Dear Mr.

President Obama, Vice President and the staff who reads this:

U.S. Department of Justice- Attorney General Eric Holder

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

The White House, President Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, John Gioia, Mary Piepho, Karen Mitchoff,
Federal Glover and Candace Andersen,
651 Pine St.
Room 107
Martinez, CA 94553

Peter L. Spinella Family Law Center

Case#D05-00622-to be filed
751 Pine Street
Martinez, California, 94553

RETAILIATION AND ILLEGAL EX-PARTE

Commissioner Josanna Berkow of Contra Costa County, Martinez, California

stated, ―I will not read anything you submit‖, and ―Without representation, you will
lose‖. At about the same time Presiding Supervising Judge Barry Baskin received a
complaint but ignores. So, on August 8, 2006, I mail 93 pages (1 lb.) to President Bush
and 12 other government officials about Commissioner Berkow causing and directly
being responsible for the death of two people in her court, Mr. Polk and Mrs. Mantas.
In this package were approximately 256 complaints against Commissioner Berkow, her
„husbands‟ illegal use of drugs, and articles written from Josanna Berkow in regards to
her opinion regarding pro pers, before her court, in a demeaning negative manner: Her
disregard to the suffrage of her dying dog (she boasted about the fatal death), and other
various forms of her blatantly aggressive opinions of those that came before her, in her
court as pro pers. This package also was delivered to Commissioner Josanna Berkow as
the original and I tried to submit it into the record but it was denied (August 17, 2006).

On August 21, 2006, Commissioner Josanna Berkow recused herself from the case. The
below caption is word for word: Case# D05-00622, ORDER- Brian Tippie and Joyce L.
Welsh

The court on its own motion hereby recuses herself from presiding in further proceedings
in this matter pursuant to Code of Judicial Ethics 3(E)(1) and Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 170.1 (a)(1)(6) (i) and (ii). The previously calendared dates for mandatory
settlement conference on September 9, 2006 and trial on October 12, 2006 are hereby
vacated and the case is transferred to Judge Barry Baskin, Family Law Supervising

Page 1 of 142
Judge, for re-assignment and immediate resumption of the proceedings. It is so ordered
this 21st day of August, 2006 at Martinez, California. Signed Josanna Berkow
Commissioner/Judge Pro Tempore.

Which means: Code of Judicial Ethics: E. Disqualification

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is

required by law.* In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record
information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to
the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for
disqualification. 170.1. (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the
following is true: (1) (A) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary
facts concerning the proceeding.(6) (A) For any reason: (i) The judge believes his or her
recusal would further the interests of justice. (ii) The judge believes there is a substantial
doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial.

This case has been abused from the very beginning: Mainly violating due process,
Constitutional Rights and conspiracy to hide illegal actions done by court officials,
including but not limited to, the Supervising Judge Barry Baskin, Commissioner Berkow,
Judge Bruiniers, Bailiff, Court Clerk, Fax Supervisor and court staff. Judge Barry Baskin
has a pervasive antagonistic bias toward the respondent, Joyce L. Welsh due to the
complaint being read by the White House and responded to (which directed him to react).
Judge Barry Baskin has a pervasive bias in favor of Commissioner Josanna Berkow, and
other court officials.

During a court hearing, the bailiff told my friend that they (supervising judge and up)
received a response from the place of which I mailed the information (The White House),
and the supervising judge was pissed because it was on his watch. The same
supervisor of Josanna Berkow: who was directed to recuse herself by supervising Judge
Barry Baskin. Supervising Judge Barry Baskin took over the case. The response I
received from turning in Josanna Berkow, was RETAILATION.

I prepared, and had stamped various subpoenas, including the direct communication
between Commissioner Berkow and her appointees‘ Heidi Perryman and Karen Ruth
Hobbs; delivered them accordingly. On November 8, 2006, a court hearing was held on
those subpoenas –Judge Allen Smith allowed all but one subpoena (Yahoo verification of
Brian Tippies e-mail address). On November 21, 2006 (11 working days), I faxed the
granted subpoena to Commissioner Berkow‘s attorney and immediately went to the
courthouse to have my documents filed (record shows date and time stamp).

Ex parte or ―one sided‖ communication to a judge is not allowed in order to preserve the
law, and maintain neutrality in the courts. In this case, Commissioner Berkow had ex-
parte communication with Judge Barry Baskin directly, after her attorney contacted her
directly at the courthouse regarding the subpoenas.

Page 2 of 142
Without my knowledge, Judge Baskin changed the hearing issue on November 21, 2006,
the same day another issues was to be addressed. I pointed out on the record of the illegal
ex-parte communication between court officials. This started after I faxed the granted
subpoenas to Commissioner Berkow‘s attorney. Retired Judge Allen Smith, signed an
unreported minute order, by fax without a visual stamp showing the time or date for the
fax (it was cut off) and done on November 21, 2006. The court back dated the minute
order to November 20, 2006 and filed as the court was being cleared of all other
scheduled litigants to cover up the illegal act of conspiracy. The reasoning to back
date the fax was due to the expired time in which the court took action. Judge Baskin
used retaliation in all hearings, verbal; gestures and mannerism, discrimination in all
levels were performed by the judge directly at me (Including name calling). I told the
truth, and was made to pay through the loss of my visits with my daughter (lost my job,
my house, my savings, and my gallbladder).

Ex-parte is a violation and in this case, Commissioner Berkow and Judge Baskin were
representing Brian Tippie in the case before Judge Baskin. ―Unless expressly authorized
by law, ex parte contacts between the court and counsel are always ill-advised and violate
the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct when such contacts deal with the merits of a
pending, contested matter. (Citation to predecessor to Rule 5-300.) Moreover,
unauthorized ex parte contacts of whatever nature erode public confidence in the
administration of justice, the very cement by which the system holds together.” In re
Jonathan S. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 468. (Source: SDBCA Legal Ethics Opinion 2013-2)
California Rules of Professional Conduct 1-100(A), 5-300(B); ABA Model Rule 3.5(b);
Heavy v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 553; Matthew Zaheri Corp. v. New Motor Vehicle
Board (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1305; People v. Laue (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 1055; In re
Jonathan S. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 468; Kaufman v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co.
(D.Colo. 2008) 2008 WL 4980360; Carter v. Payer (Ohio App. 1994) 1994 WL 620497;
Enos v. DeHart (In re Metropolitan Metals) (M.D.Pa. 1996) 206 B.R. 89; San Diego
County Bar Association Op. 2012-2; Arizona State Bar Op. 90-20; D.C. Bar Op. 5 (1975)
It also bears noting that, while beyond the scope of this opinion and the Bar, Canon
3(B)(7) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics states in pertinent part: ―A judge shall
accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person‘s
lawyer, full right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or
consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge
outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding.

CHILD SUPPORT
In the final order it stated, The monthly child support payable by Respondent to
Petitioner may be used to pay these providers who are now designated as
appropriate recipients of the support payments due to Petitioner,” the child support
was changed as appropriate recipients, being Teresa Schuman and Randy Kolin, that was
due to Petitioner -the county would not honor the order; therefore I have not seen my
daughter in over seven years. Just recently, I have discovered why the order was not
followed, by contacting both of the therapists directly. (E-mails are further down the
pages). New evidence supports Brian Tippie did not follow the order.

Page 3 of 142
I was told by Judge Barry Baskin with malice,‖ you have no constitutional rights‖
thereby removing my citizenship, all rights under the constitutions, both California
Constitution and the United States Constitution. Condemned from that point on, I lost
everything. With this instrument of oppression, I had no other option to address my
grievances‘ or the injuries sustained; along with removing anything of value (job, house,
savings, etc…) Judge Baskin deemed me vexatious.

JUDGE BASKIN’S COMPLAINT WAS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE

I submitted the following as evident into the record in August of 2008: For your
convenience, Welsh has attached the complaint of Judge Baskin‘s complaint was
‗procedurally defective‘ which the complaint was entitled, ―Order to Show Cause in Re:
Contempt and Vexatious Litigant, (Specifically page 2), which states verbatim: ―Further
take notice that pursuant to CCP 391(b)(3) Respondent is required to show cause why the
Court should not determine that the recent motions and filings by the Respondent are
frivolous, vexatious or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. In the event that the
Court determines Respondent is vexatiously filing motions, the Court may order that no
new motions or papers be filed by the Respondent without first seeking leave of the Court
in a manner to be determined at the hearing.‖There are no facts sufficient [in the ―Order
to Show Cause in Re: Contempt and Vexatious Litigant] and which are necessary to show
a cause of action in the first instance, but here it is lacking in substance as well as in form
and cannot be upheld under the most liberal rule.

In order to be valid, per CCP 391.1 a motion needed to be before Judge Baskin that
alleged a cause of action, and supporting by a showing to find Welsh to be a Vexatious
Litigant. In order to give a court jurisdiction to act, "there must be a cause to be heard,
and when the tribunal [court] is a court of record, such cause must be submitted to it by a
complaint in writing." "Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is obtained by the filing of such
pleading or petition as will bring the action within the authority of the court." Without
such foundation for its action the judgment of a court of record is void, even though it is a
court which has jurisdiction over the subject matter referred to in the judgment. Here I
provide the record as to the ―Order to Show Cause in Re: Contempt and Vexatious
Litigant, which initiated the proceedings of Judge Baskin‘s for finding Welsh as a
vexatious litigant. This complaint does not constitute a complaint at all, it is a motion for
Welsh‘s requirement to show the court that she was not vexatious. Judge Barry Baskin
provides no facts, therefore, [it] ―is before us, and it is shown that the action of the
superior court was invoked by motion only, without any complaint or other written
pleading.‖ (Tinn vs. U.S. District Attorney, (1906) 148 Cal. 733).
The reason for the review of such a judgment to deem ―Respondent‖ as a vexatious
litigant is primarily due to the objection to the validity of the actions taken on Barry
Baskin‘s behalf as seen representing the actual Petitioner in the case before him. Simply
concluding that the complaint was sufficient enough to proceed, when in fact it was not,
still does not constitute a cause of action against Plaintiff in this case, or in the Family
Law case. How would Judge Baskin dismiss his own ‗complaint‘ as a procedurally
defect? ―[T]he presumptions in favor of the validity of such records would perhaps
require another court, in a collateral proceeding, to assume that it was based on a proper

Page 4 of 142
complaint.‖ (Tinn vs. U.S. District Attorney, (1906) 148 Cal. 733). Based on the record
to the proceedings in Barry Baskin‘s court, the complaint is nothing more than a motion,
which lacked the elements necessary to form a proper complaint.

CAUSE OF ACTION
To pursue a cause of action, a plaintiff pleads or alleges facts in a complaint. The cause
of action is the heart of the complaint, which is the pleading that initiates a lawsuit. There
were no facts alleged; only that Welsh was required to show cause, which still does not
constitute any facts to be deserving to the sufficiency of a complaint. Therefore, by the
record and of record, no complaint admitted still meant no jurisdiction to proceed in
finding Plaintiff [Defendant] as a vexatious litigant.
―No complaint or other pleading invoking the jurisdiction of the court to act against the
defendant in the matter was ever filed.‖ It is imperative that courts review a complaint,
because ―a complaint is necessary to invoke a courts jurisdiction.‖ Per CCP 391.1, a
noticed motion was necessary to invoke Judge Baskin jurisdiction to find Welsh to be a
Vexatious litigant. The Petitioner did not bring this issue to the attention of the courts; it
was the judge who filed an ambiguous and vague complaint, as an order to show cause,
which did not constitute a complaint at all.

A cause of action generally encompasses both the legal theory (the legal wrong the
plaintiff claims to have suffered) and the remedy (the relief a court is asked to grant).
Without an adequately stated cause of action the plaintiff's (Judge Barry Baskin- the
judge) case can be dismissed at the outset. It is not sufficient merely to state that certain
events occurred that entitled the plaintiff (Judge Barry Baskin) to relief. All the elements
of each cause of action must be detailed in the complaint. The facts, the law, and a
conclusion that flows from the application of the law to those facts must support the
claims.

If a complaint does not allege facts sufficient to support every element of a claim, and
upon motion by the opposing party, the court may dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim for which relief can be granted. If the complaint states no cause of action, no
facts, no law, then by procedure the Judge Baskin complaint was defective.

In the case at bench, it appears Judge Barry Baskin was attempting to issue a prefiling
order, as contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 391. Before there can be a
prefiling order, however, there must be a "vexatious litigant" within the contemplation of
the code. While a court may enter a prefiling order on its own motion, the statutes do not
appear to envision that a court may, on its own motion, find a plaintiff to be a vexatious
litigant in the first instance. Insofar as the record shows, and assuming Welsh could
qualify as a "plaintiff" within the meaning of the statutes, no "defendant" made an
appropriate motion. Accordingly, the order was procedurally defective.

In the present case, then, the court had the authority to refuse to file or consider pro per
motions and other documents presented by Welsh that related to the conduct of the case,
albeit not by way of Code of Civil Procedure section 391 et seq. The court did not,
however, have the power to prohibit Welsh from submitting Exhibits (as distinguished as

Page 5 of 142
‗inappropriate‘), her Father‘s Declaration, the default of April 21, 2008 and jurisdictional
issues, nor was it free to ignore those motions once they were presented.

We cannot understand the opinion fully if we do not know the cause of action. How is it
that Welsh is ―required to show cause why the court should not determine that the recent
motions and filings by the Respondent are frivolous, vexatious or solely intended to cause
unnecessary delay‖? What law or statute required Welsh to show cause? Does the
meaning of ―why the court should not‖ suggest that the court, upon its own admission,
already deemed Welsh to be vexatious litigant without due process, or equal protection
under the law? The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
It is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible.

What specifically does ―recent motions and filings‖ per Judge Baskin Order to Show
Cause mean? To clarify and by looking up the meaning in the dictionary, Welsh found:
recent has the meaning of: late occurrence, appearance, or origin, lately happening, done,
made, not long past (in recent years), of or belonging to a time not long past. Recent
could also mean beyond the date specified, how does the judge know what will happen in
the future, is he Clairvoyant, or psychic? So, it is very confusing, as the word, and term
of recent; it does not define a specific time frame, and is uncertain, ambiguous and
unintelligible.
How was Welsh to receive adequate treatment under the law, when Judge Baskin would
not proceed by law, and ruled in his own favor, with a motion that was not a complaint?
This lawsuit clearly shows it was a preconceived opinion, unreasonable opinion of Judge
Barry Baskin with a hostile nature against Respondent. It had nothing to do with
procedures, the law, or statutes.
There were no motions brought by the Plaintiff, in effect Brian W. Tippie, which was not
a party to this lawsuit, in the case entitled Tippie vs. Welsh, case# D05-00622. Although,
Judge Barry Baskin initiated the OSC, and Welsh objected to him even hearing the case
because of his position as Judge, Jury and Procecutioner, Mr. Tippie remained silent. Mr.
Tippie was excluded from these proceedings.
Judge Barry Baskin over-ruled Welsh‘s objection as to his own motion and lawless
proceedings.

Welsh filed an answer to Judge Baskins Order to show cause, on February 13, 2007. In
which Judge Barry Baskin said in open court that he knows that Welsh has made it clear,
that she is not a vexatious litigant. On March 15, 2007 a Demurrer -1 Re: OSC Contempt
and Demurrer -2 Re: OSC Vexatious Litigant was filed. These documents were never
heard, Judge Barry Baskin neglected his duties to follow procedure, instead he ignored
Welsh‘s document and punished Welsh severely. How could Welsh receive due process,
and equal treatment under the law with a Judge Baskin‘s personal vendetta? Welsh
believes Judge Baskins hyper-vigilance was a combination of having to deal with defeat
on the Elkins issues, being placed in unfavorable light with the courts and took his
actions out on Welsh. Also, turning in Commissioner Josanna Berkow to the White
House and having ‗someone‘ respond by contacting the court directly and having her
removed from Department 51 as a commissioner on custody cases to the Child Support
department. AS the bailiff stated, Judge Barry Baskin was pissed off that Welsh

Page 6 of 142
complained and it happened on his watch. Even though, Joyce had asked for equal rights,
but was denied at every turn. Signed on August 8, 2008.

________________________________________________________________________

THE FINAL ORDER

The final order states:
Custody/visitation
Sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor child, Christina L. Tippie, d.o.b.
1/18/99, to father, Brian W. Tippie, with professionally supervised visitation to mother as
follows:
a. For at least six months visits between the respondent and Christina will be in a supervised
and therapeutic environment, once a week for one hour with Teresa Schuman of Concord
and failing her, with Randy Kolin of Walnut Creek at a mutually convenient time starting
from the beginning of December. The goal of such therapy will be to determine whether
and when therapeutic visits could be ended, whether professionally supervised visitation
may be phased in and under what circumstances, if any, it may be phased out. A report
from Dr. Schuman or Dr. Kolin should be provided to both parties once six months of
such visits have been concluded. The monthly child support payable by Respondent
to Petitioner may be used to pay these providers who are now designated as
appropriate recipients of the support payments due to Petitioner. Respondent is
ordered to not visit with Christina at her school or anywhere else until the conclusion of
the therapeutic visits and further order of court. Before the visits commence the doctor(s)
are to be provide full and complete reports from Dr. Hobbs and Dr. Perryman, this order
and all other orders made in this case re: custody and/or visitation.
b. Neither party is to use derogatory or disparaging remarks concerning the other parent in
the presence of Christina or to allow any third party to make these types of comments or
repeat them to Christina. The parties are to inform Christina (if asked) that this situation
is simply the result of the legal system at work, that both parties hope for a change and
the current situation is not the fault of any other party. Petitioner is to use his best efforts
at facilitating the reunification therapy and is to attend sessions, if required to do so by
the therapist. Respondent is also ordered to attend the reunification therapy as required by
the therapist.
c. Upon receipt of such report (following six (6) months of such visits) either party can file
a motion to modify this order, which is now a permanent order which, in the absence of a
material change in circumstances, is not a modifiable order.
d. Petitioner can go on the vacation requested and in the event that Respondent fails to sign
the appropriate passport and travel documentation today, the Clerk of the Court is
authorized to do so on respondent‘s behalf.
e. Respondent will be entitled to phone call visitation with Christina each Tuesday from
6:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. effective 1/1/08, and Petitioner will be entitled to record such
phone calls to ensure compliance with the Court‘s order.

Page 7 of 142
 This final judgment resolves all motions and any other pending issues in this case. The
Court notes that Respondent did file a request for the recusal of Judge Baskin which was
never personally served as required by CCP 170.3(c)(1). It is therefore mooted by this
judgment. Even if it had been personally served the motion would be stricken as untimely
as Respondent stated from inception that Judge Baskin is biased, therefore the motion
was not made ―at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts
constituting the ground for disqualification.‖ Under CCP 170.3(c)(1).
The clerk is directed to enter a final judgment today in accordance with this order. Parties
are reminded that they have the right to appeal this order and that the time to file an
appeal runs from today‘s date.
November 16, 2007

This motion was not heard but filed, in fact, Judge Barry Baskin skipped it entirely- even
without any opposition or rebuttal.

RESPONDENTS MOTION IN LIMINE (IGNORED)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

In Re: CASE NO. D05-0622

Petitioner: Brian W. Tippie
vs. RESPONDENT’S MOTION IN
Respondent: Joyce L. Welsh, LIMINE/MOTION TO STRIKE; AND
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Date of Trial: 04/03/07

Time: 1:45 p.m.
Dept.: 7
Judge: Hon. Barry Baskin

By motion in limine, Respondent, Joyce L. Welsh, respectfully requests that the

court exclude the reports, notes, letters, testimony and any other documents regarding the
testimony of the following witnesses: Dr. Karen Hobbs, Dr. Thomas McCord, Dr. Heidi
Perryman and Vicki McReynolds, as these experts and their knowledge of the sexual
misconduct of the non-professional supervisor, Mrs. Deborah Hildebrandt, who was
chosen by the Petitioner, Brian W. Tippie, and his attorney, Lisa Gilmore (Whiting,
Fallon & Ross) and approved by Commissioner Berkow, had been tainted and therefore
inadmissible.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES
I.
THE SCOPE OF A MOTION TO STRIKE/MOTION IN LIMINE IS ANY KIND
OF EVIDENCE WHICH COULD BE OBJECTED TO AT TRIAL, EITHER AS

Page 8 of 142
 IRRELEVANT OR SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY EXCLUSION AS UNDULY
PREJUDICIAL.
Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d. 444, 451-452
II.
AT THE REQUEST OF EITHER PARTY OR ON THE COURT’S OWN
MOTION, ANY MATTER NOT APPROPRIATELY CONTAINED IN
PLEADINGS MAY BE STRIKEN BY THE COURT OR OTHERWISE
DISREGARDED.
Marriage of DeRoque (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1093-1094

III.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The basis for this motion is that the reports of the aforesaid doctors and experts
are tainted by inadmissible evidence and bias. Dr. Karen Hobbs in her report dated
August 11, 2005 (See attached Exhibit A) repeatedly referred to the report of non-
professional supervisor Deborah Hildebrandt as a basis for her opinion. Mrs.
Hildebrandt filed a report in this action dated June 20, 2005 (see attached Exhibit B).
Further, on July 22, 2005 (See attached Exhibit C), Lisa J. Gilmore e-mailed and mailed a
letter advising, ―…we have informed you on multiple occasions, Debbie Hildebrandt has
agreed to supervise a single visit for two to three hours on Sunday, July 25, 2005.‖ CC:
Karen Hobbs, PhD, Heidi Perryman, PhD.
2. The District Attorney of Contra Costa County filed a complaint against Mrs.
Hildebrandt for two counts of bestiality with two dogs. (See attached Exhibit D, Case No.
03-219833-1) Mrs. Hildebrandt is currently seeking diversion on those counts in the
courtroom of Judge Charles (Steve) Treat. Judge Treat has ordered Mrs. Hildebrandt to
have no contact with her ―master‖ Robert Calvillo.
3. Mrs. Hildebrandt visited my home and had herpes on her face and had indicated
she was having sex with dogs. I threw her out of my home and filed an animal control
report, which was sealed by Judge William Kolin. At the request of a Contra Costa
County Deputy District Attorney, I testified at a hearing before a judge so the police
could obtain search warrants for Mrs. Hildebrandt‘s computer and that of her ―master‖
Robert ―Bob‖ Calvillo. At that hearing, Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge
William Kolin told me to speak to no one about the case. I followed his request during
this family law proceeding as best I could. Now I feel I have no choice but to speak out
because the trial set for April 3, 2007 on issues of custody and visitation is tainted by
Mrs. Hildebrandt‘s conduct and report and by the expert reports of those who relied upon
her.
4. I testified before Judge William Kolin that Mr. ―Bob‖ Calvillo and Mrs.
Hildebrandt had a ―master‖ and ―slave‖ relationship. The report Mrs. Hildebrandt wrote
about me was reviewed by her ―master‖, by Mr. Jim Hildebrandt (Deborah Hildebrandt‘s
husband) and Petitioner Brian W. Tippie, so that they could approve it before she filed it.
(See Exhibit E, emails proving this.)
5. Dr. Karen Hobbs knew that Mrs. Hildebrandt was involved in bestiality and a
master/ slave relationship, yet she wrote a report, which quoted extensively from Mrs.
Hildebrandt. The court minutes of Commissioner Josanna Berkow show that the court

Page 9 of 142
 knew I requested that my daughter undergo a herpes test based on Mrs. Hildebrandt‘s
conduct and revelations. Dr. Karen Hobbs‘ report was used by the court, to make
decisions adverse to me regarding custody and visitation.
6. Dr. Thomas McCord, Dr. Perryman and Vickie McReynolds presumably
reviewed Dr. Karen Hobbs‘ report and the report of Mrs. Hildebrandt on file with this
court. It is a duty of experts to thoroughly review the entire file in order to present
competent opinions. The reports of Dr. Thomas McCord, Dr. Heidi Perryman and Vicki
McReynolds all continue on the same theme developed by Dr. Karen Hobbs based on
Mrs. Hildebrandt‘s report – that I should not have custody and visitation because of
emotional issues identified by non-professional supervisor Mrs. Hildebrandt. Said
reports rely on improper evidence – Mrs. Hildebrandt‘s report and Dr. Karen Hobbs‘
reports based on Mrs. Hildebrandt‘s report.
7. The ―master-slave‖ conduct and bestiality of Mrs. Hildebrand has so tainted and
infected the expert reports in this case that I cannot have a fair trial. I am denied due
process under the California and United States Constitution.
8. Mrs. Hildebrand is a psychopath and her report has corrupted the testimony of the
experts. The issue of my child and myself being exposed to this situation has been a
traumatic shock. It is also a shock to me that this material has been admitted into
evidence and used by the court in the past to decide my case. The traumatic shock to me
and my child from this situation has not been evaluated at all by any of the experts named
in this motion. This court cannot simply parse that part of the testimony that has to do
with Mrs. Hildebrand and Dr. Karen Hobbs‘ opinion from their testimony not based on
Mrs. Hildebrand. No person should have their case manipulated by a ―slave‖ who
worships her ―master‖ by performing bestiality upon two dogs.
9. The petitioner in this case, Brian W. Tippie, knew about Mrs. Hildebrandt‘s
conduct and he did nothing to protect his 6-year-old daughter from this trauma or to help
her heal from this trauma. Instead, he intends to use evidence generated from Mrs.
Hildebrandt‘s report to destroy my credibility and obtain sole physical and legal custody
and to restrict me to very infrequent supervised visitation.
10. I request that this court investigate the influence of Mrs. Hildebrandt upon the
family law courts. I request that Brian W. Tippie and Mr. Robert ―Bob‖ Calvillo and the
experts in my case be investigated regarding this matter.
11. I intend to file a claim against the State of California and a complaint against Mrs.
Hildebrandt and her ―master‖ Robert ―Bob‖ Calvillo and Does. I am willing to testify to
the foregoing statement of facts, however, I request that the testimony I gave in support
of the search warrant be unsealed and the animal control report be unsealed and available
to me before I testify so that I can prepare to testify fully and truthfully under oath.

