constituting at the very least medical endangerment of Nancy Golin have been informed by medical authorities in the public record, expert testimony and by prescription package inserts to include diabetes, pancreatitis, tardive dyskinesia, extra-pyramidal disorder, and death.  On several occasions including but not limited to February 18, 2003 and March 2, 2003, unnecessary administration of these drugs by caregivers led to status epilepticus, leading to convulsions, esophageal ruptures, GERD and emergency hospitalizations for severe and potentially lifethreatening lower esophageal disorders with potentially pre-cancerous metaplasia and dysplasia.  The long term outcomes of these incidents and other instances has yet to be uncovered by discovery efforts. Administration of these drugs was illegal outright when the state had possession of Nancy Golin without benefit of legal custody with or under the period of temporary conservatorship without authorization from a court, with no authority to administer any medications whatever, especially psychotropic medications, from November 15, 2001 until a permanent conservatorship was appointed to Allenby on October 18, 2003, nearly two years later.  Without discovery it is impossible to determine if unauthorized administration of these medications has in fact stopped.

362.          Courts have held that unnecessary drugging on psychotropics constituted a tort of chemical assault.  Medications cannot be used as punishment, for the convenience of staff, as a substitute for treatment program, or in quantities that interfere with treatment. (W&IC §5325 et seq; Mills v Rogers (1982) 457 U.S. 291). Petitioner’s willingness to violate these laws demonstrates that they are reckless and lawless violators of Nancy Golin’s equal protection of the laws.

363.          There is no treatment program known or approved for autism as was stated in expert witness testimony by Dr. Cerezo at trial.  Then she was maintained in the same placement where evidence shows she was abused, injured, and drugged by careworkers claiming psychiatric symptoms that she never exhibited.  After that, a conservatorship was imposed by the unnecessary petitioning of the State under Cal HSC §416.5 forcing Plaintiffs to petition for their own competitive conservatorship, which formerly had never been required, when Nancy Golin was living with her family without objection or lack of support, in order to block the State’s petition.  Her right to associate with whom she chooses including parents and family members has been severely restricted without any showing of good cause, and she is not a prisoner or a criminal defendant.  This represents the most basic denial of Constitutional liberty interests and equal protection of the laws that can be imagined and a shock to any contemporary conscience.

364.          At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs allege that it has been the policy and practice of the Department of Developmental Services, headed by decision makers Allenby, Belshe, Delgadillo and, ultimately Schwarzenegger, to routinely, inappropriately and indiscriminately administer or sanction the administration of extremely damaging and injurious psychotropic agents to developmentally disabled persons in state custody as the “standard of care”, simply for the ease of the caregivers or as punishment.

365.          Punitive Damages. Defendants cited in §361, had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants cited in §361 in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants cited in §361 in an amount sufficient to punish them20.


(Violation of Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act)
(Civil Action: W&I Code §§15657-15657.5)

366.          Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in §§1-365 of this complaint.

367.          This cause of action is alleged by Plaintiff Nancy Golin.

368.          At various times and places relevant herein, Defendants including but not limited to Mantilla (Embee), Lamb, Tallas, San Andreas Regional Center, Rogers, Kinderlehrer, Liske, Wendt, Street, Greenwood, Street, Buckmaster, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, Allenby, Kratzer, Stanford Hospital, Allenby, Stiles, either directly or indirectly abused and neglected Plaintiff Nancy K. Golin causing her extreme emotional pain and physical injury, denial of emergency medical care, careless medical treatment, denial of emotional comfort from her family, subjecting her to privations and unnecessary physical and chemical restraints, causing neurological, gastroesophageal, orthopedic and other injuries as yet to be discovered, in violation of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welfare and Institutions Code §§15657-15657.5, and are thus subject to civil penalties and judgments as the court may see fit.

369.          Damages. Consequently, Plaintiff Nancy K. Golin claims general, real and compensatory damages including physical remediation and emotional suffering, in an amount to be determined as just and reasonable.

370.          Punitive Damages. Defendants cited in §368, had actual and constructive knowledge of their constitutional violations and failed to correct deprivations and errors within a reasonable time In maintaining the wrongful actions, defendants acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and of the damages being caused to plaintiff. Notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants cited in §368 in conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ health and safety, failed to remedy their errors. This failure was willful, oppressive and malicious. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages against the non-governmental defendants cited in §368, in an amount sufficient to punish them20


WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants as follows:

1.      A protective order for injunctive relief to prevent further harm or injury of Nancy.

2.      Appointment of Mrs. Elsie Y. Golin, mother of Nancy, as guardian ad litem (GAL).

3.      An order facilitating the powers of the GAL to investigate and report to the court.

4.      For general damages according to proof;

5.      For special and punitive damages according to proof;

6.      For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to statute and Civil Code §1717;

7.      For statutory damages;

8.      For injunctive relief; and

9.      For such other and further relief as the court deems appropriate.

DATED: July 22, 2006

Respectfully Submitted,


GERARD W. WALLACE, Esq. (N.Y. SBN 2870467),

Counsel Pro Hac Vice

Attorney for Petitioners


I, Plaintiff Jeffrey R. Golin, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing complaint and the facts stated therein are true and correct, based on my direct first hand personal knowledge.


Jeffrey R. Golin

[1] San Jose Mercury News, through Associated Press, by Jessica Porter, “Crime Victims Have an Ally in New FBI Witness Specialist”, July 24, 2004.


[2] This could support a claim of medical malpractice by Stanford Hospital, especially in the light of ensuing events. The full extent of Stanford Hospital’s Risk Management team in these events is not yet known but has been implicated by APS records, and is likely to reveal further evidence upon discovery.

[3] Michael S. Dorn is a mystery man, a finance man who with Edna Mantilla in 2000 according to State License records bought Embee Manor and leased the license and clients from troubled San Jose group home entrepreneur Deanna Corpuz after a Medicare fraud, took a profit and then sold his share to Mantilla.  Michael Dorn also happens to be the name of Gilroy’s Finance Manager and City Planning Manager, and Berliner-Cohen (SARC’s attorney firm) is Gilroy’s city attorney.  Mantilla also owns homes in Gilroy.

[4] Street in urging that the state be appointed temporary conservators on February 4, 2003, cited the parents’ supposedly frivolous complaint to state licensing for abuse as an example of the Golins’ “almost getting Nancy kicked out of her home” by Mantilla, saying that the only way that Mantilla would consider letting Nancy stay was for the state to take charge.

[5] HIPAA civil rights legislation intended to protect the privacy of medical records is embodied in Title 45, Subtitle A, Part 164 (2004), of the Code of Federal Regulations (cited as 45 C.F.R. §164). However, 45 C.F.R. §164.512(e) provides for releases of records for subpoenas and court orders, and 45 C.F.R. §164.502 provides for releases for such persons as whistleblowers or advocates.

[6] It is common medical knowledge that all epileptics have occasional breakthrough seizures despite proper medication.

[7] When SARC dentist Santos echoed parents’ earlier warnings of imminent tooth loss from Dilantin August 2003, SARC’S neurologist Gaskins advised switch to Phenobarbital alone, just as Mrs. Golin’s neurologist did; SARC’s nurse Wendt intercepted her to avoid vindicating Mrs. Golin.

[8] A thorough search of cases and statutes found no available authority for a court to impose contact restrictions between consenting adult family members under the applicable codes or cases, and we contend there is none.  The only authority is SARC’s power to control social contacts: SARC’s exercise barring familial association here is unconstitutional under the First Amendment (U.S. Constitutional Amendment I).

[9] “Merck Sued Over Fosamax Risks”, Los Angeles Times, April 11, 2006 (Bloomberg News).