IV.
CALIFORNIA STATUTES AND CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF STRIKING THE
TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS, NAMED ABOVE, WHOSE OPINIONS, ARE
BASED UPON FACTS THAT ARE OF A TYPE THAT CANNOT BE
REASONABLY RELIED UPON BY AN EXPERT IN FORMING AN OPINION,
NAMELY THE REPORT OF MRS. HILDEBRANDT AND THE REPORTS OF
DR. KAREN HOBBS, RELYING ON MRS. HILDEBRANDT’S REPORT.
Respondent relies on the following statutes and case law:

Page 10 of 142
 CALIFORNIA STATUTORY LAW
Evidence Code 801. Expert Witness Testimony
If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to
such an opinion as is:
(a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the
opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact; and
(b) Based on matter (including his special knowledge, skill, experience, training,
and education) perceived by or personally known to the witness or made known to him at
or before the hearing, whether or not admissible, that is of a type that reasonably may
be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his
testimony relates, unless an expert is precluded by law from using such matter as a basis
for his opinion
802. Expert Witness May Testify about Basis for Testimony
A witness testifying in the form of an opinion may state on direct examination the
reasons for his opinion and the matter (including, in the case of an expert, his special
knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education) upon which it is based, unless he is
precluded by law from using such reasons or matter as a basis for his opinion. The court
in its discretion may require that a witness before testifying in the form of an
opinion be first examined concerning the matter upon which his opinion is based.
803. Court May Exclude Testimony
The court may, and upon objection shall, exclude testimony in the form of an
opinion that is based in whole or in significant part on matter that is not a proper
basis for such an opinion. In such case, the witness may, if there remains a proper basis
for his opinion, then state his opinion after excluding from consideration the matter
determined to be improper.
804. Testimony Based on Another’s Opinion
(a) If a witness testifying as an expert testifies that his opinion is based in whole or in part
upon the opinion or statement of another person, such other person may be called and
examined by any adverse party as if under cross-examination concerning the opinion or
statement.
(b) This section is not applicable if the person upon whose opinion or statement the
expert witness has relied is (1) a party, (2) a person identified with a party within the
meaning of subdivision (d) of Section 776, or (3) a witness who has testified in the action
concerning the subject matter of the opinion or statement upon which the expert witness
has relied.
(c) Nothing in this section makes admissible an expert opinion that is inadmissible
because it is based in whole or in part on the opinion or statement of another person.
(d) An expert opinion otherwise admissible is not made inadmissible by this section
because it is based on the opinion or statement of a person who is unavailable for
examination pursuant to this section.
CASE LAW
It is well-settled law that an expert may not base his/her opinion on speculation or
conjecture. (Smith v. ACandS, Inc., (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 77, 93.) Nor may the expert
base his or her opinion on unproven facts. (See, Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co., (1978) 79
Cal.App.3d 325, 338.) Nor may an expert base his opinion on assumptions of fact based
on insufficient data. (Blecker v. Wolbart, (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1195, 1205; Richard v.

Page 11 of 142
Scott, (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 57.) It is equally established that the expert also may not
base an opinion on facts which are contrary to the evidence and/or which ignore the
evidence. (Hyatt, supra, 79 Cal.App.3d at 338; Estate of Powers, (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d
480.) "It is well-settled that an expert's assumption of facts contrary to the proof destroys
the opinion." (Hyatt, supra, 79 Cal.App.3d at 338, citing, Winthrop v. Indust. Accid.
Comm., (1931) 213 Cal. 351, 354-355.)

WHEREFORE, it is requested that the reports, notes, letters, testimony

and any other documents submitted by Dr. Karen Hobbs, Dr. Thomas McCord, Dr. Heidi
Perryman and Vicki McReynolds, as these experts had knowledge of the sexual
misconduct of the non-professional supervisor, Deborah Hildebrandt, who was chosen by
the Petitioner, Brian W. Tippie, and his attorney, Lisa Gilmore (Whiting, Fallon & Ross)
and approved by Commissioner Berkow, be stricken and disregarded by the Court in this
proceeding.

Dated: March 26, 2007

Signed Joyce L. Welsh- Respondent- IN PRO PER

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

JOYCE WELSH
1101 Santa Fe Avenue
Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: (925) 229 2544

Plaintiff in pro per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

JOYCE WELSH, CASE NO. CIVMSC07-00749

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

FOR INTENTIONAL AND
NEGLIGENT EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS

vs. [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]

DEBORAH HILDEBRANDT, DOES 1 through 40,

Page 12 of 142
 Defendants.
______________________________________________/

Plaintiff Joyce L. Welsh complains and for causes of action alleges as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Defendant Deborah Hildebrandt, hereinafter referred to as HILDEBRANDT, is,
and at all times herein mentioned, was a resident of Martinez, in Contra Costa County of
the State of California.

2. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as
DOES 1 through 40 inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious
names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
ascertained. Plaintiff invokes Code of Civil Procedure section 474 which allows a
plaintiff in good faith to delay suing particular persons as named defendants until she has
knowledge of sufficient facts to cause a reasonable person to believe liability is probable.
Further, plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of
public entities and their employees designated as DOES 21 through 40 when
administrative claims under the California Tort Act are granted or denied against said
public entity defendants and their employees.
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleged that defendants DOES 1
through 20, are and at all times herein mentioned were residents of Contra Costa County,
and/or Alameda County and that most of the conduct which gave rise to the causes of
action in this complaint occurred in Contra Costa County.
4. Defendants DOES 21 through 30 are a public entity, the State of California, which
at all times herein mentioned, acted by and through the Judicial Council of California and
the Administrative Office of the Courts, and acted by and through the Superior Court of
the State of California, County Costa County in Martinez, CA.
5. Defendants DOES 21 through 30, who are sued herein as individuals, are also sued
herein as employees or agents of the State of California, who at all times herein
mentioned, acted by and through the Judicial Council of California and the
Administrative Office of the Courts, and acted by and through the Superior Court of the
State of California, County Costa County in Martinez, CA. At all times herein
mentioned, DOES 21 through 30 were acting within the scope and course of said
employment or agency.
6. Defendants DOES 31 through 40 are a public entity, the State of California, which
at all times herein mentioned, acted by and through the California Department of Health
Services and its agent, employee and contractor, the Sequoia Foundation at their
Richmond, California campus, 850 Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond, California. Sequoia
Foundation is, and at all times herein mentioned, was a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California with principle offices located at 2166
Avenida De La Playa, Suite D, La Jolla, California, in the County of San Diego. Plaintiff
is informed and believes that defendant HILDEBRANDT, at all times herein mentioned,
was employed by Sequoia Foundation in its “Genetic Disease Branch” at the Richmond
campus of the California Department of Health Services, and that the Sequoia Foundation

Page 13 of 142
had a contractual relationship to provide the services of HILDEBRANDT to the
California Department of Health Services.
7. Defendants HILDEBRANDT and DOES 31 through 40, who are sued herein as
individuals, are also sued herein as employees or agents of the State of California, who at
all times herein mentioned, acted by and through the California Department of Health
Services and its agent, employee and contractor, the Sequoia Foundation at their
Richmond, California campus. At all times herein mentioned, HILDEBRANDT and
DOES 31 through 40 were acting within the scope and course of said employment or
agency.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein
mentioned, each of the defendants sued herein was the agent and employee of each of the
remaining defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such
agency and employment.
9. Plaintiff Joyce L. Welsh and Brian W. Tippie, hereinafter “TIPPIE” have a minor
daughter, hereinafter described as “JANE DOE”. Their child born in 1999 is and was the
subject of a paternity action involving custody and visitation, Case No. DO5-00622, filed
in Contra Costa Superior Court.
10. On or about February 9, 2005 Contra Costa County Superior Court
Commissioner Josanna Berkow appointed Karen Hobbs Ph.D., hereinafter referred to as
“HOBBS”, as custody evaluator regarding JANE DOE “to assess the mental health of the
parties with respect to suicide threats" in Case No. DO5-00622 filed in Contra Costa
Superior Court. Pending HOBBS‟ evaluation and recommendation conference, plaintiff
and TIPPIE shared an equal timeshare regarding physical custody.
11. Shortly after Commissioner Berkow‟s order of about February 9, 2005, TIPPIE
had a meeting with HOBBS at her office and provided her with a list of people to act as
child visitation supervisors regarding JANE DOE‟S visits with the plaintiff. Included on
that list of names was that of HILDEBRANDT, whom TIPPIE described as:
HILDEBRANDT is a close friend of Joyce and I for over three years. She was able to
see my devotion to raising the children before and after the separation. HILDEBRANDT
was present specifically during the weekends, when I parented all three children, while
Joyce worked.
12. On or about May 13, 2005, custody evaluator HOBBS issued a report highly
critical of plaintiff and favorable to TIPPIE. On page 13 of said HOBBS‟ report she
identified HILDEBRANDT as "a friend of both Ms. Welsh and Mr. Tippie".
13. On May 19, 2005 after a hearing on May 17, 2005, Commissioner Berkow issued
an order awarding temporary sole physical custody and legal custody of JANE DOE to
TIPPIE. Commissioner Berkow also ordered that plaintiff immediately seek
psychiatric treatment. She further ordered that plaintiff was allowed 8 hours of supervised
visitation with her daughter each week. Said order specifically named
HILDEBRANDT as the child visitation supervisor and further ordered that the visitation
could take place in HILDEBRANDT‟S home and that HILDEBRANDT take the Contra
Costa County Superior Court‟s “Family Court Training Class‟, herein referred to as the
“CLASS”. Said order further ordered TIPPIE to arrange for JANE DOE to begin
counseling immediately with Heidi Perryman, Ph.D., hereinafter referred to as
“PERRYMAN”.

Page 14 of 142
 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about May 20,
2005, HILDEBRANDT took the CLASS, also commonly known as the special
orientation class for the non-professional supervisor program which was conducted by
the State of California acting through the Judicial Council and Superior Court of Contra
Costa and their agents and employees, instructor Claudia Cole and supervisor Kristine
Van Dorsten. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that HILDEBRANDT
was issued an official certificate by said program. Plaintiff incorporates by reference
paragraphs 70 through 75 herein.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
[VS DEFENDANTS DEBORAH HILDEBRANDT, DOES 1 THROUGH 20]
15. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 15 hereinabove.
16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that HILDEBRANDT
engaged in supervised visitations of JANE DOE and her mother, the plaintiff, at the
following locations on the following dates and prepared and filed Supervised Visitation
Logs for each visit:
On or about May 22, 2005, supervised visitation occurred at a farm. HILDEBRANDT
signed and filed a Supervised Visitation Log for that visit.
On or about May 29, 2005, a supervised visitation occurred at HILDEBRANDT‟S home.
HILDEBRANDT signed and filed a Supervised Visitation Log for that visit.
On or about June 6, 2005, a supervised visitation occurred at HILDEBRANDT‟S home.
HILDEBRANDT signed and filed a Supervised Visitation Log for that visit.
On or about June 12, 2005, a supervised visitation occurred at HILDEBRANDT‟S home.
HILDEBRANDT signed and filed a Supervised Visitation Log for that visit.
On or about June 18, 2005, a supervised visitation occurred at Joyce Welsh‟s home.
HILDEBRANDT and signed a Supervised Visitation Log for that visit and filed it several
days later, on or about June 20, 2005.
17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, regarding the visitations
listed above in Paragraph 17, that HILDEBRANDT, as part of her duties as a visitation
supervisor, picked up JANE DOE from her own home, after TIPPIE had dropped her off
there, and then HILDEBRANDT drove JANE DOE in her car to the location of the
visitation, if the visitation was to occur at a location outside of HILDEBRANT‟S home,
such as the plaintiff‟s home. After such a visitation was complete, HILDEBRANDT then
drove JANE DOE in her car back to her own home, where TIPPIE picked up JANE DOE
and drove her to his home. During the entire time of these visitations, from the time of
each pick up and drop off by HILDEBRANDT, plaintiff is informed and believes that
HILDEBRANDT had physical contact with JANE DOE and was alone with her and was
in a position to give her an infectious disease and/or to exhibit mental instability in her
presence and to damage JANE DOE‟s physical and emotional well-being.
18. On or about June 18, 2005, a supervised visit occurred at the plaintiff‟s home in
Martinez. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that HILDEBRANDT
took JANE DOE from HILDEBRANDT‟S home where TIPPIE had dropped off JANE
DOE, and HILDEBRANDT drove JANE DOE in her car to the plaintiff‟s home.
HILDEBRANDT stopped on the way with JANE DOE in her car and purchased ice
cream and soda at a store. Plaintiff is informed and believes that HILDEBRANDT had
contact with JANE DOE at HILDEBRANDT‟S home and while in enroute to plaintiff‟s

Page 15 of 142
home and while stopping at the store, and during this entire period of time,
HILDEBRANDT engaged in various physical interactions with JANE DOE such as
touching JANE DOE‟S hands and/or face while putting her in her child car seat and
while feeding her soda and ice cream. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that HILDEBRANDT had physical contact with JANE DOE and was alone with
her and was in a position to give her an infectious disease and/or to exhibit mental
instability in her presence and to damage JANE DOE‟S physical and emotional well-
being.
19. When HILDEBRANDT arrived with JANE DOE at the plaintiff‟s home,
HILDEBRANDT placed her own soda she was drinking on a table, knowing the JANE
DOE and plaintiff‟s other two children who were present in plaintiff‟s home at that time,
had access to that soda because they were watching television in the next room.
HILDEBRANDT told the plaintiff as they were talking privately in another room, that
she had lesions on her chin and lips and that she had a herpes outbreak and that she got it
from having sex with a dog or a woman. Plaintiff observed lesions on
HILDEBRANDT‟S face and chin. Plaintiff ordered HILDEBRANDT out of her home.
HILDEBRANDT yelled back at the plaintiff telling her she would take the plaintiff‟s
daughter with her. HILDEBRANDT said she would go home and prepare a “bad report
to submit to the court” and threatened that the plaintiff would “lose custody of her child”.
HILDEBRANDT left. Plaintiff discovered that JANE DOE and her minor male child
[NAME DELETED] had tasted the soda from the cup HILDEBRANDT had placed on
the table.
20. Soon after HILDEBRANDT left the plaintiff‟s home, the plaintiff and her father
Jack Welsh discovered HILDEBRANDT had left obscene pictures of herself having sex
with two dogs on the computer in the plaintiff‟s home and that at least one of these
pictures depicted Robert “Bob” Calvillo present while HILDEBRANDT was having sex
with a dog. Emails left by HILDEBRANDT on said computer revealed that Mr. Calvillo
acted as a “master” in a sadomasochistic master and “slave” relationship with
HILDEBRANDT and that as part of her slavery duties for her Master, HILDEBRANDT
had sex with dogs in his presence and that photographs were taken. Plaintiff is informed
and believes and thereon alleges that acts of bestiality, emails and photographs of acts of
bestiality committed by
HILDEBRANDT at her Master‟s command, direction, inducement and encouragement
occurred at HILDEBRANDT‟S home in Martinez, and at her place of employment, the
California Department of Health Services and the Sequoia Foundation at the Richmond
campus and that they also occurred at her Master‟s home in Dublin and home in Martinez
and his place of employment, Comcast Corporation, Cable Channel 26 in El Cerrito and
Comcast Corporation in Fremont. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that Robert “Bob” Calvillo and HILDEBRANDT made money from said conduct as
alleged in this paragraph.
21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that HILDEBRANDT had a
computer at her own home in Martinez, but preferred to use the computer at the
California Department of Health Services and Sequoia Foundation at the Richmond
campus, and preferred to use the computer at the plaintiff‟s home. HILDEBRANDT and
TIPPIE were friends and shared an interest in computers and the two would play on the
computer at plaintiff‟s home when plaintiff was at work and/or at home doing housework

Page 16 of 142
and playing with her children. Using these computers HILDEBRANDT emailed and
stored the obscene photographs and emails described in Paragraph 21 hereinabove.
22. Soon after discovering the item on the computer as descried in Paragraph 21,
hereinabove, plaintiff and her father reported the incident of June 18, 2005 to the Contra
Costa Animal Services Department, Animal Control division in Martinez and supplied
said agency with copies of items discovered on plaintiff‟s computer.
23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and hereon alleges that during the time
HILDEBRANDT was working as a visitation supervisor for plaintiff and JANE DOE,
and at all times herein mentioned,
DOES 1 through 20 knew that 1) HILDEBRANDT was working as the visitation
supervisor for plaintiff and JANE DOE; 2) HILDEBRANDT was engaging in bestiality
at the request, command, direction, inducement and encouragement of her Master; 3)
HILDEBRANDT had the infectious disease herpes and may have had other infectious or
communicable diseases of unknown nature, of human or dog origin; 4) HILDEBRANDT
had physical contact with JANE DOE during visitations and that JANE DOE and the
plaintiff would be subject to infection and communicable disease; 5) HILDEBRANDT
was mentally unstable and exhibited mental instability around JANE DOE which
damaged her physical and emotional well-being; 6) HILDEBRANDT considered herself
a “slave” to Robert “Bob” Calvillo whom she considered to be her master; 7)
HILDEBRANDT considered it normal to talk about her having sex with dogs and did in
fact talk with other people including the plaintiff about having sex with dogs; 8)
HILDEBRANDT discussed having sex with dogs with the plaintiff because her Master
was seeking other women to have sex with dogs for his prurient interests and wanted
HILDEBRANDT to procure such women for him, and 9) HILDEBRANDT had stored
and distributed shocking pictures of bestiality and emails about bestiality on the
plaintiff‟s computer.
24. Plaintiff is informed and believes that DOES 1 through 20 knew the facts set forth
in Paragraph 24 hereinabove, yet DOES 1 through 20 did not tell HILDEBRANDT to
cease all contact with plaintiff and with JANE DOE. In fact, HILDEBRANDT‟S Master
ordered, encouraged, directed and induced HILDEBRANDT to have contact with
plaintiff and JANE DOE and to subject them to infectious and communicable diseases
and to subject them to HILDEBRANDT‟S mental instability causing damage to their
well-being.
25. In about June 2005, the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department
through its Director Dan Barrett and investigator Lieutenant Joseph DeCosta began an
in-depth investigation which resulted in a complaint, People of the State of California v.
Deborah Hildebrandt, Criminal Case No. 219833-1, filed on January 30, 2006. Said two
count criminal complaint contains the following identical count as to two dogs:
The undersigned further states, on information and belief, that [Child Visitation
Supervisor], Defendant, did commit a misdemeanor, a violation of PENAL CODE
SECTION 286.5 (SEXUAL ASSAULT - ANIMAL), committed as follows:
On or about February 1, 2005 (and May 1, 2005), at Martinez, in Contra Costa County,
the Defendant, HILDEBRANDT, sexually assaulted an animal; to wit; dog, protected by
Penal Coded section 597f; with the intent of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of
defendant, HILDEBRANDT.

Page 17 of 142
 26. On or about June 20, 2005, HILDEBRANDT, acting as a visitation supervisor,
prepared and filed with the court a visitation log for the June 18, 2005 visitation, in
which HILDEBRANDT reported the plaintiff‟s "compliance with rules during visit was
poor" and HILDEBRANDT left the space blank regarding "attitude and spirit of
cooperation with supervisee". The attached log stated:
Supervised Visitation Log
6/18/05
Tippie/Welsh
D05-00622
Despite disapproval/caution from supervisor, Ms. Welsh:
* Repeatedly asked JANE DOE about father's living arrangements and his girlfriend.
* Made disparaging remarks about JANE DOE's father and her (paternal) grandmother.
* Repeatedly asked JANE DOE who she wanted to live with.
* Allowed JANE DOE to paint from a gallon paint can in her good clothing until she
was covered in paint. She refused supervisor's offer to get a large T-shirt or to change
her outfit. The clothes were ruined and Ms. Welsh eventually threw them out.
* Trimmed JANE DOE's bangs despite JANE DOE's initial protestations that her
Daddy told her to let her hair grow long. Signed HILDEBRANDT

27. On or about June 20, 2005, HILDEBRANDT filed a “report” about the supervised
visits she conducted with the plaintiff and JANE DOE, hereinafter referred to as the
“REPORT”.
28. Prior to filing the REPORT, plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that on or about June 20, 2005, HILDEBRANDT consulted with her husband James
Raymond Hildebrandt and DOES 1 through 20 about how to write her REPORT about
plaintiff and JANE DOE and the visitations, including the June 18, 2005 visit and
visitation log. Plaintiff is informed and believes that her husband and DOES 1 through
20 did contribute ideas and words to the REPORT and that said ideas and words were
derogatory to plaintiff and JANE DOE and designed to deprive her of custody and
visitation rights before the court. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that HILDEBRANDT sought the approval of the REPORT by her husband and DOES 1
through 10 prior to her filing it.
29. Prior to filing the REPORT, plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that on or about June 20, 2005, HILDEBRANDT consulted with her Master and DOES 1
through 20 about how to write her REPORT about plaintiff and JANE DOE and the
visitations, including the June 18, 2005 visit and visitation log. Plaintiff is informed and
believes that HILDEBRANDT‟S Master and DOES 1 through 20 did contribute ideas
and words to the REPORT and that that said ideas and words were derogatory to plaintiff
and JANE DOE and designed to deprive her of custody and visitation rights before the
court. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that HILDEBRANDT sought
the approval of the REPORT by her Master and DOES 1 through 20 prior to her filing it.
30. Prior to filing the REPORT, plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that on or about June 20, 2005, HILDEBRANDT consulted with TIPPIE and DOES 1
through 20 about how to write her REPORT about plaintiff and JANE DOE and the
visitations, including the June 18, 2005 visit and visitation log. Plaintiff is informed and
believes that TIPPIE and DOES 1 through 20 did contribute ideas and words to said

Page 18 of 142
REPORT and that that said ideas and words were derogatory to plaintiff and JANE DOE
and designed to deprive her of custody and visitation rights before the court. Plaintiff is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that HILDEBRANDT sought the approval of
the REPORT by TIPPIE and DOES 1 through 20 prior to her filing it.
31. On or about June 20, 2005, HILDEBRANDT prepared her visitation supervisor‟s
REPORT about plaintiff and the June 18, 2005 visit and visitation log and faxed this
REPORT to TIPPIE‟s attorney, Lisa J. Gilmore Dowell of the law firm Whiting, Fallon
& Ross, hereinafter referred to as GILMORE DOWELL. Plaintiff is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that HILDEBRANDT consulted with GILMORE DOWELL
about how to write her REPORT about plaintiff and JANE DOE and the visits, including
the June 18, 2005 visit and visitation log. Plaintiff is informed and believes that
GILMORE DOWELL and DOES 1 through 20 did contribute ideas and words to said
REPORT and that that said ideas and words were derogatory to plaintiff and JANE DOE
and designed to deprive her custody and visitation rights before the court. Plaintiff is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that HILDEBRANDT sought the approval of
the REPORT by GILMORE DOWELL and DOES 1 through 20 prior to her filing it.
32. At all times herein mentioned, GILMORE DOWELL was acting within the scope
and course of their employment by the law firm Whiting, Fallon & Ross.
33. On or about June 21, 2005, HILDEBRANDT typed, signed and faxed the
following note to GILMORE DOWELL at the Whiting, Fallon & Ross law firm:
This is to inform you that I am no longer available to supervise visitation between Ms.
Welsh and her daughter. I understand that a Professional Supervisor will be sought for
their future visitations as soon as possible.
34. On or about June 23, 2005, Marlene Noble, Legal Assistant to GILMORE
DOWELL, provided visitation logs from HILDBRANDT and her notice of withdrawal as
visitation supervisor dated June 22, 2005 to HOBBS.
35. On or about June 27, 2005, PERRYMAN wrote a letter to Joyce Welsh as
follows:
Dear Ms. Welsh:
Thank you for returning the child development questionnaire. It was very helpful. I'm
sorry to learn that you will no longer be doing visits with HILDEBRANDT. I hope you
have already begun looking for a professional supervisor, so that your daughter can have
contact with you soon. Please understand that I can't have the role of giving your
daughter CD's or letters from you. I'm sending the CD back and hopefully you can give it
to her yourself in person.
Sincerely,
Heidi Perryman PSY13775
36. On or about July 13, 2005, GILMORE DOWELL wrote a letter to the plaintiff,
stating that the HILDEBRANDT would be available for one last supervised visit. She
wrote, as excerpted:
Pursuant to our conversation yesterday, a visit with JANE DOE has been arranged on
Sunday, July 24, 2005 at Deborah Hildebrandt's home. „Ms. Hildebrandt has agreed to
supervise a single two-hour visit.‟ The visit is tentatively scheduled from 10:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m.
As Dr. Perryman has explained you may visit with JANE DOE regularly as soon as you
arrange for a new supervisor to oversee the visitation. I understand that Dr. Perryman has

Page 19 of 142
given you several references. There are professional supervisors that you may hire to
exercise your visitation. While there is a fee for this service, it should not prevent you
from visiting with JANE DOE.
On or about July 25, 2005, GILMORE DOWELL wrote a letter to the plaintiff, as
excerpted:
Also, we informed Mr. Tippie that your friend, Christine Althaus, is willing to supervise
visitation. We are advised that Mr. Tippie does not know this woman and has no
knowledge of her relationship with you or JANE DOE. He does not feel comfortable
using her services for visitation. Perhaps you can explain who this person is and why you
feel she would be an appropriate supervisor. Again, there are many professional
supervisors that you may use to supervise visitation. Additionally, we informed you
earlier this week, Debbie Hildebrandt has agreed to supervise a single visit on July 24,
2005. Please confirm that you plan to participate in this visit.
37. On July 22, 2005, GILMORE DOWELL again pushed the plaintiff to accept
HILDEBRANDT as a visitation supervisor by writing a letter which stated, in part;
This letter is in reply to your voicemail of July 22, 2005…..
As we have informed you on multiple occasions, Debbie Hildebrandt has agreed to
supervise a single visit for two to three hours on Sunday, July 24, 2005. We asked you to
confirm this visit by today, but still have not received a confirmation. If you wish to
exercise your visitation rights this weekend, please call my office by 5:00 p.m. today
confirm. If we do not receive confirmation, we will inform Ms. Hildebrandt and Mr.
Tippie that the visit is cancelled.
38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that GILMORE DOWELL
and DOES 1 through 20 knew that HILDEBRANDT was under suspicion for having an
infectious disease, herpes, while in contact with JANE DOE and that the plaintiff and was
under suspicion for engaging in bestiality and being mentally unstable. Yet GILMORE
DOWELL and DOES 1 through 20 did not inform the Superior Court or
HILDEBRANDT that HILDEBRANDT should cease all contact with plaintiff and with
JANE DOE. In fact, GILMORE DOWELL and DOES 1 through 20 tried to have
HILDEBRANDT serve as a visitation supervisor again on July 25, 2005, on penalty of
having the visitation cancelled, knowing that if the visit occurred HILDEBRANDT
would have contact with plaintiff and JANE DOE and to subject them to infectious and
communicable diseases and subject them to HILDEBRANDT‟S mental instability which
would damage their well-being.
39. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants
HILDEBRANDT, and DOES 1 through 20, by engaging in the wrongful acts described
in paragraphs 17 through 39, formed a conspiracy and operated a conspiracy to deprive
her of her rights regarding visitation and custody and to deprive JANE DOE of visitation
with her mother in the pending case Tippie v. Welsh by preparing and filing said false
Supervised Visitation Log regarding the June 18, 2005 visit and said false REPORT on or
about June 20, 2005, which they knew or had reason to know would be reviewed as part
of the record first by Commissioner Berkow and later Judge Barry Baskin and by
HOBBS, PERRYMAN and Family Court Services mediator Vickie McReynolds,
hereinafter referred to as “McREYNOLDS”. Said defendants further knew or had reason
to know that HOBBS, PERRYMAN and McREYNOLDS would be influenced by said
false Supervised Visitation Log and false REPORT and that HOBBS, PERRYMAN and

Page 20 of 142
McREYNOLDS would write reports based upon said log and REPORT and would not
recommend joint legal custody and equal shared physical custody for the plaintiff
because of the influence of said log and REPORT. Said defendants further knew or had
reason to know that Commissioner Berkow and Judge Baskin would make decisions
based on said false log and false REPORT and upon the reports of HOBBS,
PERRYMAN and McREYNOLDS, based in turn said false log and false REPORT and
that the decisions of Commissioner Berkow and Judge Baskin would deprive the plaintiff
of her rights regarding equal shared physical custody and the right to be free of
supervised visitation.
40. On or about August 5, 2005, HOBBS made handwritten notes regarding a
telephone conversation she had with PERRYMAN, stating, in part:
"Heidi Perryman/ Gave a long story @ herpes even though she said she had sent letter -
can't have visitation supervisor because of her behavior in a letter to Heidi. She didn't say
attorney was wrong. She decided to fire the supervisor because she was into this bizarre
sexual behavior and herpes. The day after all that happened JANE DOE wet her pants
6X in school.”
"Everyone agreed to a one hour visit with HILDEBRANDT and then changed and said
no because of herpes."
41. On or about August 7, 2005, HOBBS made handwritten notes regarding a
telephone conversation with HILDEBRANDT, stating, in part:
"Debbie Hildebrandt. I might have over reacted. Joyce has been a good friend to me.
The 8 hrs into one day was probably a mistake. She'd cry a little first few hours, I also
might have over reacted because she did what my mother did - talked @ my father…."
"I have genital herpes. (Illegible) Takes suppressive therapy for it. The last visit she had
a rash on her chin - worried can she transfer to face. 10% chance. Miles, sometimes
JANE DOE. They grabbed her Coke and she told them not to drink it. him not drink
it...."
42. In about August 2005, HOBBS filed with the Superior Court, a report dated,
“Court Date: August 11, 2005”, in which she indicated she had telephone contact with
PERRYMAN and HILDEBRANDT and others.
In the “Findings” of said report, HOBBS stated that the plaintiff had reported to her the
“herpes problems” regarding the supervised visitation conduct by HILDEBRANDT‟S at
the plaintiff‟s home, as alleged in Paragraphs 19 and 20 hereinabove.
In the “Findings” of said report, HOBBS stated, in part, regarding her conversation
with PERRYMAN: “The day after the problematic altercation with Ms. Welsh (plaintiff)
and Ms. Hildebrand, Jane Doe wet her pants six times in school.”

In the “Findings” of said report, HOBBS she stated, in part, regarding her
conversation with HILDEBRANDT:
Debbie Hildebrandt was the supervisor and is a friend of Ms. Welsh. Ms. Hildebrandt
said that the visits were going well until the last visit. At that visit, Ms. Hildebrand
reports that Ms. Welsh was repeatedly asking JANE DOE who she would rather live with
and Ms. Hildebrandt was asking Ms. Welsh to stop. Also, Ms. Hildebrandt told Ms.
Welsh not to cut JANE DOE‟S bangs because Mr. Tippie had asked her not to cut JANE
DOE‟S hair, but Ms. Welsh did it anyway. JANE DOE knew her father did not want her
hair cut so she cried after her mother cut her hair. JANE DOE also peed and pooped in

Page 21 of 142
her pants that day. At that last supervised visit there was a problem with Ms. Hildebrandt
having some rash on her face and she was not sure if it was related to her genital herpes
or not. Ms. Welsh‟s son (Minor‟s name deleted here) did drink from Ms. Hildebrandt‟s
cup and Ms. Hildebrandt was sorry she did not keep the cup away from (Minor‟s name
deleted here) Ms. Hildebrandt said that anyone being watched under a microscope might
show some flaws and she thinks that Ms. Welsh is generally likeable person who is loved
by all her friends.
43. On September 1, 2005, Commissioner Berkow filed an Order After
Recommendation Conference regarding the Recommendation Conference of August 19,
2005. In said order, Commissioner Berkow stated, on page 1, in part: “Based on the
recommendations of the court-appointed evaluator, KAREN HOBBS, PH.D. and for
good cause showing the Court made the following orders:” Therefore, Commissioner
Berkow relied upon the report of HOBBS which was tainted with the false statements of
HILDEBRANDT, as related to HOBBS on the telephone and as stated in her REPORT
and Supervised Visitation Log regarding the June 18, 2005 visit. The September 1, 2005
order provided continuing sole physical and legal custody of JANE DOE to TIPPIE
pending further assessment by HOBBS, and that visitation was to be unsupervised and
that the plaintiff was ordered to locate a psychiatrist for medication assessment as
recommended by Dr. Hobbs. JANE DOE was ordered to continue counseling with
PERRYMAN. The decisions of Commissioner Berkow based upon this tainted record
were adverse to the plaintiff, in her opinion and she objected to them.
The Judge also ordered in No. 7 that: As soon as possible, Brian is to arrange for a
blood test for Jane Doe to test for the Herpes virus, at the request of Joyce, and he shall
provide the results to Joyce when they are available. Said medical test for herpes, turned
out negative.
44. On or about November 7, 2005, McREYNOLDS filed a “Family Court Services
Status Report” with the court. Plaintiff is informed and believes that said report relied
upon the court record in the case including the reports of HOBBS, and
HILDEBRANDT‟S REPORT and Supervised Visitation Log of June 18, 2005. In said
report, McREYNOLDS, relied upon a telephone conversation with HOBBS on 11/4/05,
and McREYNOLDS stated: This mediator made a report on 11/7/05 to Child and Family
Services of possible neglect of all three of mother‟s children after reviewing information
with the custody evaluator Karen Hobbs, Ph.D. McREYNOLDS recommended
supervised visitation, continued sole legal and physical custody with TIPPIE, mental
health treatment for the plaintiff and the appointment of counsel for JANE DOE.
45. On November 8, 2005, Commissioner Berkow adopted the Family Court Status
Report of McREYNOLDS dated November 7, 2005 as the court‟s “temporary order‟ and
appointed PERRYMAN as the court‟s Evidence Code Section 730 expert. The court
received into evidence the Custody Evaluation of HOBBS dated 5/11/05 and the update
by HOBBS dated 8/8/05. Therefore, Commissioner Berkow relied upon the reports of
HOBBS and McREYNOLDS which were tainted with the false statements of
HILDEBRANDT as stated in her REPORT and Supervised Visitation Log regarding the
June 18, 2005 visit. In addition, HOBBS, McREYNOLDS and PERRYMAN did not do
a psychological assessment of JANE DOE and of the plaintiff regarding the impact of
HILDEBRANDT‟S misconduct and mental instability upon their minds and health.
Therefore, they tainted the record before the court by suppressing this evidence. The

Page 22 of 142
order of Commissioner Berkow based upon this tainted record was adverse to the
plaintiff, in her opinion and she objected to them.
46. On February 9, 2006, McREYNOLDS filed a “Family Court Services Status
Report” with the court. Plaintiff is informed and believes that said report relied upon the
court record in the case including the reports of HOBBS in the court file, a conversation
with Perryman on 2/2/06 and HILDEBRANDT‟S REPORT and Supervised Visitation
Log of June 18, 2005 in the court file. In said report, McREYNOLDS, noted that Jill
Heenan of Child Family Service found that neglect allegations against plaintiff were
“unsubstantiated”.
McREYNOLDS recommended reunification therapy, sole legal and physical custody
with TIPPIE and mental health treatment for the plaintiff and supervised visitation.
Plaintiff is informed and believes that on or about February 21, 2006, McREYNOLDS
issued a supplemental status report, in which she concluded that the information
contained in her report supported her previous impressions and supported the
recommendations made in the February 9, 2006 status report.
47. On March 8, 2006, Commissioner Berkow adopted the recommendation of
Family Court Status Report of McREYNOLDS dated February 9, 2006 as court‟s order
and it included an order for reunification therapy, psychological assessment of the
plaintiff. Commissioner Berkow relied upon McREYNOLDS' report which was based
on the reports in the file, including the reports of HOBBS, which were tainted with the
false statements of HILDEBRANDT as filed in her REPORT and Supervised Visitation
Log regarding the June 18, 2005 visit. In addition, HOBBS, McREYNOLDS and
PERRYMAN did not do a psychological assessment of JANE DOE and of the plaintiff
regarding the impact of HILDEBRANDT‟S misconduct and mental instability upon their
minds and health. Therefore, they tainted the record before the court by suppressing this
evidence. The decisions of Commissioner Berkow based upon this tainted record were
adverse to the plaintiff, in her opinion and she objected to them.
48. On April 14, 2006, PERRYMAN filed with the court as an “update on the
treatment progress” of JANE DOE. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that although PERRYMAN noted symptoms of “dissociation” regarding JANE DOE, she
did not do an assessment of the impact of HILDEBRANDT‟S conduct on JANE DOE or
take any history regarding JANE DOE‟S contact with HILDEBRANDT.
49. On August 24, 2006, the case of Tippie v. Welsh was reassigned by Judge
Barry Baskin. On February 16, 2007, Judge Baskin ordered a temporary suspended
visitation and a stay away order against the plaintiff because the plaintiff admitted to
visiting JANE DOE at her elementary school.
50. On April 3, 2007, the trial in the custody and visitation case was to commence
before Judge Baskin. That afternoon in the courtroom, the plaintiff and TIPPIE reached a
settlement agreement before trial commenced. They settled all issues in writing on a
court form used for settlement and agreed there would be no more supervision of
visitation regarding plaintiff. They also agreed that plaintiff and TIPPIE would have joint
legal custody, that TIPPIE would have primary physical custody of the JANE DOE
subject to the following visitation schedule: Wednesday (every) pick up at Daycare by 6
p.m. Drop off at 7:30 p.m. (no later than) at Library (Concord) and Friday pick up at Day
care by 6pm drop off by 7:30 Sunday at Library.

Page 23 of 142
 51. At about 4:00 pm on April 3, 2007, Judge Baskin‟s clerk Marilyn Jones took the
settlement document that the plaintiff and TIPPIE had just completed, and Ms. Jones said
she would have Judge Baskin look it over. Ms. Jones went back into the judge‟s
chambers. Approximately 15 minutes later, Marilyn Jones came back out and said that
Judge Barry Baskin would not sign the order approving the settlement unless supervised
visitation was added. Judge Baskin devised this order regarding supervised visitation in
secret, off the bench and in chambers. He did so without taking any evidence from the
parties or allowing any to be introduced from any other witnesses. He did so based on
the file only, which was tainted with the false REPORT and Supervisor Visitation Log
regarding June 18, 2005, which were generated by HILDEBRANDT and referred to by
HOBBS, and were in the file before PERRYMAN and McREYNOLDS when they filed
their reports. Judge Baskin had before him the plaintiff‟s motion in limine filed prior to
trial, in which she sought to strike the reports of PERRYMAN, HOBBS and
McREYNOLDS as tainted by HILDEBRANDT and her Master. Judge Baskin did not
hear that motion in limine before he developed his own secret order for supervised
visitation, while in chambers and off the bench. The conduct of Judge Baskin was devoid
of due process in that Judge Baskin did not provide notice or opportunity to be heard to
the plaintiff regarding the issue of supervised visitation, prior to his imposing his decision
about this issue, and he imposed his decision upon her by duress, coercion and force.
Because of the conduct of Judge Baskin, in order to obtain an Order to adopt the
Stipulation as a Judgment of the Court, which Order required Judge Baskin‟s signature,
the plaintiff was forced to agree to supervised visitation. The plaintiff said she did
nothing to deserve supervised visitation, but Ms. Jones said the judge would not sign the
settlement the plaintiff and TIPPIE had agreed to, without adding a provision for
supervised visitation of the plaintiff and JANE DOE. The length of the visitation from
Friday night to Sunday evening that the plaintiff and TIPPIE agreed upon is so lengthy
that it is almost impossible to obtain any supervisor for that period of time and it is an
extraordinary expense to pay for that amount of supervision. Also, TIPPIE did not want
supervised visitation regarding the plaintiff and JANE DOE. When Judge Baskin took
the bench, the plaintiff had no choice but to agree to the stipulation with the provision of
supervised visitation added by Judge Baskin on pain of losing the other favorable terms
in the stipulation, including joint legal custody, which she had obtained in agreement
with TIPPIE. In addition, the plaintiff submitted to the coercion of Judge Baskin by
stating she agreed to the stipulation as modified by Judge Baskin on pain of suffering
further separation from her child, should the proceedings not be resolved and immediate
visitation established. From April 3, 2007 and continuing the plaintiff is under the
burden of supervised visitation, which is impossible to realistically implement given the
length of the visitation and the expense.
52. By engaging in the conduct set forth in paragraphs 51 and 52 Judge Baskin
relied upon the reports in the file, including those of McREYNOLDS, PERRYMAN, and
HOBBS and which were tainted with the false statements of HILDEBRANDT as filed in
HILDEBRANDT‟S REPORT and Supervised Visitation Log regarding the June 18, 2005
visit. In addition, HOBBS, McREYNOLDS and PERRYMAN did not do a
psychological assessment of JANE DOE and of the plaintiff regarding the impact of
HILDEBRANDT‟S misconduct and mental instability upon their minds and health.
Therefore, they tainted the record before the court by suppressing this evidence. The

Page 24 of 142
decision of Judge Baskin to force supervised visitation upon the plaintiff and her
daughter JANE DOE based upon this tainted record were adverse to the plaintiff, in her
opinion and she objected to them.
53. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that HOBBS, PERRYMAN,
McREYNOLDS and DOES 1 through 20 knew that HILDEBRANDT was under
suspicion for having an infectious disease, possibly herpes, while in contact with JANE
DOE and that HILDEBRANDT was under suspicion for engaging in bestiality and for
exhibiting mental instability in the presence of JANE DOE and the plaintiff.
54. Despite their knowledge as set forth in Paragraphs 40 through 43, HOBBS,
PERRYMAN, McREYNOLDS and DOES 1 through 20, utilized HILDEBRANDT‟S
REPORT and Supervised Visitation Log regarding the June 18, 2005 visit knowing it was
the product of HILDEBRANDT‟S mental instability and revenge against the plaintiff.
Their reliance on HILDEBRANDT and her Master caused the plaintiff to be subject to
losing custody and visitation rights for almost two years and cause JANE DOE to be
subjected to the loss of her mother‟s support, comfort, custody and visitation for almost
two years and caused the plaintiff to be subject to a supervised visitation order
commencing April 3, 2007, which is burdensome, oppressive and illegal and which is
continuing.
55. Despite her knowledge as set forth in Paragraphs 41 through 49, HOBBS,
PERRYMAN, McREYNOLDS and DOES 1 through 20, failed to assess the
psychological effects and provide a correct history regarding HILDEBRANDT‟S impact
upon JANE DOE and upon the plaintiff, thereby producing reports to the court,
specifically to Commissioner Berkow and Judge Baskin, which were inadequate and
false and designed to cause plaintiff to be subject to losing custody and visitation rights
for almost two years and cause JANE DOE to be subjected to the loss of her mother‟s
support, comfort, custody and visitation for almost two years and caused the plaintiff to
be subject to a supervised visitation order commencing April 3, 2007, which is
burdensome, oppressive and illegal and which is continuing.
56. Defendant HILDEBRANDT‟S conduct was intentional and malicious and done
for the purpose of causing plaintiff and JANE DOE to suffer humiliation, mental anguish
and emotional and physical distress.
57. The conduct of defendants DOES 1 through 20 was intentional and malicious and
done for the purpose of causing plaintiff and JANE DOE to suffer humiliation, mental
anguish and emotional and physical distress. Lieutenant Joseph DeCosta, of the Contra
Costa County Animal Services Department wrote in an affidavit to support the issuance
of a search warrant of HILDEBRANDT‟S home and YAHOO! Inc., dated September 29,
2005 that: It is my belief, that persons who provide information to law enforcement can
be seriously harmed or killed for providing that information. Therefore, I am requesting
that the cooperating witness‟ identity and any testimony which would disclose the
cooperating witness‟ identity to be kept confidential and sealed.
Said cooperating witness‟ was the plaintiff. Defendants DOES 1 through 20, HOBBS,
PERRYMAN and McREYNOLDS acted to belittle the impact of the master and slave
relationship and use of bestiality by HILDEBRANDT and her Master and
HILDEBRANDT‟S mental instability and the conduct of DOES 1 through 20, upon the
mental and physical health of JANE DOE and the plaintiff, when, in fact, if they had
contacted law enforcement or the District Attorney they would have discovered the