[10] MJA 2005; 182 (8): 413-415, (Medical Journal of Australia) “Bisphosphonates and avascular necrosis of the jaw: a possible association”, Glen Carter, Alastair N Goss and Chris Doecke:  “the association between bisphosphonate therapy and osteonecrosis of the jaw appears strong”.

[11] Ruggiero S, Rosenberg TJ. Osteonecrosis of the jaws associated with the use of bisphosphonates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 527-534.

[12] Nevada Review Journal, “Osteoporosis drugs could have devastating effect on dental work”, November 13, 2005, by Paul Harasim.

[13] Marx RE. Pamidronate (Aredia) and Zoledronate (Zometa) induced avascular necrosis of the jaws: A growing epidemic [letter]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 61:

[14] Primarily, the parents were denied standing to represent Nancy as guardians ad litem or next friends in federal court because they were self-represented and could not find an attorney in time.  Contrary to the rule of Johns v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874 (9thCir. 1997) the District Court and Ninth Circuit failed to stipulate dismissal without prejudice. That deficiency is corrected here, because the Golins are now represented in this case.  Claims by County erroneously seconded by the Ninth that the parents were merely “seeking to overturn the conservatorship” in this action were clearly unjustified on the basis of a plain reading of their complaint for damages, similar to those claims in this case. Exxon Mobil v. Saudi Basic Industries 125 S. Ct., 1517 (Mar. 30, 2005), and Marshall v. Marshall handed down during the pendency of the appeal but not applied by the Court to this case justified parallel federal-state jurisdiction since the probate court could not hear damages suits, and thus parallel federal and state venues for differing jurisdictions were proper.

[15]O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 573-576 (1975): ”A State cannot constitutionally confine, without more, a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends, …” .

[16] Epstein v. Washington Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.1996).

[17] Rest. 2nd Judgments §28 (2002), Topic 2. Personal Judgments, Title E. Issue Preclusion, Chapter 3. Former Adjudication: The Effects Of A Judicial Judgment, §28. Exceptions To The General Rule Of Issue Preclusion, American Law Institute, current through Sept. 2004.

[18] Golin v. Allenby et al, 2005 WL 1475615, June 22, 2005, “Jeffrey and Elsie Golin (“Golins”), parents of Nancy Golin, appeal pro se the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action challenging a state proceeding in which the Director of the California Department of Developmental Services was appointed Nancy Golin’s permanent limited conservator….”

[19] U.S. Constitutional Article VI

[20] “Punitive damages are recoverable where defendant’s conduct is motivated by an evil motive or intent, or where it involves reckless or callous indifference to plaintiff’s federally protected rights”.  Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 50-51 (1963), Clark v. Taylor, 710 F.2d 4, 14 (1st Cir. 1963).

[21] See paragraphs 18-178.

[22] This was a collateral attack by the county primarily based on a check that Jeffrey Golin had written to his own bank account two years before in order to temporarily turn his account positive, avoid it closing, and give him additional time for an opportunity to repay a previously existing negative balance, which he to a large extent did.  He neither sought nor obtained any monetary benefit or advantage, other than gaining the opportunity to pay back the bank $6,500 against a pre-existing credit the bank had advanced to his business.  Mrs. Golin was in no way involved in this transaction. The bank did not lose money but in fact benefited from it.  The same prosecutors that launched their prosecution of the parents for supposed abuse, which was dropped, also prosecuted Mr. Golin at the same time for this check charge, for a wrongful purpose.  Plaintiffs allege that this was prosecuted as a substitute for the failed attempt to charge him with abuse, to attempt to prevent Mr. Golin from qualifying as his daughter’s conservator, but this tactic failed when the attempt was defeated during trial as irrelevant to qualifications of a conservator of the person,  see Hicks. v. Hicks, 249 Cal. App. 2d 964 (1967) for authority.

[23] Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12132, “in the setting that is least restrictive of the per­son’s personal liberty”; …”most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d). The preamble to the United States Attorney General’s ADA Title II regulations defines that language to mean “to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.’ ” 28 C.F.R. Pt. 35, App. A, p. 450 (1998).