Page 25 of 142
impact upon the plaintiff and JANE DOE could have been and may still be serious harm
or death. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DOES 1 through 20,
PERRYMAN, HOBBS and McREYNOLDS did not contact law enforcement or the
Contra Costa County District Attorney regarding the case before them.
58. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants and DOES
1 through 20, PERRYMAN, HOBBS and McREYNOLDS by engaging in the wrongful
acts described in paragraphs 17 through 59, formed a conspiracy and operated a
conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of her rights regarding visitation and custody and to
deprive JANE DOE of visitation with her mother in the pending case Tippie v. Welsh by
preparing reports which they knew were based on the false and revengeful REPORT of
HILDEBRANDT and her Supervised Visitation Log regarding June 18, 2005. Said
defendants further knew or had reason to know that Commissioner Berkow and Judge
Baskin would make decisions based on said false log and false REPORT and upon the
reports of HOBBS, PERRYMAN and McREYNOLDS, based in turn said false log and
false REPORT and that the decisions of Commissioner Berkow and Judge Baskin would
deprive the plaintiff of her rights regarding equal shared physical custody and the right to
be free of supervised visitation.
59. As a proximate result of the acts or omissions of defendants HILDEBRANDT,
and DOES 1 through 20, as described in Paragraphs 1 through 50, paragraph 59, and as a
result of the conspiracies alleged in paragraphs 40 and 60, plaintiff suffered extreme
emotional shock, panic, and anxiety and anguish because: 1) the plaintiff feared that
JANE DOE and her other two children and herself may have become infected with
herpes or another disease because they had contact with HILDEBRANDT on June 18,
2005; 2) the plaintiff feared that JANE DOE may have become infected with herpes or
another disease during other visitations as described in paragraph 17; 3) JANE DOE was
subjected to a supervisor who was mentally unstable and this negatively affected JANE
DOE‟s well being; 4) the plaintiff was subjected to a supervisor who was mentally
unstable and was engaging in bestiality and talking about it with the plaintiff and this
negatively affected the plaintiff‟s well being, 5) HILDEBRANDT‟S visitation log of June
18, 2005 and HILDEBRANDT‟S REPORT filed with the court, were biased and
retaliatory and caused the plaintiff to be subject to losing custody and visitation rights and
caused JANE DOE to be without the comfort, support and visitation with her mother the
plaintiff; 6) the reports of HOBBS and PERRYMAN based upon HILDEBRANDT‟S
REPORT and visitation log regarding June 18, 2005 were biased because they based
upon HILDEBRANDT‟S mental instability and bias against the plaintiff and were not
based upon any accurate history-taking and assessment of HILDEBRANDT‟S damage to
the emotional well being of the plaintiff and JANE DOE, thus causing plaintiff to be
subject to losing custody and visitation rights and caused JANE DOE to be subject to the
loss of her mother‟s support, comfort, custody and visitation; and 7) the plaintiff was
shocked by the existence of porn, smut and images of bestiality and sadomasochistic
slave and master relationships and emails regarding these matters found on the plaintiff‟s
computer.
60. As a proximate result of the acts or omissions of HILDEBRANDT, and
defendants DOES 1 through 20, the plaintiff and JANE DOE suffered extreme emotional
shock, panic and anguish from on or about May 2005 through the trial of April 3, 2007
and continuing. As a further proximate result of said acts and omissions, during that

Page 26 of 142
same time period, the plaintiff was subjected to losing custody and visitation rights and
JANE DOE was subjected to the loss of her mother‟s support, comfort, custody and
visitation.
61. As a further proximate result of the conduct of defendants HILDEBRANDT, and
DOES 1 through 20, plaintiff and JANE DOE suffered severe humiliation, mental
anguish and emotional and physical distress, from on or about May 2005 through the trial
of April 3, 2007 and continuing, and have been injured in mind and body, all to her
damage in a sum to be ascertained according to proof and plaintiff has incurred losses of
wages, medical and related expenses in a sum to be ascertained according to proof.
62. As a further proximate cause of the conduct of defendants HILDEBRANDT, and
DOES 1 through 20, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because the conduct of
defendants and each of them was malicious, in that it was intended by them to cause
injury to the plaintiff and JANE DOE from on or about May 2005 through the trial of
April 3, 2007 and continuing, with a willful and conscious disregard of their rights and
safety, and because the conduct of defendants was oppressive, in that it was despicable
conduct which subjected the plaintiff and JANE DOE to cruel and unjust hardship in
conscious disregard of their rights.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
[VS. HILDEBRANDT, DOES 1 through 20]
63. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 64.
64. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants
HILEBRANDT, DOES 1 through 20, and each of them engaged in a relationship with the
plaintiff and JANE DOE as described in Paragraphs 1 through 64 which gave rise to
defendants‟ duty to exercise due care toward the plaintiff.
65. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants
HILEBRANDT, DOES 1 through 20, and each of them knew or should have known that
failure to exercise due care in their relationship with the plaintiff and JANE DOE would
cause the plaintiff extreme emotional distress.
66. Plaintiff alleges damages as claimed in paragraphs 61 through 63.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
[VS. DOES 21 THROUGH 30 – EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
COURTS, AND THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY COSTA COUNTY IN MARTINEZ, CA]
67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 68.
68. Having been appointed by Commissioner Berkow to serve as a nonprofessional
child visitation supervisor as set forth in paragraph 14 above, HILDEBRANDT was
mandated by the State of California acting through the Judicial Council and Superior
Court of Contra Costa, and by Commissioner Berkow to take the CLASS, that is a
Family Court Training class to be a qualified as a “nonprofessional visitation supervisor”.
The Judicial Council has developed standards for supervised visitation providers in
accordance with the provisions of Family Code Section 3200 subd. (a) and California

Page 27 of 142
Rules of Court, Appendix Div I, rule 26.2 in which the standards are set forth. A
provider includes an individual who functions as a visitation monitor as set forth in
Family Code Section 3200. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges the
CLASS was approximately one hour long and was taught by employees of the State of
California, DOES 1 through 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
the instructor for the CLASS taken by HILDEBRANDT was Claudia Coale, L.C.S.W.
and that on or about May 20, 2005, Claudia Coale, L.C.S.W. non-professional supervisor
instructor signed a certificate that HILDEBRANT attended "the special orientation class
for the non-professional supervisor program and that the date of training was May 20,
2005”. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that all times herein
mentioned, the Supervisor of Claudia Cole was Kristine Van Dorsten.
69. At all times herein mentioned, Claudia Cole and Kristine Van Dorsten and DOES
21 through 30 were acting within the scope and course of her employment by the State Of
California by and through the Judicial Council of California and the Administrative
Office of the Courts, and the Superior Court of the State Of California, County Costa
County.
70. Claudia Cole and Kristine Van Dorsten and defendants DOES 21 through 30
undertook a relationship of providing a qualified and trained visitation supervisor to the
plaintiff and her child and said qualifications included that the visitation supervisor be
free of infectious disease and serious mental disorders such as the practice of bestiality
when in contact with JANE DOE and the plaintiff. Defendants DOES 21 through 30
knew or had reason to know that plaintiff and JANE DOE would reasonably rely upon
them to engage in their COURSE to qualify and train HILDEBRANDT and thereby
owed a duty of due care toward plaintiff and JANE DOE.
71 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Claudia Cole and
Kristine Van Dorsten and Does 21 through 30 acted within the scope of their employment
by the State of California by supplying the CLASS to HILEBRANDT and that DOES 21
through 30 breached their duty of due care to plaintiff and JANE DOE because they 1)
failed to train HILDEBRANDT adequately to be a visitation supervisor; 2) failed to
instruct HILDEBRANDT to not work with children when she had an outbreak of a
communicable disease such as herpes; 3) failed to screen HILDEBRANDT for having
any serious mental disorder such as committing bestiality with dogs which would bar her
from working with children; 4) failed to instruct HILDEBRANDT that her “supervised
visitation logs” and reports to psychologists and evaluators appointed in a custody case,
should be truthful, unbiased and free of conflicts of interest, 5) and not pre-approved by
other persons such as Mr. Robert “Bob” Calvillo, TIPPIE and Hildebrandt‟s husband,
JIM and DOES 1 through 20, and that such persons should not have a voice or hand in
writing such logs or reports; and; 6) failed to engage in any supervision of
HILDEBRANDT in her duties as a visitation supervisor.
72. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants DOES 21
through 30 and Claudia Cole and Kristine Van Dorsten who were acting as employees
of the State of California, acting by and through the Judicial Council of California and
the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the Superior Court of the State of California,
County Costa County, engaged in a relationship with the plaintiff and JANE DOE by
undertaking to train and in fact training HILDEBRANDT to be their visitation supervisor
which gave rise to defendants‟ duty to exercise due care toward the plaintiff.

Page 28 of 142
 73. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants DOES 21
through 30 and Claudia Cole and Kristine Van Dorsten who were acting as employees of
the State of California, acting by and through the Judicial Council of California and the
Administrative Office of the Courts, and the Superior Court of the State of California,
County Costa County, knew or should have known that failure to exercise due care in
their relationship with the plaintiff and JANE DOE would cause the plaintiff and JANE
DOE extreme emotional distress and anguish.
74. As a proximate result of the acts or omissions of DOES 21 through 30 and
Claudia Cole and Kristine Van Dorsten, the plaintiff and JANE DOE suffered extreme
emotional shock, panic and anguish. As a further proximate result of said acts and
omissions, the plaintiff was subjected to losing custody and visitation rights and JANE
DOE was subjected to the loss of her mother‟s support, comfort, custody and visitation.
75. As a further proximate result of the conduct of DOES 21 through 30 and Claudia
Cole and Kristine Van Dorsten , plaintiff suffered severe humiliation, mental anguish
and emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and body, all to her
damage in a sum to be ascertained according to proof and plaintiff has incurred losses of
wages, medical and related expenses in a sum to be ascertained according to proof.
76. Plaintiff alleges damages as claimed in paragraphs 61 through 63.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
[VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THE SEQUOIA FOUNDATION
EMPLOYEE HILDEBRANDT AND DOES 31 THROUGH 40.]
77. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 78.
78. At all times herein mentioned, HILDEBRANDT was an employee of the
California Department of Health and the Sequoia Foundation, its contractor. At all times
herein mentioned, Martin Kharrazi, Ph.D. was a supervisor of HILDEBRANDT during
her employment with the California Department of Health and with the Sequoia
Foundation. At all times herein mentioned, Martin Kharrazi , Ph.D. and DOES 31
through 40 acted with in the scope and course of their employment with the California
Department of Health and the Sequoia Foundation.
79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that during
HILDEBRANDT‟S employment with the California Department of Health and the
Sequoia Foundation, HILDEBRANDT and DOES 31 through 40 did use the computer(s)
and other office equipment owned by said employers to transmit via the Internet emails
and photographs which were smut and which depicted bestiality and pornography. Said
emails and photographs were transmitted by HILDEBRANDT to and from her Master
and others and the public and to and from plaintiff‟s computer at her home with the
purpose of causing emotional shock, pain and anguish to any person who viewed them
including the plaintiff. HILDEBRANDT used plaintiff‟s computer at the plaintiff‟s home
to receive and transmit said emails and photographs back and forth with her Master,
“Bob” Calvillo and DOES 31 through 40 and back and forth with California Department
of Health and Sequoia Foundation.
80. By allowing employees such as HILDEBRANDT to use said computers to
email text and photographs to the public, the California Department of Health and the
Sequoia Foundation and DOES 31 through 40 undertook a duty of due care and owed a

Page 29 of 142
duty of due care to the recipients of said email and photographs to make sure they were
not smut and depictions of bestiality and pornography. Plaintiff is informed and believes
and thereon alleges that in the fall of 2005, Commander Walt Witt of the California
Department of Health Services searched HILDEBRANDT‟S state-owned computer and
told Lieutenant Joseph DeCosta of the Contra Costa Animal Services Department that
“there had been unauthorized activity on the computer.”
81. At all times herein mentioned, supervisors of HILDEBRANDT who worked for
the California Department of Health and the Sequoia Foundation, including DOES 31
through 40 and Martin Kharrazi, Ph.D. failed to 1) implement policies and procedures to
prevent computers owned by the State of California and Sequoia Foundation from being
used by employees such as HILDBRANDT to transmit via the Internet to the public
emails and photographs that were smut and which depicted bestiality and pornography; 2)
train and instruct employees that they should not transmit said material; 3) monitor said
computers to prevent transmission of said material; 4) take corrective action to prevent
further transmission of said material when it was discovered; 5) discipline and correct
employees such as HILDEBRANDT who transmitted said material, and; 6) to insure that
the transmission of said material was deemed “unauthorized” and blocked from
transmission via the Internet. Thereby they breached their duty of due care toward the
public including the plaintiff.
82. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the California
Department of Health and the Sequoia Foundation, Martin Kharrazi, Ph.D. and DOES 31
through 40, knew or should have known that HILDEBRANDT was engaging in the
activities described in paragraphs 79 through 83, yet they failed to take corrective action
to prevent the dissemination of shocking smut and depictions of bestiality and
pornography to the public, including the plaintiff. Thereby they breached their duty of
due care toward the public including the plaintiff.
83. Soon after June 18, 2005, the plaintiff discovered the material described in
Paragraph 81, on her computer at her home in Martinez and experienced emotional
shock, anguish and extreme emotional pain.
84. As a proximate result of the acts or omissions of the California Department of
Health and the Sequoia Foundation and Martin Kharrazi, Ph.D., HILDEBRANDT and
DOES 31 through 40, the plaintiff and JANE DOE suffered extreme emotional shock,
anguish and extreme emotional pain.
85. As a further proximate result of the conduct of the California Department of
Health and the Sequoia Foundation, Martin Kharrazi, Ph.D., HILDEBRANDT and
DOES 31 through 40, the plaintiff is entitled to damages for pain and suffering, and has
been injured in mind and body, all to her damage in a sum to be ascertained according to
proof and plaintiff has incurred losses of wages, medical and related expenses in a sum to
be ascertained according to proof.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR JUDGEMENT AS FOLLOWS:

1. Damages for pain and suffering on all causes of action;
2. Damages for wages, medical and related expenses on all causes of action to be
ascertained according to proof;
3. Punitive damages on the first cause of action;
4. Court costs;

Page 30 of 142
5. Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Dated: October 18, 2007

Signed Joyce L. Welsh- Plaintiff in pro per

****The judge ordered that this will be settled. I was forced to sign the settlement by the
representing attorney.

NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM
THE JOYCE WELSH VS. BRIAN TIPPIE CUSTODY CASE FOLLOWS THE
FAMILY LAW COURTS' GAME PLAN
by Virginia McCullough

Contra Costa County appoints both professional and non-professional child

visitation supervisors to "protect" a child from their own parents. Anyone can
become a child visitation supervisor by "qualifying" through the county and being
appointed by the Family Law Commissioners and/or judges. The County does
very little in the way of background checks on these "supervisors" to assure that
they are drug free, morally upstanding, and/or free of communicable diseases to
assure the safety of the child forced to endure their presence. The parents are
intimidated by the courts and the court appointed "experts". Mom and Dad feel
that they must bend to the will of the court or they will be stripped of all contact
with their child.

The custody dispute they are involved in forces parents to play in the Family Law
Courts' ballpark. Families who enter this domain no longer appear to have the
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with their children. As long as the
court and its money making mercenaries can keep mom and dad at each other's
throats, the conspirators are assured they will continue to be paid. All the while
the child suffers, isolated from its mother or father. The Child Visitation
Supervisor is always present acting as a wall between the child and its parent.
The child also knows that he or she must not speak with the visiting parent about
the most hurtful thing they are experiencing - the fact that the visiting parent and
the child cannot talk about the on going custody battle and the emotional
destruction it has brought to the two of them. Both the monitored parent and the
prisoner child realize they are under the constant spying eye of the visitation
supervisor. That supervisor will report everything that happens during the visit to
the child's therapist, the custody evaluator, the psychologist and eventually the
court that will dictate the innocent's destiny.

All child custody cases that end up in the family law courts of Contra Costa
County will affect the lives of the family members involved. The courts hold the
parents and child hostage until the participants in the million dollar industry have
drained the litigants of every dollar and every bit of compassion the family once

Page 31 of 142
possessed. The individuals will experience negative financial and emotional
impacts that will last a lifetime.

Regardless of the damage inflicted on the parents or the children, the arrogant
commissioners and judges NEVER admit or correct their mistakes.

The clearest example of this statement involves Joyce Welsh and Brian Tippie,
parents of a beautiful eight-year-old daughter. The case No. D05-00622 is filed
in the civil section and is unavailable to the public because, while the couple was
together eleven years, they never married. Custody disputes involving unmarried
parents are "paternity or high conflict" files and cannot be accessed in the clerks'
office by anyone but the two parties involved. If the high profile case is resolved
fairly by the family law court and its court appointed "experts", these cases are
seldom covered by the press.

Egregious reports are often submitted that result in immoral decisions being
made by commissioners and judges. If nothing is done to correct the destruction
left in the court's wake then damaged parents and children seek out the media as
their court of last resort. It is at this juncture that the veil of secrecy falls and the
dirty practices that take place behind closed doors are exposed. The abused
and beaten parents seek out the wisdom of the average American to gain
reassurance that what they have experienced is unconstitutional and un-
American. They cannot believe that their child or children have been used as a
battering ram to enrich aloof "professionals" endorsed by arrogant court officials.
They desperately hope that they can still protect their child by appealing to the
court of public opinion, having utterly failed in the courts of "equity" and "justice".

The love story of Joyce Welsh and Brian Tippie was typical of many modern
American couples. Joyce was 31-years-old, a newly separated mother of three
small children. Her youngest child was 6-months-old, her two girls were 1 1/2
and 8 years of age. Joyce and her former husband settled the custody and
visitation decisions regarding their children and they determined that both
parents would remain an integral part of their children's lives. The Family Law
Courts approved these agreements. Months later Joyce met 19 year old Brian
Tippie through an internet chat room. Joyce had just moved her family from a
small two bedroom apartment to a large four bedroom home. Joyce was
employed for the Sacramento Parks and Recreation Department and she had
agreed to upgrade the rental home and yard in exchange for a relatively low
rent. It was at this point that Brian, unhappy living with his mother, approached
Joyce asking to live with her and the children. He was attending a community
college and had aspirations of completing his education and becoming a
graphics designer. Brian moved in and in 1998 Joyce became pregnant with
their daughter.

That same year, mom, dad and four children moved to an apartment in Martinez.
California. Brian was now a college graduate and secured a job as a graphic

Page 32 of 142
designer in San Francisco. Joyce worked full time until laid off in her fifth month
of pregnancy. She continued to volunteer at her children's school and cared for
her growing family. In 1999 they purchased a home together and took title as
joint owners. They seemed to be a happy couple.

According to Joyce, Brian began to spend longer hours in San Francisco

explaining that he needed to unwind after long hours at work. He would join co-
workers at strip clubs in the city and would take BART home arriving very late.
Then in 2004 Brian became unhappy with his job and began looking for a new
position. Brian found a French-owned software company specializing in video
games that offered him a job in August of 2004. Brian soon told Joyce that he
had fallen in love with his new boss, a graphic designer at the same company.

The troubled couple attempted counseling weekly between December 15, 2004
and January 5, 2005. It failed. The relationship blew up on January 5th and 6th,
2005 when an argument escalated. Bitter words were exchanged and, according
to Brian, Joyce threatened suicide and disappeared. Brian, left at home with the
children and fearing for Joyce's life, reported her disappearance to the Contra
Costa Sheriff's Department. Joyce said the suicide threat was a plea for
understanding, but she sent an email to Brian the next day that stated in part,
"my body will not be found" and "this will be my last email." On January 9, 2005
Joyce returned to their home with her sister and a sheriff's deputy. At the
suggestion of the sheriff, Brian collected his belongings and immediately went to
his mother's home.

According to Brian Tippie's handwritten journal entry dated 1/13/05, Joyce called
his new place of employment "and told them that I was having an affair with
Jenna_____ (his boss). Told my company that she was going to go to the media.
Jeff___ (Human Resources for new company) called me in to notify me that
Joyce had called." Apparently, shortly thereafter Brian Tippie's girlfriend Jenna
was let go by the company because of its policy against inter-employee liaisons.
Joyce said that Brian expressed great anger about this situation and threatened
that she would never again see their daughter.

Joyce said that the Martinez Police Department and Contra Costa County
Sheriff's Department advised her to file for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
Alleging verbal, emotional and physical abuse, Joyce Welsh obtained a TRO
against Brian Tippie (Case no.D-05-00384) on January 21, 2005. Joyce said that
Brian threatened she would lose her car and her home and never see their child
again. She also indicated that Brian had "used a knife placed over his wrist and
suggested he could commit suicide, it would be so easy."

On January 25, 2005 Brian Tippie consulted with attorney Lisa J. Gilmore (SBN
234760) of the Walnut Creek, California law firm of WHITING, FALLON &
ROSS. According to the law firm's billing statements a retainer of $7,500 was

Page 33 of 142
paid. By February 22, 2005 , the date the first order was signed, billings indicate
that $4,496.50 of the retainer had already been spent.

On February 2, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., Brian Tippie and Joyce Welsh attended an
orientation meeting regarding the upcoming Mandatory Mediation, required by
law that would take place on February 4, 2005 at 8: 30 a.m. The mediator was
Vicki L. McReynolds, employed by Contra Costa County.

On February 2, 2005, Brian Tippie filed a "Declaration of Restrained Person in

Response to Temporary Restraining Order". This four- page document detailed
the history of the relationship and the resulting breakup. In this paper Brian
stated he had never harassed, harmed or threatened to harm Joyce or any of the
children in any way. He also stated that he is concerned that Joyce may be
unstable and unable to properly care for the three children at this time. (Joyce's
older daughter was now living with her father.) Brian closed by opposing a
permanent restraining order stating that there are no facts or basis on which to
continue the restraining order in this case.

The mediation meeting conducted on February 4, 2005 resulted in mom and dad
agreeing to share legal rights and physical responsibilities for their daughter. It
was also agreed that the child would live primarily with the mother until such time
as the father obtained a permanent residence acceptable to the mother and
provided the child with her own bedroom. It was determined that the father
would have visitation on Saturdays and Sundays from 8:15 am until 4:45 pm at
the mother's residence. Dad will also visit child between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.
on Wednesday nights. Once the father obtained a permanent residence that
parents will alternate weeks caring for their daughter with the parent not having
custody that week allowed to visit the child on Wednesday nights from 6:30 p.m.
until 9:00 pm.

The McReynolds' mediation also stipulated that the parents would agree to the
following three items:

1. Parents agree to procure psychotherapeutic counseling for child, consult and

cooperate with the counselor, and participate in the treatment by the counselor.

2. Parents agree to enroll themselves and their child in the appropriate Kid's Turn
educational programs and complete these programs.

3. Parents agree to participate in at least three sessions of co-parenting

counseling in the next three months with a qualified mental health professional
and agree to seek this counseling in the future if they cannot agree on a
parenting plan.

Finally, on page 2, paragraph 10 it is noted that the child will be permitted to

contact either parent at any time.

Page 34 of 142
Joyce and Brian have now entered the ball park of the Family Law Courts and
they will be forced to play the game by the court's rules. The two parents will no
longer have the right to determine what "is in the best interest of their child."
Now the men and women in long black robes will usurp the rights of the natural
parents. The court and its con-conspirators will dictate who will win and who will
lose the ultimate prize - the child.

The case was assigned to Commissioner Josanna Berkow who issued an order
and dated February 22, 2005. However this five-page document is not stamped
filed until ten days later on March 7, 2005. The first page indicates that Joyce
Welsh appears Pro Per and Brian Tippie is represented by attorney Lisa J.
Gilmore. At this juncture Commissioner Berkow is fully aware that the father is
represented by a well-known law firm that specializes in Family Law. This means
that the father has sufficient funds to retain the firm and the firm is well aware of
the intricacies of the Family Law Courts. The mother, on the other hand, appears
in pro per indicating that she cannot afford counsel and will be ill equipped to
cope with the countless legal papers she will be receiving. It is also apparent
that mom is unfamiliar with the local rules of the court and the limitations required
to timely file documents required by the court.

In fact, the commissioner's knowledge is reflected in her order cited, in part,

below:

Pg 2, Paragraph 7a Petitioner's request for a Restraining Order against

Respondent (Brian) is denied and the Temporary Restraining Order issued on
1/21/05 is removed and cancelled for lack of sufficient facts.

Pg 2, Paragraph 7b The Temporary Restraining Order action (case number D-

C5-00384) is consolidated with the paternity action. The master file will be D-05-
00622.

Pg 2, Paragraph 7c Paternity adjudicated. Respondent stipulated as to

advisement and waiver of rights.

Pg 2, Paragraph 7d The court appointed Dr. Karen Hobbs as custody evaluator

under Evidence Code 730, to assess the mental health of the parties with respect
to suicide threats. Psychological testing only as the evaluator deems necessary.
Respondent is to advance the fee, estimated to be $4,500.00, subject to
reallocation by the court. Dr. Hobb's Report is due 5/02/05. Recommendation
conference scheduled for 5/13/05 at 5:00 am.

Pg 2, Paragraph 7e The Family Court Services mediation report dated 2/4/05

was disapproved and temporary custody and visitation orders made (see
attached form FL-341). (Which states joint legal and physical custody with week
on/week off schedule)

Page 35 of 142
Pg 2, Paragraph 7f Neither party is to make disparaging remarks about the other
parent, their friends or relatives or discuss any issue under litigation within
hearing range of the minor child.

Pg 2, Paragraph 7g Petitioner is to give Respondent's pellet gun to Respondent's

attorney for safe keeping. Respondent may retrieve personal belongings from the
residence at 1101 Sante Fe (Martinez).

Pg 2, Paragraph 7h The issue of child support is reserved pending hearing on

March 29, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.

Particular attention should be given to Pg. 2, Paragraphgraph 7d which appoints

Dr. Karen Hobbs to be the "custody evaluator" to assess the mental health of the
parties with respect to suicide threats in accordance with Evidence Code 730. It
is also noted that psychological testing "only as the evaluator deems necessary".
Respondent Brian Tippie is also ordered to advance the fee, estimated to be
$4,500 subject to reallocation by the court. In other words, the court can change
its mind on who might ultimately have to pay this fee. However, at this moment
in time, Brian Tippie will pay Dr. Karen Hobbs $4,500 to determine if mom Joyce
Welsh has a mental problem and to generate a report that will carry great weight
with the court in deciding which parent will have permanent custody of the child.
In a minute order signed on March 29, 2005, Commissioner Berkow "clarifies the
2-9-05 order: Father to advance cost for the custody evaluation and for 'psyche'
testing for mother". Additionally (Department of Child Support Services) DCSS to
prepare the support portion of the Order after Hearing. Counsel Gilmore to
prepare the custody portion of the Order after Hearing.

The cost to Brian Tippie now reaches $8,996.50 between the dates of January
25, 2005 and February 22, 2005. The game played in the Family Law Courts
can seldom be effectively played by a single parent trying to feed her other
children and keep a roof over their heads. That fact does not mean that the mom
loves the child at risk any less then the others. But it becomes increasingly
obvious that the court is already seeking to place the child with the parent who
can afford to support the court's "expert" associates. The best interest of the
child now equals dollars spent.

On April 19, 2005 the Center for Human Development Conflict Resolution Panel
Resolution Agreement (Case #11332) was signed by Joyce, Brian, and the
mediators from the Conflict Resolution Panel. It reads as follows:

" The items listed on the attached page and stored at 1101 Sante Fe Avenue,
Martinez shall be divided accordingly. It was agreed that the Saturn Wagon will
go to Joyce Welsh and the Honda Pilot will go to Brian Tippie. Joyce Welsh will
sign over Stratton Account to Brian Tippie. Joyce Welsh will refinance house
under her name with escrow instructions that joint loan will be paid off. $8400 will
be held in escrow to pay repairs to the house: porch, ceiling and door frame. Net

Page 36 of 142
to be split between Joyce and Brian. Balance of bank accounts and Vanguard
money market fund is split between Joyce and Brian plus an equalizing payment
of $1500 to be paid by Joyce to Brian. Brian will close accounts. Brian will
obtain three names of professional therapists from his insurance carrier. The
people whose signatures appear below agree that this written resolution
agreement is enforceable at law and is admissible as evidence in court or an
administration proceeding. Belongings will by moved by May 13, 2005.

Amazingly, this agreement between the two parents, reached without help and/or
interference by the Family Law Courts and its highly paid consultants, is straight
forward and unique. The mediators and the two individuals covered a lot of
disputes and resolved them on one sheet of paper. Nothing in this case would
ever be this simple again.

It was about to become VERY complicated. The mom would discover something
within the next two months that would turn this case on its ear. If the mother told
the dirty secret that she would discover, then she would expose just how morally
bankrupt the co- conspirators involved really were. But if she was on
psychotropic medication and under the control of a psychologist and/or
psychiatrist, no one would believe the horrendous truth she uncovered.

On May 13, 2005, Karen Hobbs, Ph.D., an associate of the Family Resolution
Center, and the court appointed custody evaluator in this case, issued her long
anticipated report. Hobbs states in her first paragraph that the focused
evaluation was implemented "to determine if either parent suffered from any
mental disturbance". Hobbs also clearly states Brian Tippie's desire to have
"primary custody of _____ (their daughter) because he believes that Ms. Welsh is
mentally unstable at present."

On page 3 of this report the affair with Brian's boss is discussed and "Mr. Tippie
denies that he was having an affair". This denial does not ring true, however, in
light of the email record sent to Joyce Welsh dated Sat. 08 Jan 2005 19:01:03
from jazzcommon@hotmail.com and signed by Jenna which reads in part:

...............I also wanted to let you know that I talked to Brian last night and I told
him that I can no longer see him in a romantic way. I understand that my
involvement with him is only making things more difficult for you and I do not wish
to hurt you. I am sorry that I hurt you so much before. When I went into this
relationship with Brian, I did not understand how difficult it would be for you. I
love Brian and I would love more than anything for the two of us to be together,
but not at the expense of your life..................... So I hope you will read this and
understand that I do care about you and that is why I have decided to let Brian
go. If we are meant to be, then one day we will be together. I will let time run its
course and see where it leads us. Warmest regards, Jenna

Page 37 of 142
Despite this admission from Jenna, Mr. Tippie admitted to Karen Hobbs on page
9 that he "did have a friendship with a woman at _____(work) named Jenna, and
she was his boss, although he said she was in a group of people he was friends
with. Mr. Tippie said he was not unfaithful to Ms. Welsh." Later on page 10 it is
stated that "upon her return, Ms. Welsh began writing harassing letters to Mr.
Tippie's friend Jenna and she sent these letters out to everyone in the company.
Mr. Tippie's friend Jenna was then fired after having worked for the company for
3.5 years."

On page 7 of the Hobbs' report its states that Dr. Thomas McCord (an associate
of Karen Hobbs), who did the psychological testing, had difficulty getting Ms.
Welsh to complete her testing. It took repeated efforts to get her in for a final
appointment. On this same page Hobbs reported that in the last phone call she
made to Ms. Welsh, Ms. Welsh was very confused and incoherent.

In contrast page 8 of the Hobbs' report contains rave reviews about Brian Tippie.
Hobbs says , "Mr. Tippie presents as a well organized and concerned parent who
is mildly insecure".

Pages 12 and 13 of the Karen Hobbs' report are filled with complaints and
criticism of Joyce Welsh and her other three children. These observations
apparently occurred during a visit Hobbs made to the Welsh home. The children
were noisy and playing with one another and a pet bunny. Hobbs was also
critical of the teen radio station the kids had on saying it had "songs that used
offensive and sexually explicit language".

On the very bottom of page 13, Karen Hobbs first mentions the woman who
would soon become the child visitation supervisor for Joyce Welsh and Brian
Tippie's child. In this instance Hobbs identifies the woman as "a friend of both
Ms. Welsh and Mr. Tippie". Hobbs states that this person said both parents love
their daughter very much. The future supervisor also is quoted as saying that
she "has met Mr. Tippie's mother and did not think she was the best role model
for children." She said she drinks beer and smokes and does not seem to lead a
very productive life. The future supervisor continued saying she would not want
Brian's mother to watch her own children.

On May 19, 2005 the court filed Commissioner Josanna Berkow's Order after
Court Recommendation Conference Re Custody and Visitation. The issue had
been heard by Josanna Berkow two days earlier on 5/17/05:

Brian present and represented by Gilmore and Joyce pro per. Based on
recommendation of court appointed evaluator, Karen Hobbs, PhD, the court
made the following orders.

1. This order replaces the order filed April 14, 2005.

Page 38 of 142
2. Petitioner, Brian Tippie ("Brian") is to have temporary sole physical and legal
custody of the parties' minor daughter.

3. Respondent, Joyce Welsh, ("Joyce") is to immediately seek psychiatric

treatment and is ordered to schedule an assessment with James Gracer, M.D. (7
Santa Maria Way, Orinda, CA 94563, (925) 253-0567). Dr. Gracer is to receive a
copy of the evaluator's report.

4. Brian is to advance the cost of the initial assessment with Dr. Gracer,
estimated to be approximately $300. The cost of the assessment is subject to
reallocation by the court.

5. Joyce is to have eight (8) hours of supervised visitation with ___ each week.
This visitation may take place at Safe Exchange or at child visitation supervisor's
home. The specific days and times are to be worked out between the parties'
and the child visitation supervisor. If child visitation supervisor supervises such
visitation, she shall take the Family Court Services training class as soon as she
can (to register call (925) 957-7963). If any other personal friend of the parties is
to supervise the visitation, such person must first take the Family Court Services
course.

6. Brian is to arrange for ___ (daughter) to begin counseling immediately with

either Heide Perryman, PhD. (3704 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 319, Lafayette, 94549:
(925) 283-4499) or Erika Goldstein, Ph.D. (also 3704 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 319,
Lafayette, 94549: (925) 283-4499). Daughter's counselor shall receive a copy of
the evaluator's (Karen Hobb's) report. (Note: Perryman is not covered by Brian's
insurance as mentioned by the signed resolution dated 4/19/05).

7. Daughter may spend time, unsupervised, with her paternal grandmother,

Nancy Buck.

8. Joyce is ordered to stay away from daughter's school, currently Morello Park
Elementary, and day care facility, currently Woodbridge Children's Center, until
her treating psychiatrist determines that she is stabilized, at which time she may
resume her volunteer activities at the school.

9. Joyce is not to telephone daughter during the time she is not with her.

10. The evaluator will work with Joyce's treating psychiatrist and issue a report
that is due August 5, 2005. A hearing will take place on August 12, 2005 at 9:00
a.m. in Department 51 to review Joyce's progress and the custody and visitation
schedule.

11. A modification of child support is to be calendared to address the change in

custody.

Page 39 of 142
The order also stated that both parties stipulated to California jurisdiction and
court orders for custody/visitation order herein is Family Code 200, 2010, 3022,
3421, and 3424.

Again, it should be noted that Brian is ordered to pay the initial assessment for
Joyce to seek psychiatric treatment from Dr. James Gracer. The cost was
approximately $300 and was subject to reallocation by the court. It apparently
never occurs to the court that to have a man pay for psychiatric treatment for a
woman he wants to have declared mentally ill in order to gain permanent custody
of their child presents a direct conflict of interest.

To assure that both mother and child are mind controlled, Commissioner Berkow
also ordered Brian to arrange "counseling" for the child. To make certain that the
child can only hear the side of the custody dispute promoted by the experts and
the court, Commissioner Berkow ordered the mother to stay away from the
child's school and day care center and not to telephone her daughter during the
time she is not with her. In other words, all communication between mother and
child is now watched over by the newly appointed child visitation supervisor.

The pace of the case now quickens and the following events all occur from May
20, 2005 and June 23, 2005:

Date: 5/20/05 - Claudia Coale, L.C.S.W. non-professional supervisor instructor

signed certificate that child visitation supervisor attended "the special orientation
class for the non-professional supervisor program and that the date of training
was 5-20-05.

Date: 5/22/05 - Supervised Visitation Log filled out and signed by child visitation
supervisor stating that Joyce was "Good" and "Excellent". Child "Happy".
Visitation takes place at supervisor's home at her address Martinez 94553,
Phone No. (925)___-____. Child's date of birth ____ - age 6. Date of visit was
5/22/05.

Date 5/29/05 - Supervised Visitation Log filled out and signed by child visitation
supervisor stating Joyce was "Good" and "Excellent". Child "Happy". Visitation
takes place at supervisor's home. Date of visit was 5/29/05.

Date: 6/6/05 - Supervised Visitation Log filled out and signed by child visitation
supervisor stating Joyce was "Good" and "Excellent". Child "Happy". Visitation
takes place at supervisor's home. Date of visit was 6-5-05.

Date: 6/12/05 - Supervised Visitation Log filled out and signed by child
supervision supervisor stating Joyce was "Good" and "Excellent". Child "Happy".
Visitation takes place at supervisor's home. Date of visit was 6-12-05.

Page 40 of 142
Date: 6/20/05 - Supervised Visitation Log filled out and signed by child visitation
supervisor stating Joyce's "compliance with rules during visit was poor" and
nothing filled in for "attitude and spirit of cooperation with supervisee" All
previous visits had written in "Excellent". The supervisor has always rated
custodial parent Brian as "good" and "excellent". Attached is the following. dated
6/18/05:

Supervised Visitation Log

6/18/05

Tippie/Welsh

D05-00622

Despite disapproval/caution from supervisor, Ms. Welsh:

* Repeatedly asked daughter about father's living arrangements and his

girlfriend.

* Made disparaging remarks about daughter's father and her (paternal)

grandmother.

* Repeatedly asked daughter who she wanted to live with.

* Allowed daughter to paint from a gallon paint can in her good clothing until she
was covered in paint. She refused supervisor's offer to get a large T-shirt or to
change her outfit. The clothes were ruined and Ms. Welsh eventually threw them
out.

* Trimmed daughter's bangs despite daughter's initial protestations that her

Daddy told her to let her hair grow long.

Signed by child visitation supervisor under her typed signature.

Date: 6/21/05 - Child visitation supervisor types and signed the following note to
Lisa Gilmore (925) 296-6001 (FAX number for Whiting, Fallon & Ross law firm)

This is to inform you that I am no longer available to supervise visitation between

Ms. Welsh and her daughter.
I understand that a Professional Supervisor will be sought for their future
visitations as soon as possible.

Date: 6/23/05 - Cover page to Karen Hobbs, Ph.D., 376 Colusa, #2, Kensington,
CA 94707 re: Tippie v. Welsh, Brian & Joyce. Enclosure(s): Visitation logs from
child visitation supervisor, and her notice of withdrawal as supervisor, dated June

Page 41 of 142
2, 2005. Please review for your information and records. Prepared and signed
by Marlena Noble, Legal Assistant to Lisa J. Gilmore, Esq.

The courts, the "experts"; and the spy known as the child visitation supervisor
have now united in an unholy trinity. Brian Tippie and his attorney, Lisa J.
Gilmore must now believe that they have the situation well in hand. But what do
they all know about this person of trust - the child visitation supervisor? What did
they know and when did they know it?

Remember the secret that Joyce Welsh uncovered? It is about to be revealed

and the Family Law Courts' ball park will never be the same.

Virginia McCullough © 3/28/07

vmccullough@hotmail.com

NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM

THE FAMILY LAW COURTS’ GAME PLAN

Contra Costa County Family Law Courts are infamous for their mistreatment of
children. The guiding light for child custody battles in the United States is that
the court decisions should always be "in the best interest of the child." In the
Family Law Courts of Contra Costa County, California the rule of thumb is that
the courts' decisions are made in "the best dollar interest of the court's cronies."

Psychologists, psychiatrists, special mediators, evaluators, therapists, court

appointed attorneys for children and court appointed child visitation supervisors
line up at the pig's trough to feed off the finances of both parents. What these
greedy conspirators leave is nothing more then a skeleton of a family twisting in
the wind waiting for the final blow to be delivered by a judge who covers for the
heartless directives issued by family law commissioners.

There is a clear cut pattern that is followed by the courts to achieve its goal of
awarding sole legal and physical custody to one of the parents. First the court
predetermines which parent it will award the prize - the child - to in its final ruling.
A child in such a battle equals money because child support is awarded directly
proportional to the amount of time a child spends with a parent. So the child is
reduced to the equation: child = $. Already the court has lost sight of the "best
interest of the child". The second part of the equation is that court cronies must
be paid before any monetary considerations the court may give to other siblings
or either parent. Court papers clearly spell out the second part of the equation
when they direct parents to refinance their homes to pay the co-conspirators who
have built their financial kingdoms on the backs of family destruction. Therapists
and mediators reports then designate the "bad" parent. The court acting in

Page 42 of 142
unison orders that that condemned parent can no longer visit with his or her own
child without a court approved "child visitation supervisor", paid for, of course, by
the family's dwindling finances. The third act by the courts is to destroy the
reputation of the parent out of favor with the court in order to support the reports
flowing in from the court appointed experts additionally depleting the family's
resources. Finally the court will order a psychiatric examination, therapy and/or
medication to insure that the parent losing custody has a properly documented
"mental" disorder. If that final attempt to give the court's rulings credibility fails,
the court will exercise its last resort - they will jail the offending parent.

The child at issue in the custody battle will usually find itself severed from one or
the other parent and their extended family as a direct result of the court's orders.
(Click. Waging war in California's Family Law Courts. No contact orders start the
bloodshed) The missing parent who loved and cared for the child without charge
is now replaced by a very expensive court appointed "therapist" who must see
the child as often as once a week. The therapist's job is to act as a spy to report
to the court if the out of favor parent tries to visit with their own child. It is also the
therapist's responsibility to brain wash the child into believing that the court, the
therapist and the court-favored parent knows what is best for the child. The child
must be brain washed into accepting the court's "truth" even though the child is
mourning a parent not really deceased but one who has been declared dead by
the family law courts.

Adults in positions of power can be extremely cruel to a child. In the Contra

Costa County Family Law Courts everyone has forgotten what is in the best
interest of the child.

Virginia McCullough © 3/28/07

vmccullough@hotmail.com

NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM
CHILD VISITATION SUPERVISOR INVOLVED IN
BESTIALITY AND MASTER/SLAVE SEX

by Virginia McCullough
[Publisher's note: In this article the Child Visitation Supervisor is not named because we
consider her to also be a victim. Her husband is not named. Minor children are not
named. This article is unsuitable for minors.]

The Joyce Welsh v. Brian Tippie case (D05-00622) filed in Contra Costa County
Superior Court is a classic example of the corruption in the Family Law Courts. This
tainted process permanently scars children of families in conflict. The bitter parents at

Page 43 of 142
war with each other, the court appointed child visitation supervisors, the expensive, so-
called "experts", the arrogant, immoral Commissioners and Judges are building an army
of damaged children who may someday take their suppressed anger out on the very
society that knowingly allows this base system to exist.

The youngsters who become the product of this multi-million dollar child custody
industry can and do act out their wrath in many different ways. The quieter ones
withdraw into themselves and may never recover enough to experience a fulfilling adult
relationship. There are those that are burned up inside by the red hot anger created by the
court ordered loss of a parent. They may seek revenge in violence against themselves or
others. There are a few kids who acquire a self understanding of the game that adults
play during the cruel process of court ordered custody. Such an individual is Allana
Krause, author of Letting Children Speak for Themselves published in the San Francisco
Daily Journal on July 17, 2000.

Sixteen-year-old Allana speaks of the "hundreds of years of legal history" that "have led
the United States to implement a system that insures every party in a legal proceeding
gets a voice". She continues, "But there is a forgotten minority that is not afforded these
basic rights. They are not criminals or foreign aliens. In contrast, they are a group we all
hold dear - one innocent and well meaning, with no hidden agendas or twisted motives -
children. Instead of actually being represented, children get their "best interests
represented by adults. We children have no choice and no recourse when those adults
have their own agendas". (Click. Letting Children Speak for Themselves)

The Family Law Court plotters certainly had their own agenda in the Welsh v. Tippie
case and it had absolutely nothing to do with "the best interest of the child". It had
everything to do with the twisted motives of the co-conspirators appointed and employed
the courts.

The evidence shows that one of Commissioner Josanna Berkow's first acts was to reject
the 50/50 shared parentage plan originally promoted by county employed mediator Vicki
McReynolds following a mediation meeting between the parents on February 4, 2005.
Father Brian Tippie had employed attorney Lisa Gilmore of Whiting Fallon & Ross on or
about January 25, 2005 to promote his self-serving agenda. Gilmore had filed papers two
days prior to the mediation meeting that stated that Brian was concerned that mother
Joyce was unstable and unable to properly care for the three children at this time.
Commissioner Berkow reacted swiftly and 10 working days after the first mediator Vicki
McReynolds submitted her recommendations, Berkow rejected that report. On February
22, 2005 Berkow appointed Karen Hobbs Ph.D. as custody evaluator "to assess the
mental health of the parties with respect to suicide threats". Total control to determine
the mental health of the parties rests now with Ms. Hobbs as stated in the order: "
Psychological testing only as the evaluator deems necessary".

Shortly after the Berkow order was issued, Brian Tippie had a meeting at Karen Hobbs'
office and gave her a list of people he believed would speak well of him. The second
person on this list is the future Child Visitation Supervisor who he describes below:

Page 44 of 142
[Child Visitation Supervisor] is a close friend of Joyce and I for over three years. She
was able to see my devotion to raising the children before and after the separation. (Child
Visitation Supervisor) was present specifically during the weekends, when I parented all
three children, while Joyce worked.

This description establishes that Brian and this Child Visitation Supervisor were often
together in the home while Joyce was absent working. Brian admits this to the custody
evaluator in his own words.

Joyce Welsh's interview by evaluator Karen Hobbs took place over the telephone prior to
the Hobbs' report being released.

On May 13, 2005 evaluator Karen Hobbs issues her report highly critical of Joyce Welsh
and favorable to Brian Tippie. It is on the bottom of Page 13 of this report that we find
the first mention by a professional of the woman who would be chosen by Commissioner
Berkow to become the [Child Visitation Supervisor].

In this instance, Hobbs identifies the woman as "a friend of both Ms. Welsh and Mr.
Tippie". Hobbs states that this person said both parents love their daughter very much.
The future supervisor also is quoted as saying that she "has met Mr. Tippie's mother and
did not think she was the best role model for children." She said she drinks beer and
smokes and does not seem to lead a very productive life. The future supervisor continued
saying she would not want Brian's mother to watch her own children.

Commissioner Josanna Berkow issued an order filed on May 19, 2005 after a hearing on
May 17, 2005. Berkow's order mandated that legal and physical custody of the daughter
is given to Brian Tippie. It also dictates that Joyce Welsh immediately seek psychiatric
treatment. Berkow's order also stated that the mother is allowed 8 hours of supervised
visitation with her daughter each week. Specifically named is the future [Child Visitation
Supervisor] and Judge Berkow further order that the visitation takes place in this [Child
Visitation Supervisor's] home.

Who is this woman and to which parent does she owe her allegiance?

The first supervised visit between mother and daughter took place Sunday, May 22,
2005. Joyce had planned to take her daughter on an outing to a nearby farm so they
could enjoy the animals. The owner of the horse at the farm would take the child on a
horseback ride and walk beside her for safety. They enjoyed a picnic lunch and the
"Supervised Visitation Log" written by the [Child Visitation Supervisor] stated that the
child was happy and both parents complied with the rules. The attitude and spirit of the
"supervisee" and "custodial parent" was rated "excellent".

The next three visits involved a variety of activities with the central location being the
supervisor's house. The Supervised Visitation Logs for all three visits indicated that the
child was happy and the parents' compliance with rules was good. The attitude and spirit
of cooperation by both Joyce and Brian was marked as excellent.

Page 45 of 142
What changed so radically that the fifth and final Log filled out by the Child Visitation
Supervisor reported that Joyce Welsh's attitude and spirit of cooperation was suddenly
"poor." For the first time the supervisor attached a page listing five separate
transgressions made by the mother "despite disapproval/caution from supervisor". How
did she arrive at that conclusion and who did she consult to create her report before
faxing it to Lisa Gilmore, Brian Tippie's attorney?

The last visit occurred on Saturday, June 18, 2005 and Joyce's father Jack Welsh had
driven up from his home in Guatemala to see Joyce and her children. Therefore, it was
important that Joyce have her baby visit at her home so that the child could see her
grandfather. The little girl had also been pleading to "go home" so that she could visit
her pet rat Nosey and play with Matt, her brother's pet rabbit. She missed her pets and
her family.

The supervisor had arrived 45 minutes late for the visit on Saturday. She had taken her
ward to an ice cream store and she had picked up a soda before arriving at the Welsh
home in Martinez. Joyce, her dad, and the child's siblings were anxious to have the little
one arrive. The child quickly gathered up Nosey and the supervisor put her soda down
on a table. The woman went into the other room to talk to Joyce. The children were
watching cartoons and grandpa was in the room with them reading. The supervisor began
complaining to the mother that she had lesions on her chin and lips. Then the supervisor
made an announcement that was unbelievable. She told Joyce Welsh that she had a
herpes outbreak and that she got it from a dog or a women.

Joyce yelled at the supervisor telling her to get out of her home. The command was so
loud that Jack Welsh heard it in the front room. The children had drank out of the cup of
soda and realizing the danger to her children Joyce became angry. The supervisor yelled
back at the mother telling her she would take Joyce's daughter with her. She said she
would go home and prepare a bad report to submit to the court and threatened that Joyce
would lose custody of her child. The woman was as good as her word, and two days later
she prepared a report that was immediately faxed to Brian Tippie's attorney, Lisa
Gilmore.

Joyce Welsh was now panicked about the possibility that her children might have
contacted herpes from this woman selected by Brian Tippie and his attorney and ordered
by the courts to interact with her child. Joyce talked to her dad and asked his advice. She
told him the history of her disintegrating 11 year relationship with the father of her
youngest child. He asked about how the two of them knew the woman who had just
announced that she had herpes. Joyce told him that the supervisor had a child who
attended the same school as one of her children and that she believed the supervisor
worked for the Department of Health in the nearby town of Richmond. The woman had a
computer in her own home but, for some reason, she did not use it. She only used her
work computer and the Welsh/Tippie home computer. The supervisor and Brian shared
an interest in computers and the two would play on the computer when Joyce was at work
and watch the children.

Page 46 of 142
Jack Welsh asked his daughter if she knew what they worked on at the computer. Joyce
said no. But she added that the woman had given Joyce the password for her Yahoo
account. The word was "Master". Jack suggested that Joyce download the material on
the supervisor's account and hard copy it out. Both father and daughter were startled by
what they discovered. Once the material was hard-copied, Jack Welsh took the
documentation and pictures to the Contra Costa County Animal Control Office and
handed it over to Director Dan Barrett and investigator Joseph DeCosta. These
gentlemen began an in-depth investigation that lasted a full six months and resulted in a
complaint against the [Child Visitation Supervisor] (Criminal Case No. 219833-1) filed
on January 30, 2006. The two count criminal complaint reads as follows as to both dogs:

The undersigned further states, on information and belief, that [Child Visitation
Supervisor], Defendant, did commit a misdemeanor, a violation of PENAL CODE
SECTION 286.5 (SEXUAL ASSAULT - ANIMAL), committed as follows:

On or about February 1, 2005 (and May 1, 2005), at Martinez, in Contra Costa County,
the Defendant, [Child Visitation Supervisor], sexually assaulted an animal; to wit; dog,
protected by Penal Coded section 597f; with the intent of arousing or gratifying the
sexual desire of defendant, [Child Visitation Supervisor].

[Source: Contra Costa Superior Court complaint, People of the State of California vs.
[Child Visitation Supervisor]]

The evidence that resulted in this complaint was voluminous. The impetus for the
investigation resulted from the material downloaded by Joyce Welsh. The countless
graphic emails and the explicit pictures showing the slave and various dogs engaged in
sexual activity left no doubt about the [Child Visitation Supervisor's] activities.

The first email Joyce Welsh accessed concerning the Child Visitation Supervisor was
dated April 1, 2004 at 12:13:57 and it was from "x x" z3illa@yahoo.com and was
addressed to "c---" dogpssy@yahoo.com. This was the Master talking to his slave about
his other c---. He closes the email by saying, "You will remain my slave until the day you
die". That same day the slave responded to her Master by email telling him, in part: "if
someone doesn't want to have sex with me, or doesn't want to have sex with You because
I have herpes...."

Now it is apparent that the Child Visitation Supervisor was well aware that she had
herpes almost a full year before she petitioned the court to be a non-professional
supervisor for her friend's child.

Later on April 1st, 2004 the Master instructed [Child Visitation Supervisor], his "c--- to
use Tabasco sauce today...The tabasco is to remind you that your c--- and a-- belong to
me.... I want you to research dogsex tapes. I will have you buy some, I love to watch
women f----- by dogs. We still have to gind (sic) a dog for you to f--- and s--- . You have
your orders. M"

Page 47 of 142
On or about July 6, 2004 the [Child Visitation Supervisor] "Slave" sent the following
email to her Master:

Master,

....It looks as though You wrote this Wednesday afternoon, after You f----- my a-- in
Your closet, while i was cleaning Your house. Unfortunately, i haven't been at work and
therefore not online since Tuesday afternoon, so I wasn't able to receive it.

You mentioned on Friday that my punishment isn't over and that i am to s--- my
husband's c--- 5 days after his herpes outbreak started. He got his prodrome (mostly
itching and a couple of small bumps) and he took his pills from Thursday to Saturday and
f----- my c--- on Saturday and Monday. As of yesterday his bumps are gone. I will s---
his c--- tomorrow and try to get him to cum in my mouth. Certainly while I love to s--- c-
--, s---king my husband's c--- is a humiliating experience for me. But i will do it because
I am bound to obey You and because i believe it is my best interest, as your slave....

...I called in sick on Wednesday and Friday to clean your house, and to receive my
punishment. I'm happy to do that, but when [Child Visitation Supervisor's husband] sent
emails to me on Wednesday and Friday, I had to lie and say i received them. When i am
at work, i spend 80% of my time writing to You or writing to others on Your behalf.
When I buy your cigarettes, Prilosec/gum, i have to use my credit card (since i have no
cash) and go to stores that aren't suspicious of my credit card. i understand that i must
keep these things on hand, but the cigarettes smell and [Child Visitation Supervisor's
husband] is always cleaning my car. ...and i have my beer, toys, Tabasco sauce, my slave
jewelry, safety pins, hidden all over the house. i constantly lie about where i am and how
i spend my time. i could go on, but for what? i'm not complaining. i'm just
overwhelmed. i want to do it all, be everything you want in a slave.

In addition to the emails dating from April 2004, a little research on the internet revealed
much more about the Master and his Slave. For example:

1) Both were involved in a Master/Slave relationship involving bizarre S&M sexual

practices and she had been registered on the internet for these practices since the 12th day
of June 2002. (Click. to Slave Ownership and Registration Certificate).

2) On April 21, 2003 this faux female friend registered as a slave with her description
noted below:

Member name: 000-452-448, Gender: female, Email: dogpssy@yahoo.com: Height: 5ft

6in, Collar size: 28 in, Wrist size: 7 in, Ankle size: 11 in.

The remainder of this woman's description consists of five paragraphs calling herself
thirteen horrific adjectives and ending with the term "for her master".

Page 48 of 142
3) In another advertisement posted to Beast Forum.com on July 27, 2004 she wrote:
"seeks k9 Master to submit to on a regular basis if possible.

I have experience being bred with four different dogs. ...Master will barter my services
for those of your k9".

In a Contra Costa County Superior Court docket dated June 30, 2005 in the misdemeanor
case No. 03-219833-1, filed against the Slave [Child Visitation Supervisor] it is noted
that Judge Charles (Steve) Treat ordered that she is to have "no contact w/Robert
Calvillo". Is there any connection between the nic Z3illa and Robert Calvillo? The
answer is yes, proven in the Internet posting by Robert Calvillo using the nick "Z3illa"
below:

NewTek Forum: LightWave 3D®: General Support: To buy or upgrade

By Robert Calvillo (Z3illa) (12.235.37.109) on Monday, December 10, 2001 - 04:13 pm:

I have a problem and need some advice. I have Lightwave 5.0 on a MAC with a G3 card
and 136MB of RAM. BUT, it has a nubus card and can't be upgraded further. Will
Lightwave 7.0 work with this system? I am also running OS 8.1 If not then on to the rest
of the info.

I also have an NT system with VideoToaster loaded and Lightwave in it also, it appears
to be 5.0 also with Lightwave VT 1.0 and no dongle. Can I upgrade this system? It has
plenty of memory in it, but I am unsure if it can be upgraded because of no dongle.

Thirdly, I am thinking of buying 7.0 for my home use. I have an 533MHZ E-Machine
that needs to have RAM added and that is not a problem. But I am concerned about
whether or not the speed of the processor will be sufficient for my uses. Also, what is the
easiest way to transfer files from my E-Machine to a MAC?

I realize there are quite a few questions and would appreciate any help you can give me.

This reporter was given the pictures introduced into evidence during the court hearing
before Judge William Kolin that initiated the search warrants executed upon the
computers of both Master and Slave. One picture was a full frontal view identified by the
slave as "Master" Z3illa@yahoo.com. This reporter attempted to locate and interview
Robert Calvillo self-identified as "Z3illa". After communicating with his employer to
confirm the picture's identity, this unsolicited email was received :

Ms McCullough,

My name is Robert Calvillo and I understand you are writing an article about me. I heard
that you are going to print that I used my companies facilities and equipment to make
pornographic movies. This is patently false, no such thing has ever happened. I do not
know where you are getting your information, but I want you to know that no such thing

Page 49 of 142
has ever happened. I also understand that I am supposedly running some sort of sex ring,
again that is completely and patently false.

R. Calvillo

However, Mr. Calvillo appears to contradict himself when he posts the following
advertisement on the web site collarme.com. There the S&M Master describes himself as
follows:

z3illa Male Dominant, 50, Fremont, California "Latin dom seeking a slave to serve with
my slave. She can be any height or weight, but must be willing to perform on my slave
and have her perform on her. Few limits allowed, but some are. I am married and have a
flexible schedule. That being said, I can't play during the weekends. Love to have a slave
come to my office and kneel under my desk and blow me while I am working.
(Emphasis added by Newsmakingnews.com in bold font.]

User Name: z3illa

Description: Dominant Male
City: Fremont
State: California
Height: 5'8'' (173 cm)
Weight: 225 lbs.
Age: 50
Orientation: Straight
Ethnicity: Hispanic
Last Online: 03/18/04
09/02/04

Despite this checkered sexual past one might say, "So the past is the past" or "What
consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business". Another might ask,
"How does the Child Visitation Supervisor's sexual history affect her ability to oversee
visits between a child and her mother and file valid reports about these visits with the
court?" These are valid comments but the documents speak for themselves.

The most important emails introduced into evidence to support the issuance of search
warrants in the Contra Costa County Superior Court misdemeanor case are dated June 20
through June 23, 2005. These emails were sent and received by the [Child Visitation
Supervisor] from her place of employment at the Department of Health in Richmond.
They were apparently left on the server and accessed by Joyce Welsh when she
downloaded them by entering the password the supervisor had given her earlier:

THE [CHILD VISITATION SUPERVISOR'S] OWN EMAILED

WRITINGS, VISITATION LOGS, NOTES REGARDING
INFORMATION ABOUT VISITATION REPORTS SHE FILED WITH

Page 50 of 142
THE CONTRA COSTA FAMILY LAW COURT CONCERNING [WELSH
& TIPPIE'S MINOR DAUGHTER]

Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:00:17 -0700 (PDT)

From: [Child Visitation Supervisor]c--- dogpssy@yahoo.com
Subject: Good morning, Master
To: MASTER <z3illa@yahoo.com

Master, It's such a different vision of You, sitting in a classroom, just one of many other
students. The way i see You, You're the teacher. But yea, even teachers are students
themselves. i took [Child Visitation Supervisor's child] to camp this morning. A few
kids that (Supervisor's child) really likes are there and (Supervisor's child) was
enthusiastic about it, so i'm glad. Even so, (Supervisor's child's) been asking me about
picking (Supervisor's child) up earlier this summer. i told him that i'm not sure about my
hours yet (i'm not. i really have to pin down Marty about that.) i'll probably be working
the same 30 hours until at least July 11th, until the new computer registry is up and
running and the bridge will be gapped between the SLOS study that i did with Suzanne is
part of the new reporting system. Then i'll just be working for Marty, probably 20-24
hours/week.

i had a horrible weekend. i was with Joyce and [WELSH AND TIPPIE'S MINOR
DAUGHTER] on Saturday and she just went off the deep end, acting inappropriately,
grilling and pumping [MINOR DAUGHTER] for information about her father, asking
[MINOR DAUGHTER] who she'd rather live with (she said Joyce, and yet Joyce kept
asking her over and over again, at least 5 times.). When i cautioned Joyce to stop asking
her the same question (we learned at non-professional supervisor class not to ask the kids
things about the other parent or to say anything bad) she said that she can't do this
anymore, that i'm being influenced by Brian and that i don't have the balls to stand up to
him. i don't think that's true. i just remember how negatively it affected me when my
mother used to talk bad about my father and grill me after each time i visited him. It put
me in the middle and it confused me. By the end of the visit, Joyce was making direct
attacks on Brian, telling [MINOR DAUGHTER] that he's a cheater and a robber. She
asked [MINOR DAUGHTER] where she was going to camp. [MINOR DAUGHTER]
said that she didn't know. (She was at Woodbridge this morning.) When Joyce asked her
if she was staying with Brian's mother, [MINOR DAUGHTER] said yes. Joyce said,
"you don't want to stay with grandma, she smokes and drinks." What's a kid supposed to
do? And as it turns out, she's not staying with grandma.

Another thing Joyce did was....

uh oh, it's 10Am.

~ Your c----

Page 51 of 142
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: [Child Visitation Supervisor] c---- dogpssy@yahoo.com
Subject: Good morning, Master con't
To: MASTER <z3illa@yahoo.com

Master,

i started rambling on again about Joyce's visitation with her daughter but it started to get
me anxious and i didn't want to do that to myself, or to You, so i'll capsulize:

Joyce let [WELSH AND TIPPIE'S MINOR DAUGHTER] ruin her new clothes with
paint.

Joyce cut [MINOR DAUGHTER'S] bangs, even though she knew that her father wants to
grown her hair long, and even though [MINOR DAUGHTER] protested, Joyce
manipulated her into doing it.

Both of those things were to spite Brian, but the thing with the hair cutting actually hurt
_[MINOR DAUGHTER] because it made her go against her father's wishes and pick
sides. Joyce repeated asked [MINOR DAUGHTER] who she wanted to live with, even
after [MINOR DAUGHTER] said she wanted to live with her.

 Joyce asked [MINOR DAUGHTER] about missing items in her house that she
thinks Brian stole recently (she thinks that Brian gets in through the bedroom
window. i think that she's paranoid.)
 She asked [MINOR DAUGHTER] about Brian's girlfriend, if she lives there (no)
and if she sleeps there (yes).
 She asked [MINOR DAUGHTER] if she has friends at her new apartment and
when [MINOR DAUGHTER] said no, she kepts asking her "You don't have any
friends? None? Didn't Daddy take you to meet any children? (She kept asking
over and over again, as if to insinuate that her father didn't care about her and that
she has more fun at Joyce's, where she has siblings (who actually don't pay all that
much attention to her) and friends.)
 Eventually, despite my cautions and protestations, Joyce told [MINOR
DAUGHTER] that he father is a robber and a cheater, and that her grandmother is
an alcoholic and a smoker.
 Upon leaving, she told [MINOR DAUGHTER] that if her father asks what they
did at her visit, to say that the court says not to talk about it.

Ok, i'm rambling. But basically, Joyce didn't ask or say these things once, but several
times. i kept cautioning her, and then she got angry at me, saying that she doesn't judge
me and that she has covered for me. She said that she'd never call [Child Visitation
Supervisor's Husband] and tell him that i have sex with dogs. Was that a threat?
Whatever. Around 12 noon, she said that the visit was over and that she couldn't do this
again. i told her that i could leave or stay (because although i could tell that [MINOR
DAUGHTER] was a bit confused and conflicted, i didn't feel like she was in danger) and

Page 52 of 142
suggested that we go out to lunch and change the pace. We kept the visit until the regular
time, but by the time she cut [MINOR DAUGHTER] bangs, i decided that i'm not a
policeman and that whatever consequences came out of it were her own responsibility.

When Brian came to pick up [MINOR DAUGHTER], i handed him her painted shoes
and he saw her haircut and i looked miserable and exhausted. i told him that i didn't feel
ready to talk about what happened, but that i'd call the court mediator and ask for advice
about how to fill out my report. i told him that i love Joyce and i know that she loves
[MINOR DAUGHTER], but that i didnt agree with some of the things that she did and
said but if i couldn't control her, that perhaps i should step down as supervisor. He told
me to let him know by mid-week.

So now i'm sitting her looking at my visitation log. i'm not sure what to do.

i feel like a leper. i don't want to be the cause of Joyce losing custody (she implied it, but
i know it's her own doing) but i've also got an obligation to the court. c---debbie called
me. Her husband is on the war path. He found a love letter and a poem that she wrote
for her Master (what the heck was she doing printing them out?) and he's still talking
about the time that i called her cell phone and he answered it. i did the best that i could,
considering that she didn't warn me that she was going to be with her Master. When he
asked me if she was with me, i said yes, but she went to the store. i collaberated her story
that we go to OA meetings together, but when he asked me if we work out together, i said
no. (i live in Martinez and she lives in Brisbane. it didn't make sense.) but she told him
that we do work out together. How was i supposed to know that? She never told me. He
said that i sounded nervous. Hell yea, i was nervous! Anyway, she found an apartment a
few minutes away from her house. She's probably going to move out. Even so, she hates
to hurt her husband. Yea, join the club, missy!

And then there's Donna. i still regret that She had to find out about me. She seems to be
doing ok, though. She let You know, and now She's acting as if nothing happened. i
guess that's Her way. i'm glad, if it works for Her.

And then there's my herpes. Friday night i had a couple of pimples on my chin. Saturday
i had a dozen, Sunday two dozen. Some are like whiteheads, others just red. To an
observer, it looks like mild acne, but to me it looks different. Did i autoinoculate myself
by licking TJEN's
c---? my face was soaking wet and there was ejaculate everywhere and my face was
buried deep in her c---. Master, i hope that You'll tell me if You have any symptoms. If
Cameron or Don get herpes, i hope that You'll help me decide how to respond. i'm not
very quick on my feet when it's confronted unexpectedly without preparation. So........i'm
a sexual leper. Also, i'm in a position to screw Joyce and i don't want to, but i don't know
what to do because i have a responsibility to [WELSH & TIPPIE'S MINOR
DAUGHTER] and the court.... Soper. i screwed c---debbie although she admits that it's
mostly her fault for not communicating with me and for all sorts of evidence that she's
been leaving around on her own and how often she's with her Master. i screwed Donna
inadvertanly. i never imagined that She'd see my profile. i didn't realize that She had a

Page 53 of 142
friend in the lifestyle who would see my profile and know Your handle. And i might
have given You, Cameron, Don and TJEN herpes. i didn't realize that the tender spot on
my lip Wednesday morning was actually a full blown herpes outbreak that's actually
turned out to be symtomaticallly worse than any outbreak i've had in my c---. i'm glad
that You're not going to be home on Wednesday. i wouldn't want You to touch me.

i feel like a leper. And what about Your Wife? i would never do anything or say
anything to let Her know the nature of Our/our relationship. i'm the cleaning lady and
that's the way i think of myself and the way i act when i'm at Your house. When i'm with
Your Mother-In-Law, i'm role-playing and i believe that i'm the cleaning lady. But i'm so
close, so involved. i trust myself, but with all that's happened lately that affects others,
i'm just so scared, Master.

Ok, enough of that. i picked up Your Wife's pants. They sewed the seam and the button
hook and dry cleaned them. i've got Calistoga water and Prilosec OTC in my trunk for
You.

Ok, i'm going to do some work now.

~ Your c----

Date: Mon, 20 Jun2005 11:59:28 -0700 (PDT)

From: [Child Visitation Supervisor] [3 letters of nick deleted by
Newsmakingnews]6156@yahoo.com
Subject: Fwd: PLEASE READ THIS ANSWER TO HARRASSMENT FROM A
LAWYER|
To: [Child Visitation Supervisor's husband at his workplace] @ [Website.com
deleted by Newsmakingnews]

[Child Visitation Supervisor's husband]:

Joyce sent me this on Friday. The email below is in reaction to Brian's lawyer chastising
Joyce for serving Brian with papers again (unnecessarily) due to advice from the court
reporter (not the judge). She also sent this email to several of her friends and to K____
and D_____ (her elder daughter) as well. It just doesn't seem reasonable or rational to
me. She's being evaluated by the courts for her sanity and custody of [WELSH AND
TIPPIE'S MINOR DAUGHTER] and she writes in a huge font in all caps. She says that
Brian beat her up. At the most he shoved her- once. She spelled harass, harassment, and
damn incorrectly. She is making the situation that she created even worse.

i spoke to the court mediator today. She said that i should write everything about
Saturday's visit down in a log. i don't need to elaborate necessarily, just the basics. She
said that if i continue to be supervisor, that it must be with Joyce's understanding that she
comply with the rules, including not going against the wishes of the custodial parent. I

Page 54 of 142
don't think that i can do that. And i'm starting to think that [MINOR DAUGHTER] is
better off with her visits supervised by a professional supervisor. i'm really sad about
this. Joyce is a good friend, but she's not thinking clearly.

I'll call you later. i haven't written my report yet. You've been really good about of this
and i appreciate it. i'm sorry to bring all this drama to our lives. i'm going to call N----'s
mother about watching the cats while we're in Detroit.

Date: June 20, 2005 Supervised Visitation Log filled out and signed by ________
____________(supervisor) stating Joyce's "compliance with rules during visit was poor"
and nothing filled in for "attitude and spirit of cooperation with supervisee" All previous
visits had written in "Excellent". ________(supervisor) has always rated custodial parent
Brian as "good" and "excellent". Attached is the following dated 6/18/05:

Supervised Visitation Log

6/18/05
Tippie/Welsh
D05-00622

Despite disapproval/caution from supervisor, Ms. Welsh:

* Repeatedly asked [WELSH AND TIPPIE MINOR DAUGHTER] about father's living
arrangements and his girlfriend.

* Made disparaging remarks about [MINOR DAUGHTER'S] father and her (paternal)
grandmother.

* Repeatedly asked [MINOR DAUGHTER] who she wanted to live with.

* Allowed [MINOR DAUGHTER] to paint from a gallon paint can in her good clothing
until she was covered in paint. She refused supervisor's offer to get a large T-shirt or to
change her outfit. The clothes were ruined and Ms. Welsh eventually threw them out.

* Trimmed [MINOR DAUGHTER'S] bangs despite _[MINOR DAUGHTER'S] initial

protestations that her Daddy told her to let her hair grow long.

Signed [Child Visitation Supervisor's] signature under her typed signature.

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT)

From: [Child Visitation Supervisor]--- dogpssy@yahoo.com
Page 55 of 142
Subject: Good morning, Master
To: MASTER <z3illa@yahoo.com

Master, Last night my husband helped me to write my visitation log. i made it as short
and concise as a long-winded c--- like me could manage. i told the truth without
embellishing or editorializing it. If only Joyce didn't do things that Brian would see
(allowing [WELSH AND TIPPIE MINOR DAUGHTER] to ruin her clothes and cutting
her bangs) i probably would have submitted a good report and just stepped down as
supervisor. Anyway, i'll give You a copy after i type it (assuming that You're interested
in all this drama. i guess that You are because You met Joyce.)

i actually saw Joyce and her [ELDEST DAUGHTER- K] this morning at my house.
Joyce cancelled her trash service to save money and she uses my can and today is trash
pick up day. i told her that after thinking it over i decided not to be the supervisor
anymore and she was ok with that. i told her that i didn't submit the report yet, but that i
would basically tell the truth in the best way that i could. She suggested that i write down
that everything went fine, but i said that i couldn't do that because of the physical
evidence (MINOR DAUGHTER'S] clothing and hair).

Anyway, K____ said that last night her mother was with her boyfriend (i didn't ask which
one, i've lost track) and that they went for a walk at midnight and were kissing. She
seemed pleased. i may be a s--- and a c---, but i don't think that i've have a man at my
house during the week after the kid's bedtime. i guess i'm being judgmental. And it
doesn't seem fair, because Joyce has never been judgmental of me (and there's plenty to
be judgemental of with me) but i don't tell her this to her face and this isn't about her, but
about her kids.
i know what it's like to be a kid in a divorce. It sucks.

[Child Visitation Supervisor's minor child] was eager to go to camp this morning. i'm so
glad. We dropped a book from (Supervisor's minor child's] classroom off at the school
office (it mistakenly ended up in (Supervisor's minor child's] backpack) and (Supervisor's
minor child] allowed the school secretary to hug child without grimacing. my little child
is growing up and getting social skills.

This morning i told [Supervisor's minor child] that when parents talk bad about each
other to their kids, it isn't good for the kids. i apologized for the times that i called child's
father boring and cheap. i told child that i actually married child's father because of those
qualitites. i told child that boring also means responsible and stable and child said that
child understands that child's father and i might be opposite in some ways but that we
compliment each other. Smart kid.

i love You, Master.

Your c---

Page 56 of 142
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: [Child Visitation Supervisor] c--- dogpssy@yahoo.com
To: MASTER <z3illa@yahoo.com

Master, i faxed my visitation log to Brian's lawyer (i've been doing that every week, at
her request). But first i called Brian. i told him what i had written, and i asked if it was
ok if i only included the things that were physical evidence [WELSH AND TIPPIE
MINOR DAUGHTER'S] clothing and hair) that he would have been obvious to him
about without my report, because i don't want to be on the list of people that Joyce thinks
is against her, i don't want to lose her friendship, and i don't want to feel responsible if
she loses custody of [MINOR DAUGHTER]. He said that he thinks the other things on
my list (like pumping [MINOR DAUGHTER] for information and slandering her father)
are important and not to worry, the psychologists have plenty of their own observations
and my statements would only be one of many. i know he's right. i also know that what
Joyce did this weekend was more about hurting Brian and validating herself than what's
in [MINOR DAUGHTER'S] best interest. Brian told me that [MINOR DAUGHTER]
pissed on herself three times on Sunday. i didn't tell him that she also pissed and shit in
her pants while she was with us on Saturday. Brian is doing his best. He's reading books
about child psychology, taking [MINOR DAUGHTER] to the child psychologist and
trying to keep her busy and happy. He's no saint. But he's got his act a lot more together
than Joyce does at this point. i'm just glad that i'm not the judge in this case.

Anyway, here's what i wrote in my report under the section of "incidents to report, if
any":

SUPERVISED VISITATION LOG

6/18/05
Tippie/Welsh
D05-00622

Despite disapproval/caution from supervisor, Ms. Welsh:

 Repeatedly asked [WELSH AND TIPPIE MINOR DAUGHTER] about father‘s

living arrangements and his girlfriend.
 Made disparaging remarks about [MINOR DAUGHTER'S] father and her
(paternal) grandmother.
 Repeatedly asked [MINOR DAUGHTER] who she wanted to live with.
 Allowed [MINOR DAUGHTER] to paint from a gallon paint can in her good
clothing until she was covered in paint. She refused supervisor‘s offer to get a
large T-shirt or to change her outfit. The clothes were ruined and Ms. Welsh
eventually threw them out.
 Trimmed [MINOR DAUGHTER'S] bangs despite [MINOR DAUGHTER'S]
initial protestations that her Daddy told her to let her hair grow long.

Page 57 of 142
 [CHILD VISITATION SUPERVISOR'S] FAX
TO BRIAN TIPPIE'S ATTORNEY, LISA GILMORE

[Source: Date: 6/21/05 [Child Visitation Supervisor] typewritten and signed note faxed to
Brian Tippie's attorney Lisa Gilmore (925) 296-6001 (FAX number for Whiting, Fallon
& Ross law firm)]:

This is to inform you that am I no longer available to supervise visitation between Ms.
Welsh and her daughter. I understand that a Professional Supervisor will be sought for
their future visitations as soon as possible.

EMAIL OF JUNE 2005

Oh Master. i'm exhausted. How did i get myself into this drama? i'm pretty sure that
Joyce and i will still be friends, but it won't be the same. i'm going to get a backup to feed
my cats next month.

i don't think that i told You this, but i feel partially responsible for her going off the deep
end on Saturday. The week before, when [WELSH AND TIPPIE MINOR DAUGHTER]
pissed her pants, she asked me if it was ok if she pissed on top of them. i figured that
[MINOR DAUGHTER] wouldn't know so it wouldn't hurt her and Brian would figure
that it was [MINOR DAUGHTER'S] piss. Even if it went past the crotch of [MINOR
DAUGHTER'S] pants, they were bunched up in the bottom of the bag. So Joyce pulled
down her pants in the garage, and i held [MINOR DAUGHTER'S] pants between her
legs while she pissed on them. i figured that it didn't hurt anyone and it made Joyce feel
better. But i see now that i was just feeding into her vindictive and immature nature. On
Saturday, she asked me if it was ok if she asked [MINOR DAUGHTER] if Brian had her
potato peeler (she thinks that Brian has been stealing from her). Initially i told her no,
because [MINOR DAUGHTER] wasn't a reliable witness (remember, she said that her
grandmother was watching her this summer and it turns out that she's going to
Woodbridge) but eventually i said that as long as she made it seem innocent and not
accusatory (she asked her if she helped her Daddy cook and then asked her if she used the
potato peeler with him and then asked if he had one like Mommy used to have). [MINOR
DAUGHTER] said yes (which didn't prove a thing) and then Joyce went on to ask
[MINOR DAUGHTER] about every household item that she thinks is missing and she
stopped disguising her questions, at which point i protested. i could see that [MINOR
DAUGHTER] had a blank and glassy stare.

After that, when Joyce started asking questions of [MINOR DAUGHTER] over and over,
i protested and cautioned her and that's when Joyce and i started to argue. i was almost
going to take [MINOR DAUGHTER] and leave, but i thought that might make it even
worse and confuse [MINOR DAUGHTER]. After a while, i just shut my mouth and
figured that whatever actions Joyce took would result in her own consequences. Of
Page 58 of 142
course i kept close to them. i mean, since she was the one who ran away threatening
suicide a few months ago, i didn't want her pulling the same theatrics again with her
daughter in tow.

Sorry Master, thanks for listening. It's heavy on my mind right now. i'm going to do some
work.
~ Your c---

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:40:28 -0700 (PDT)

From: [Child Visitation Supervisor] c--- dogpssy@yahoo.com
To: MASTER <z3illa@yahoo.com

Master,

i'm going for my walk now. Joyce called me while i was working and i didn't answer the
phone, so i'm going to call her while i'm walking. Thanks for listening, Master.

It's weird how much i miss You when You're busy during the week. On the weekends i
know that You're with Your family and i'm happy about that. During the week,
sometimes You don't answer my emails or write to me for a day or two, but i know that
You're reading them and i feel Your presence. Knowing that You're out of touch all day
is weird, but i actually enjoy the visualization of You with a group of professionals,
learning, growing, exchanging ideas. And yea, i imagine that there's some professional c-
-- in the back row checking You out, wondering about what i already know, what a
dynamic/sexual/amazing Man You are.

~ Your c---

Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:22:37 -0700 (PDT)

From: [Child Visitation Supervisor]c--- dogpssy@yahoo.com
To: MASTER <z3illa@yahoo.com

Master,

i spoke to Joyce. She still wants to be my friend. She's not happy about what i wrote on
my visitation log, but she writes it off as me being weak and being manipulated by
Brian. She also thinks that he asked me to supervise her visits because he knew all along
that he could use me as a pawn (as i recall, it was she who suggested me and he agreed.)
True, i'm weak, but i'm also prinicpled and in my heart, i chose to do the right thing. i'll
continue to be her friend and do what i can to make her life easier. i'll continue to
support her through this difficult time and gently advise her when i think that she's doing

Page 59 of 142
things (inadvertanly) that are not in the best interest of her children or are
contaproductive to her case.

While i was out, i also called the herpes hotline. i love those people. The lady reminded
me that only 10% of HSV2occurs on the face and that autoinoculation is rare. my blood
test was negative for HSV1. So maybe the stuff on my lip, uvula and chin isn't genital
herpes after all. But what the heck is it? Maybe i got impetigo, or some other staff
infection. It's more prevelent among children, but it can occur in adults. i looked it up
and it starts in the nose. i had a sore in my nose a couple of months ago. i know, i'm
fishing. But i'd like to think that my mouth is herpes free. The symptoms are getting
better and hardly noticable, but if they come back, i'm going to the doctor for a
diagnosis. Impetigo is treated with antibiotics.

Such drama, huh Master?

i love You so much, even more when You're not around. i'm so glad that i'll be at Your
house tomorrow. Even when You're not home, i just love being there. When i'm in Your
environment, i feel safe and sane, and the rest of my crazy life just melts away.

Thank You, Master.

~ Your c---

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT)

From: [Child Visitation Supervisor]c--- dogpssy@yahoo.com
Subject: Good morning, Master
To: MASTER <z3illa@yahoo.com

Master,

i'm here at work, doing the reporting. i'm in a haze, can't seem to wake up. i'm depressed
and conflicted about what "i did to" Joyce.
i gave her the paperwork yesterday and she was frustrated and angry at me. i don't blame
her. But i did what i thought was right (in my position as court appointed non-
professional supervisor) and what i thought was best, not necessarily for Joyce, but for
[WELSH AND TIPPIE MINOR DAUGHTER]. i'm glad that when i went over there,
Joyce's two older children and Joyce's father were there. It kept things from getting out
of hand. Joyce yelled at me and defended her actions and i just hung my head and said
that i know how she feels, but i made my decision based on my conscience and my
obligation to the court.

It was such a difficult decision to make, but i made it and now i have to live with the
consequences. The way Joyce acted with [MINOR DAUGHTER] on Saturday was so
blatantly inappropriate and i could see how it was hurting and confusing [MINOR

Page 60 of 142
DAUGHTER]. Joyce couldn't see it. i understand that. She's in pain and she feels abused
and misunderstood. And now she feels betrayed by me. i wish that she would get some
help. She saw the court appointed psychiatrist once and she took the medicine for about
6 weeks. i'm not sure that's enough. She still has (in my opinion) the same distorted
outlook, the same paranoia and the same desire for vindication.
i don't know how she's going to pass her follow-up evaluation in August. And now she
has me to blame (although i know that it's only one thing among many.)

i know that i didn't do this to Joyce. Brian left her and it was devestating to her, but i
honestly feel that after the initial breakup, all this legal, custodial and police involvement
she brought upon herself. She doesn't see that. She still can't understand why she's in a
position where she has to prove that she's a good mother. i don't think that she's a bad
mother. i know that she loves her children and that she does what she thinks is best for
them. But i also believe that because of the state she's in at this point in her life, she isn't
able to put their needs before her own. Does this mean that she shouldn't have custody of
[MINOR DAUGHTER]? That's not for me to decide, and honestly i'm not sure. And
yet, my documentation and stepping down as supervisor may result in her losing
custody. i know, i know, the court has a lot of other documented cause against her and
it's Joyce's actions that count the most, but i still feel awful about it all. i've tried
counseling her and i tried to explain how her actions appear to the court, but she keeps
justifying her behavior and she continues to do thing that make her appear irrational and
volatile.

i'm angry at Brian. When i told him that i was considering stepping down, he said not to
worry because he'd just provide a professional supervisor and he'd pay for it. He made it
sound easy. Now his lawyer told Joyce that it's up to her to find and to pay for someone.
That makes it seem like she'd too poor to see her daughter. Of course if it was me, i'd sell
things if i had to, in order to see [Child Visitation Supervisor's minor child].

And speaking of [Child Visitation Supervisor's minor child]. Yes, i know that this could
happen to me. i don't think that [Child Visitation Supervisor's husband] would ever do it,
though. And if it did, i respect authority enough to comply with whatever rules they'd set
for me. With Joyce it's all about principals and it's all about her. If i were in her
situation, it would be all about what's best for my child.

Before i completed the visitation log i spoke to the court mediator and [Child Visitation
Supervisor's husband] helped me write it. Everyone i spoke to about writing the report
and stepping down (except of course for Joyce) said that i was doing the right thing.
i considered writing a good report and stepping down without official explanation. i
considered only documenting the things that were obvious to Brian about that day (her
ruined clothing and her hair cut), but the court mediator and my husband convinced me to
include everything.

So i did the "right" thing. But now i have to live with the consequences. Do i really need
this drama in my life? Don't i have enough of my own? Joyce has been a wonderful
friend to me, but i also know that i've been very helpful and supportive to her over the

Page 61 of 142
years as well. Part of me is relieved to think that our friendship has cooled off. Part of
me is scared that a woman who wrote a disparaging email to Brian's entire company, who
puts signs with photos of Brian's face and car in her window alerting neighbors that if
they see him he's trespassing, who has a website telling her side of the story and giving
out Brian's email telling others to tell him what they think about what he did, who claims
that she spoke to "the media" about what he did in hopes that they'd write an expose and
"ruin" him, who has the key to my house, who knows that i fuck dogs and whore myself,
will do to me. Yesterday when i brought her the paperwork, one of the things that she
said was that she's stuck by and supported me with all the "sick and perverted" things that
i've done. She didn't seem to be threatening me, but i'm prepared.

i'm no saint and i know that what i do indirectly affects my [Child Visitation Supervisor's
minor child]. But i'm with [Child Visitation Supervisor's minor child] father, we act as a
team, i'm responsible and accountable, and i spent lots of time nurturing and supporting
my [Child Visitation Supervisor's minor child]. Even before the breakup, Joyce always
seemed overwhelmed by her kids. She made them very independent, she let them play
unsupervised and sometimes she didn't know where they were.

Ok, that's enough. i'm sorry, Master. This is a big thing for me. i wish that it was black
and white, but it's so complicated.

Yesterday when we went to the orthodontist, the doctor told us that [Child Visitation
Supervisor's minor child] doesn't need to wear [Child Visitation Supervisor's minor
child] retainer anymore. We just have to come for a check up every three months, until
[Child Visitation Supervisor's minor child] loses some more teeth.

i had a good day at Your house. i really enjoyed checking out the model homes with
Your Mother-In-Law. She's so much fun to hang out with.

i don't know why it takes me so long to clean Your house. i feel bad that i didn't finish
Reid's laundry and last night laying in bed i remembered that i missed dusting the table
under the new TV. Adding Reid's room takes time. He leaves a lot of clothes to hang up
and his bed is hard to make because it's heavy and against the wall. i know that i do some
extra things that cleaning ladies dont' usualy do, but i love doing them and i don't think
that they take that long. i'm not sure what it is. i don't eat, i don't linger, i don't dawdle or
take time to look at anything or read anything (except once in a while i smell Your socks
before i put them in the washing machine:) i'm not sure what it is. Laundry takes time.
i'm slower because i'm fatter. But even so. i guess i do an ok job or You'd tell me. i love
cleaning Your house. i always do. i just wish that i felt more productive.

i see that You ran out of water. i'm sorry about that. i guess that it's been hot out. i'll try
to overlap better. i gave You a new pack of Dentyne, a new flavor that they don't have at
Smart and Final yet, but if You like it, i can get more.

i haven't won any Lotto yet, but i won $4 in a scratch off ticket for You.

Page 62 of 142
i guess that's enough for now.

~ Your c---

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:27:03 -0700 (PDT)

From: c <dogpssy@yahoo.com
To: MASTER <z3illa@yahoo.com

Master,

With all my droning on and on about Joyce, i forgot to tell You what i decided about my
work hours. After i wrote to You on Tuesday, i stopped by Marty's office to say
goodnight. He said that whatever hours i picked would always be flexible. He said that
as long as i got 20 hours in, it was ok with him. What a nice guy! He really seems to like
me and my work and he wants to keep me. So basically, i'm choosing 9:30-3:30 (that
includes an hour for lunch/walking) Mon, Tues, Thurs, Fri. On weeks where You want
me to come to You on another day or whatever, i can work extra hours on another couple
of days to make it up. So i'll have a basic framework, but i can still be flexible for You,
and for [Child Visitation Supervisor's minor child]. i think that'll work. It'll start On July
1st.

i love You, Master. Today i'm thinking about You with the Senator and her people.
You're so professional, knowledgeable, competant and charming. And You're oh so very
handsome! i'm imagining You with all those people, explaining and discussing how
things will go for the show. i'm sure that some c___ in the senator's entourage (or the
senator herself?) will notice what a hottie You are. Sheesh, i sure could use Your c--- up
my a-- right about now. And some pain. i could really use some pain. But only the kind
that You can give me. You're oh so good at that. Only You, Master. Only You.

x ~ Your c---

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:34:29 -0700 (PDT)

From: c <dogpssy@yahoo.com
To: MASTER <z3illa@yahoo.com

Master,

i was just thinking. (i know, i know...) Maybe everything is not all my fault. Not with
Joyce and not with whatever s___ i have (had, actually, it's almost gone) on my chin. i'm
so guilt orientated. Maybe i got the rash from the c--- i licked. Maybe it was some sort
of non-specific bacteria in her amazingly copious c--- -ejaculate....

Page 63 of 142
Back to data entry.

~ Your c---

Cover page to Karen Hobb's Ph.d. with [Child Visitation

Supervisor's] attached visitation logs from Brian Tippie's
attorney Lisa J. Gilmore's Legal Assistant

[Source: Date: 6/23/05 Cover page to Karen Hobbs, Ph.D., 376 Colusa, #2, Kensington,
CA 94707. re Tippie v. Welsh, Brian & Joyce. Enclosure(s): Visitation logs from [Child
Visitation Supervisor] and her notice of withdrawal as supervisor, dated June 22, 2005.

"Please review for your information and records. Prepared and signed by Marlena Noble,
Legal Assistant to Lisa J. Gilmore, Esq."

RELEVANT BILLABLE HOURS BY BRIAN TIPPIE'S LAWYER

LISA GILMORE

The following attorney-client billing clearly shows an increased amount of

communication between Brian Tippie's attorney Lisa Gilmore and the mind controller for
the child, Dr. Heidi Perryman, and the custody evaluator Dr. Karen Hobbs:

Date: 6/06/05 Emp LJG Letter to Dr. Perryman re evaluation report; email to client;
telephone call from Dr. Perryman; letter to Ms. Welsh re-scheduling appointment with
Dr. Perryman; update letter to Dr. Hobbs. Hours: 0.5 Amount: $75.00 (Phone records for
Atty Lisa Gilmore of Whiting, Fallon & Ross dated July 5, 2005)

The next billing by Lisa Gilmore is dated Saturday, 25 June 2005. That date is exactly
one week after the last visit between mother and daughter when Joyce Welsh threw the
child visitation supervisor/slave out of her home. The communications between the co-
conspirators in that one-week period are documented by the those emails sent and
received during that time frame by the supervisor/slave:

Last night my husband helped me to write my visitation log.... Anyway, i'll give You a
copy after i type it
(Source: Email from slave to Master, 6/21/05, 10:02:18 am)

i spoke to the court mediator today. She said that i should write everything about
Saturday's visit down in a log. i don't need to elaborate necessarily, just the basics. She
said that if i continue to be supervisor, that it must be with Joyce's understanding that she

Page 64 of 142
comply with the rules, including not going against the wishes of the custodial parent. I
don't think that i can do that. And i'm starting to think that [WELSH AND TIPPIE
MINOR DAUGHTER] is better off with her visits supervised by a professional
supervisor. i'm really sad about this. Joyce is a good friend, but she's not thinking clearly.
(Source: Email from supervisor to husband, 6/20/05, 11:59:28 am)

i faxed my visitation log to Brian's lawyer (i've been doing that every week, at her
request). But first i called Brian. i told him what i had written, and i asked if it was ok if i
only included the things that were physical evidence [MINOR DAUGHTER'S] clothing
and hair) that would have been obvious to him about without my report, because i don't
want to be on the list of people that Joyce thinks is against her, i don't want to lose her
friendship, and i don't want to feel responsible if she loses custody of [MINOR
DAUGHTER]. He said that he thinks the other things on my list (like pumping [MINOR
DAUGHTER] for information and slandering her father) are important and not to worry,
the psychologists have plenty of their own observations and my statements would only be
one of many. i know he's right.
(Source: Email from slave to Master, 6/21/05 11:00: 26 a.m.)

i'm glad that when i went over there, Joyce's two older children and Joyce's father were
there. It kept things from getting out of hand. Joyce yelled at me and defended her
actions and i just hung my head and said that i know how she feels, but i made my
decision based on my conscience and my obligation to the court.
(Source: Email from slave to Master, 6/23/05 10:00:38 a.m.)

i'm angry at Brian. When i told him that i was considering stepping down, he said not to
worry because he'd just provide a professional supervisor and he'd pay for it. He made it
sound easy. Now his lawyer told Joyce that it's up to her to find and to pay for someone.
That makes it seem like she'd too poor to see her daughter.
(Source: Email from slave to Master, 6/23/05 10:00:38 a.m.)

The increased urgency felt by Brian Tippie and his attorney and the professional co-
conspirators is clearly demonstrated by the fact that they were working on a Saturday as
the following attorney-client billing by Lisa J. Gilmore shows.

Date: 6/25/05 Emp LJG Telephone call to Dr. Karen Hobbs re status of case; telephone
call to client; telephone call to Ms. Welsh; email to Ms. Welsh re restraining order.
Hours: 0.3 Amount $45.00

The concern spreads to the child's therapist as documented by the letter of Heidi
Perryman, Ph.D. to Joyce Welsh written two days later on 6/27/05:

LETTER TO JOYCE WELSH FROM HER MINOR CHILD'S

THERAPIST
HEIDI PERRYMAN, Ph.D.

Page 65 of 142
Dear Ms. Welsh:

Thank you for returning the child development questionnaire. It was very helpful. I'm
sorry to learn that you will no longer be doing visits with (child visitation
supervisor). I hope you have already begun looking for a professional supervisor, so that
your daughter can have contact with you soon. Please understand that I can't have the role
of giving your daughter CD's or letters from you. I'm sending the CD back and hopefully
you can give it to her yourself in person.

Sincerely,

Heidi Perryman
PSY13775

[Source: Date: 6/27/05 Letter from Heidi Perryman, Ph.D. (3704 Mt. Diablo Blvd., STE
319, Lafayette, CA 94549) to Joyce Welsh as follows (Emphasis supplied by
Newsmakingnews in bold].

The following emails written on July 7 and 8, 2005 were the final communications
between the [Child Visitation Supervisor] Slave and her Master about the slave's
problems while serving as a court-appointed supervisor for the minor daughter of Joyce
Welsh and Brian Tippie:

Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005, 15:35:17 -0700 (PDP)

From: [Child Visitation Supervisor c--- dogpssy@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: leaving work
To: "x x" z3illa@yahoo.com Master,

Thank you for your response. Thank you for being real with me. You're right, things
that happened before You knew me are none of my business. But they are part of what
has made You who You are and part of who i love and worship. Even so, thank You for
telling me about which VD You had. I would have understood and accepted it if You had
herpes and didn't tell me, but that's nice to know that's not the case....

About Joyce. i don't believe that i've been judgemental of her. Just like she's been with
me, i've been open-minded and tried to understand her reactions to her situation. After
some time has passed i'm going to approach her and ask if she would like to resume our
friendship. What i'm stressing about and what i'd like your opinion about is what You
think about my decision to write and submit the report i did. i feel that i did the right
thing for [WELSH AND TIPPIE MINOR DAUGHTER], but i feel so guilty about
hurting Joyce.
I know that I can't have it both ways. i'm just wondering what You think i should have
done, considering what she did that day and what my responsibilities were as supervisor.

I'm trying to leave on time. May i call You on the drive home?

Page 66 of 142
Your c---

c----

Your situation with Joyce needs to be resolved by you and her. You don't have to agree
with everything she does to be her friend, and that is what she needs now. Don't lecture
her, don't tell her she is doing anything wrong, just be there as a sounding board. That is
my opinion. I don't agree with all she is doing either, but don't feel I would tell her if she
were my friend. Sometimes we need to go through trauma to grow..............

I am and will always be, your Master.

Master,

You are my priority and i'm consumed by you. i'm still upset about Joyce. (I saw Brian
yesterday and he said that she hasn't contacted his lawyer about getting a replacement
supervisor for her visits. Her reevaluation for custody is 8/11).

... I'm so sick and tired of spending my life depressed, guilty, lost, and confused but I
don't seem confortable living any other way. i love you Master. Your c---

Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:56:50 0700 PDT

[Child Visitation Supervisor c--- dogpssy@yahoo.com
Subject: Re /leaving work / good morning, Master
To: "x x" z3illa@yahoo.com

Thank you for your feedback about Joyce. Your insight and opinion are very important
and valuable to me. It's true that 90% of the time all that I want from You is to listen to
me, but this time I wanted your feedback. my husband counseled me to do what i did in
regards to the report and stepping down, and everyone that i spoke to about it supported
me in what i did, but i couldn't put it to rest until i heard from You. It's not even that I
needed you to agree 100% with my decision to write a negative report and quit as
supervisor. If You had said that i basically did the right thing but that i could have
written the report in a more positive or general way, i would have understood. In
retrospect, You're right that agreeing to be the visitation supervisor was setting myself up
to be manipulated. I will learn from that mistake.

Page 67 of 142
I can understand how You see me as judgemental of Joyce's lifestyle. i am. But i
honestly don't believe that i imposed my opinions on her. Occasionally i would say
something like i don't understand why you did that" or "i think it would be more helpful
and effective if you did "x". But i was always sympathetic and supportive. i did what i
could to help her, physically, emotionally and financially.

...I'll write more later.

Your c---

c---

You may call me. Whether you did right by Joyce is not the issue, did you do right by
the child. Joyce is an adult and should know better. It is wrong to put a child in the
middle of two fighting parents. Joyce was wrong. You were right.

M.

DATE: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:47:46 - 0900 (PDT)

[Child Visitation Supervisor c--- dogpssy@yahoo.com
To: "MASTER" x3illa@yahoo.com

Master: Whew, I'm finally alone at my desk and able to continue my garrulous gab.
M___ is a bit stressed out this week because of the start of the new database program and
trying to wind up the SLOS project and tie up loose ends....

Anyway, about Joyce. I'm kinda relieved not to have her drama in my life right now, but
I really do care for her as a person and I want to remain her friend, and to help and
support her. Maybe not with the same intensity, but with something that works for both
of us. I'm not sure how she feels about me right now. When I gave her the court
paperwork she was frustrated and hurt, but she didn't seem angry.
I hope that's still the case. When I get back from Detroit I'll probably write to her rather
then call her so that I can do a good job of being clear, and give her a chance to think
about how she wants to proceed.

I love You, Master. Three years! Three amazing years You've stuck by me, nurtured me
and supported me. You're a wonderful friend, an exciting in amorato and the best Master
a c--- like me could ever hope to have.

Thank you, Master.

You're so good to me....

Page 68 of 142
Your c---

ANOTHER RELEVANT BILLABLE HOURS BY BRIAN

TIPPIE'S LAWYER LISA GILMORE

Date: 7/12/05 Emp LJG Telephone calls to client re upcoming hearings and visitation;
email to client; telephone call from Ms. Welsh re visitation; telephone call from Dr. Heidi
Perryman re visitation; telephone call to [Child Visitation Supervisor, i.e. the Slave],
hours: 0.5 Amount $75.00

LETTERS TO JOYCE WELSH FROM BRIAN TIPPIE'S

ATTORNEY LISA J. GILMORE

Letter to Joyce Welsh from attorney Lisa J. Gilmore dated 7/13/05

"Pursuant to our conversation yesterday, a visit with [WELSH AND TIPPIE'S MINOR
DAUGHTER] has been arranged on Sunday, July 24, 2005 at [Child Visitation
Supervisor, i.e. the Slave's]. [Child Visitation Supervisor, i.e. the Slave] has agreed to
supervise a single two-hour visit. The visit is tentatively scheduled from 10:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m.

As Dr. Perryman has explained you may visit with [MINOR DAUGHTER] regularly as
soon as you arrange for a new supervisor to oversee the visitation. I understand that Dr.
Perryman has given you several references. There are professional supervisors that you
may hire to exercise your visitation. While there is a fee for this service, it should not
prevent you from visiting with [MINOR DAUGHTER].

If you want to visit with [MINOR DAUGHTER] prior to July 24, 2005 or thereafter,
please make efforts to arrange for a supervisor. In addition to the references provided by
Dr. Perryman, the following supervisors are also acceptable: Safe Exchange (925) 681-
1177; Kids Come First (Stacy Rodriguez) (9510) 432-3204; or Neoma Gottlieb (925)
200-7098.

Mr. Tippie spoke with Jennifer at Safe Exchange and was told that each parent must go to
the office to register; each parent must pay a $40.00 registration fee; and the hourly fee is
$40.00 with a 2.5 hour minimum. A 2.5 hour visit is $100.00. You will be responsible
for paying the hourly fee, which is due the day of your visit. Safe Exchange has
availability on Saturday, July 23, 2005.

Page 69 of 142
Also, we are still waiting for your signature to release your interest in Mr. Tippie's Honda
Pilot. Once the title is executed, you will no longer be liable for accidents or damage
done by the vehicle. As a joint owner, you are jointly and severally liable for any
damage that the vehicle may cause. Please call our office to schedule a time to sign the
title."

Letter to Joyce Welsh from attorney Lisa J. Gilmore dated 7/15/05

[Note: In this 7/15/05 Letter from Lisa J. Gilmore to Joyce the first five paragraphs
pertain to Brian Tippie's Honda Pilot and Vanguard Money Market Account.] The
following paragraph on pg. 1 & 2 states:

"Also, we informed Mr. Tippie that your friend, Christine Althaus, is willing to supervise
visitation. We are advised that Mr. Tippie does not know this woman and has no
knowledge of her relationship with your [MINOR DAUGHTER]. He does not feel
comfortable using her services for visitation. Perhaps you can explain who this person is
and why you feel she would be an appropriate supervisor. Again, there are many
professional supervisors that you may use to supervise visitation. Additionally, we
informed you earlier this week, [Child Visitation Supervisor, i.e. the Slave], has agreed to
supervise a single visit on July 24, 2005. Please confirm that you plan to participate in
this visit."

Letter to Joyce Welsh from attorney Lisa J. Gilmore dated 7/22/05

This letter is in reply to your voicemail of July 22, 2005.

"To this date, our office has received the name of one (1) proposed supervisor, Christine
Althaus. In your handwritten note of July 14, 2005, you stated, "My several friends do
not want to have anything to do with Brian." If you have other proposed supervisors,
please forward contact information for each person to our office.

Although Mr. Tippie does not know Ms. Althaus, he is happy to meet her and consider
her as a potential supervisor. He hopes to make arrangements to meet with Ms. Althaus
on Saturday, July 23, 2005, and has left her a voicemail message indicating such. Mr.
Tippie wants you to have regular visits with [MINOR DAUGHTER], but an appropriate
supervisor must be in place.

As we have informed you on multiple occasions, [Child Visitation Supervisor, i.e. the
Slave] has agreed to supervise a single visit for two to three hours on Sunday, July 24,
2005. We asked you to confirm this visit by today, but still have not received a
confirmation. If you wish to exercise your visitation rights this weekend, please call my
office by 5:00 p.m. today to confirm. If we do not receive confirmation, we will inform
[Child Visitation Supervisor, i.e. the Slave] and Mr. Tippie that the visit is cancelled.

Page 70 of 142
The pressure on Joyce Welsh steadily increased as the various professionals
communicated with each other to try to prevent any revelations about the dark side of the
[Child Visitation Supervisor, i.e. the Slave] they chose.

It should be noted that the only comment that Brian Tippie had when asked about this
situation was, “It’s all Joyce's fault".

The same day attorney Lisa Gilmore wrote her third letter to Joyce Welsh dated 7/22/05
urging yet another visit with the tainted [Child Visitation Supervisor, i.e. the Slave], the
Slave sent her final email to her former friend, as follows: Joyce Welsh did not reply.

Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:26:33 -0700 (PDT)

From: [Child Visitation Supervisor] [First three letters of name deleted by
Newsmakingnews6156@yahoo.com
To: Joyce Welsh <strahberry@yahoo.com

Dear Joyce,

Yesterday morning I couldn't find my cell phone. When I got home, I looked all over the
house. When I got home from work, I finally found it in the laundry basket in my closet.
How did it get there? Well... on Wednesday I was wearing a skirt and blouse with no
pockets. I had my cell phone in my brassiere. I guess that when I changed into my
nightgown on Wednesday night, I flung my skirt, my blouse, my bra, and my cell phone
into the laundry!

When I checked my missed messages, I saw that you had called me. The display said
that you called at 10:37AM. I think that was actually before I called you from work. I
had been waiting weeks to call you because I felt that we needed some time to heal and to
get things in perspective. But even after all these weeks, I felt so awkward and
uncomfortable that the words didn't come out right.

I know that I hurt and disappointed you. In retrospect, it was a mistake for me to take on
the responsibility of being non-professional supervisor of your visits with [WELSH AND
TIPPIE'S MINOR DAUGHTER]. I did it for the same reason that I came with you to
court, to testify as a witness in the restraining order case. I did it because I knew how
much you and [MINOR DAUGHTER] both need to see each other. But being supervisor
set me up, and it drove a wedge between us. I never wanted that to happen.

Writing the report and stepping down as the non-professional supervisor for your visits
with _[MINOR DAUGHTER] was one of the hardest decisions that I ever had to make,
but I believe that I was obligated not only to serve the court, but to do what they had
taught us and what I believe was the best thing for [MINOR DAUGHTER]. I never
wanted to hurt you or to be in such a position of power or judgment (I know that you
never judged me, although there‘s plenty to judge). I‘m not a perfect mother and I hope
that I‘m never in a situation where I‘m under a microscope like you are now, having to
prove yourself. But we both agreed to put me in that position and when I saw you doing

Page 71 of 142
things that we both learned were not good for [MINOR DAUGHTER] (talking bad about
Brian and putting her in the middle of your adult dispute with her father) and how they
affected her (she cried and she wet and pooped her pants) I felt caught in the middle with
no good solution.

I know that you're a good mother. I know that you love [MINOR DAUGHTER] with all
of your heart. But I also understand how much pain and anguish you‘ve been through and
how I believe that it affected your judgment that day. I understand why you now want
someone else to supervise your visits with her. I hope that things work out with [MINOR
DAUGHTER] as supervisor and that you can see [MINOR DAUGHTER] again soon and
often.

The last couple of times that we spoke you seemed hurried and distracted. I understand if
you're not interested or if you're not ready to be friends with me again. I‘ll be here if and
when you are.

I believe that we were both very good to each other for many years and that we shared a
wonderful friendship. I still love you like a sister. We gave each other the shirts off of
our backs (literally), we supported and encouraged each other, we shared confidences,
and in general we had a blast. I love your children as my own and I know that you feel
the same way about [Child Visitation Supervisor's minor child].

I know that you're a strong woman and that you'll get your life back even better than
before. Learning from this dilemma, I don't think that it's helpful to you for me to get in
the middle of things again, but if there's any other way that I can help you, at any time in
the future, please let me know.

Sincerely, ~ [Child Visitation Supervisor]

By the time this final email was written to Joyce Welsh by the woman who conspired to
destroy her relationship with her daughter, all the evidence of the slave's sexual conduct
had already been hand delivered to the Contra Costa County Animal Control office by
Jack Welsh. On July 29, 2005 Contra Costa Control Animal Control opened its
investigation into the bestiality case involving this child visitation supervisor appointed
by Commissioner Josanna Berkow. Investigator Joseph DeCosta was assigned to the
case. Ultimately mother Joyce Welsh testified for four hours before Superior Court
Judge William Kolin giving testimony that facilitated search warrants. She was escorted
to and from the court by deputy DeCosta and she was constantly in the company of a
court house deputy sheriff. Following her testimony and the introduction of the bestiality
pictures and documentation, Superior Court William Kolin told Joyce Welsh not to talk
about this case to anyone. Terrified for herself and her children Joyce obeyed the judge's
instructions. What happened next to the mother and daughter is typical of the immoral
cover-ups that occur in the Family Law Courts around our nation.

Page 72 of 142
On Tuesday, April 3, 2007, Joyce Welsh goes to trial versus her husband in Contra Costa
Superior Court regarding permanent child custody and visitation of her minor daughter
before Judge Barry Baskin in the Spinetta Family Law Court building in Martinez,
California at 1:30 p.m.

Virginia McCullough © April 2, 2006

vmccullough@hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________

What happened with the case of bestiality? The court LOST the paperwork, the file and
all the contents including the Senator, Judges, CEO‘s, government officials that were
listed in the confiscation material. The SLAVE- Hilderbrandt received 20 hours of
community service, and chose her own therapists. Nothing happened to THE MASTER-
he is still making pictures and selling his illegal videos at COMCAST. Both Slave and
Master are still together. The Slaves Husband now has the same diseases as his wife.
They lost nothing.

I on the other hand was forced to move several thousands of miles away from the abuse.
Now, and due to the treatment, have no rights what so ever. In fact, I lost my passport due
to the illegal order which the county said they will not follow. Brian Tippie NEVER
followed the order as evident by the correspondence between Teresa Schuman and Randy
Kolim and in his own words. Now no follow up, an order that was embroiled with Judge
Barry Baskins hatred of the respondent, Joyce L. Welsh. The below pictures are
completely disgusting and I am not giving them to you as pornography, but as evidence
to this case and what was being hidden or protected by the courts and those listed as part
of the illegal acts. There was also prostitution, child abuse and women suffrage in that
case.

Page 73 of 142
Page 74 of 142
Page 75 of 142
Page 76 of 142
Page 77 of 142
Page 78 of 142
Page 79 of 142
Page 80 of 142
Page 81 of 142
Page 82 of 142
Page 83 of 142
Page 84 of 142
Page 85 of 142
Page 86 of 142
Page 87 of 142
Page 88 of 142
Page 89 of 142
Page 90 of 142
Page 91 of 142
Page 92 of 142
Page 93 of 142
Page 94 of 142
 ______________________________________________________________________
The above is what I gave to the officers (plus more), after I was being threatened by the
supervising visitations appointee. This gives me nightmares; but the knowledge that I
could be killed for bringing this forward, is scarier. The names of the files are by
DEBORAH HILDEBRANDT, and ROBERT ―BOB‖ CALVILLO. You can take this
now- I want nothing more than to be left alone, protected, given my constitutional rights
back and not be severely punished for airing out the courts dirty laundry. The senators,
CEO‘s, Politicians, Judges, CEO‘s, and high officials that were in this illegal act, of
child/women torture, prostitution, human suffrage and severe animal abuse/death (dogs
were put to death due to herpes/chlamydia infections given to them by the above thing)

Page 95 of 142
and other various acts that were discovered during the apprehension of evidence and
ascertained on a warrant. Which the file, from my understanding and record, has
disappeared, dismissed, covered up, but it is actually still happening today.

PASSPORT
My passport was cancelled when I tried to have more pages added, by the Embassy in
Guatemala, for child support arrearages. I did not have an opportunity to state the facts,
or explain the county refused to follow the order. In fact, I found out that the order was
not followed at all, except the parts that were ordered of me. The below e-mails are
evidence of the order not being followed. As it stated in the order, “a. Petitioner is to use
his best efforts at facilitating the reunification therapy and is to attend sessions, if
required to do so by the therapist. Respondent is also ordered to attend the
reunification therapy as required by the therapist.”

California Laws and regulations/ Psychology § 11165. As used in this article ―child‖
means a person under the age of 18 years. In order for Christina Lynn Tippie to be seen
by any psychologists, her father, Brian William Tippie, who has legal custody would
have to sign a Consent Form, for the minor child. Brian William Tippie would have to
contact the psychologists, present the order, set up appointments, attend until the
psychologists stated otherwise, then the reunification therapy would begin.

I continued to call my daughter every week on Tuesday at 6:00 pm- 6:15 pm as ordered.
It was easy to contact me through e-mail or by phone- Brian Tippie could not and still
does not refer to me as Joyce, let alone contact me directly to ask for a time I would be
available to start the therapy. He NEVER attempted to contact me about therapy, or
followed through with seeking the first person listed.

A child support order is not set in concrete but is subject to change should future
conditions warrant (The court retains jurisdiction to change the order). A child support
order is as enforceable as any other court judgment or decree, including one that states
the providers are now designated as appropriate recipients of the support payment due to
petitioner. An existing support order may be modified if the child's needs or the paying
parent's resources change. But Willful Disobedience as to having knowledge of the final
court order by the Petitioner, Brian William Tippie, which IF the judge made a finding
based on the facts and circumstances presented, this issue would not be a problem.
Supporting my own children, while Brian made over $80,000.00 a year, while I made less
than $18,000.00 a year, it seems the child support order was changed to be given to the
psychologists. Immediately after the final court order, I contacted the Contra Costa Child
Support Office and they refused to follow the order. I paid the amount ordered each
month- but as Brian Tippie stated below, he did not follow through with the final order-
which in his control, and having stated, ―I will make sure you never see your daughter
again‖-also discussed before Judge Barry Baskin and of his knowledge; It has remained
as a double jeopardy –because I had no control over Brian‘s side of the order.

E-mails below are copied directly from my inbox:

Page 96 of 142
From Theresa Schuman
To strahberry@yahoo.com
May 9
Hi Joyce
I don't believe I am familiar with you and am not sure I can help with enforcement issues.
I don't know what your relationship is to the family and I don't know what family you are
calling about. I don't return calls out of the country especially when I do not know the
parties or where I am calling to.

Sent from my iPhone

_________________________________________________________
From strahberry@yahoo.com
To Theresa Schuman, strahberry@yahoo.com
May 11
Dear Teresa Shuman,

Thank you for contacting me, after I left messages on April 25, 2014 and two times on May
9, 2014. It is greatly appreciated.

From your response, it seems that you are not aware of the final court order or the
circumstances as to my urgency for contacting you- I will do the best I can to bring you up
to speed.

In 2007, a final order was completed by Judge Barry Baskin from the Contra Costa County
Courthouse in Martinez, Ca. (copy below).

I called to see if Brian William Tippie had "used his best efforts at facilitating the
reunification therapy," and was told that he had not contacted you (this was in the beginning
of 2008). Since that time and to my knowledge, nothing has been done; except his allowance
of the 15 minute calls, when he deemed it permissible.

Our child, Christina Lynn Tippie is now 15 years old and pleading for help. I have
consistently been calling her each week and she has done what her father has required of her:
most, if not all of the negative comments, or carrying messages from her father through her
to me, has been rectified. Despite the history that has shown damage, my daughter still has a
bond and seeks a relationship with her mother. This is the reasoning for contacting you to
comply with/ and to follow through the court order that was ignored by Christina‟s father,
Brian William Tippie purposely.

I believe at this time, a one hour call per week with Christina with a qualified reunification
therapist would satisfy the final order and assist Christina in the healing process. Although,
Brian William Tippie had made it clear, “I will make sure you never see your daughter
again,” and it has become the case. Christina feels the effects of isolation, not being able to
communicate openly (without fear) and has indicated that she wants a relationship with her
mother.

Page 97 of 142
The final court order had stipulated your assistance in this process and I am seeking your
direction in complying with the order. I am in Guatemala and my number is 502-4440-2315,
skype name is strahlady, E-mail is strahberry@yahoo.com. I have also copied this message to
Christina‟s father, Brian William Tippie (His number is 925-917-1854, e-mail is
b_tippie@yahoo.com).

Sincerely,
Ms. Joyce Lynn Welsh (Mother to Christina Lynn Tippie-dob Jan. 18, 1999).

CASE NO. D05-0622

Brian Tippie vs. Joyce L. Welsh

Custody/ Visitation:
Sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor child, Christina L. Tippie, d.o.b. 1/18/99,
to father, Brian W. Tippie, with professionally supervised visitation to mother as follows:
a. For at least six months visits between the respondent and Christina will be in a
supervised and therapeutic environment, once a week for one hour with Teresa
Schuman of Concord and failing her, with Randy Kolin of Walnut Creek at a mutually
convenient time starting from the beginning of December. The goal of such therapy will be
to determine whether and when therapeutic visits could be ended, whether professionally
supervised visitation may be phased in and under what circumstances, if any, it may be
phased out. A report from Dr. Schuman or Dr. Kolin should be provided to both parties
once six months of such visits have been concluded. The monthly child support payable
by Respondent to Petitioner may be used to pay these providers who are now
designated as appropriate recipients of the support payments due to Petitioner.
Respondent is ordered to not visit with Christina at her school or anywhere else until the
conclusion of the therapeutic visits and further order of court. Before the visits commence
the doctor(s) are to be provide full and complete reports from Dr. Hobbs and Dr. Perryman,
this order and all other orders made in this case re: custody and/or visitation.
b. Neither party is to use derogatory or disparaging remarks concerning the other
parent in the presence of Christina or to allow any third party to make these types of
comments or repeat them to Christina. The parties are to inform Christina (if asked) that
this situation is simply the result of the legal system at work, that both parties hope for a
change and the current situation is not the fault of any other party. Petitioner is to use his
best efforts at facilitating the reunification therapy and is to attend sessions, if
required to do so by the therapist. Respondent is also ordered to attend the
reunification therapy as required by the therapist.
c. Upon receipt of such report (following six (6) months of such visits) either party can file
a motion to modify this order, which is now a permanent order which, in the absence of a
material change in circumstances, is not a modifiable order.
d. Petitioner can go on the vacation requested and in the event that Respondent fails to
sign the appropriate passport and travel documentation today, the Clerk of the Court is
authorized to do so on respondent‟s behalf.
e. Respondent will be entitled to phone call visitation with Christina each Tuesday
from 6:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. effective 1/1/08, and Petitioner will be entitled to record such
phone calls to ensure compliance with the Court‟s order.
Page 98 of 142
This final judgement resolves all motions and any other pending issues in this case. The
Court notes that Respondent did file a request for the recusal of Judge Baskin which was
never personally served as required by CCP 170.3(c)(1). It is therefore mooted by this
judgment. Even if it had been personally served the motion would be stricken as untimely as
Respondent stated from inception that Judge Baskin is biased, therefore the motion was not
made “at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the
ground for disqualification.” Under CCP 170.3(c)(1).
The clerk is directed to enter a final judgment today in accordance with this order. Parties are
reminded that they have the right to appeal this order and that the time to file an appeal runs
from today‟s date. November 16, 2007
____________________________________________________________
From Theresa Schuman, PhD
To strahberry@yahoo.com, b_tippie@yahoo.com
May 11
Hi Joyce,
I read your e-mail and also copied Christina's father since you sent me his e-mail address
and I generally always contact both parents when reunification work is being considered.
I don't know what the situation is regarding you're being in Guatemala and wether it is
temporary or permanent and if you ever travel to the US. If you're being out of the
country is temporary, how I would proceed is to have the other parent contact me by
phone if he is also willing for this to occur. If the other parent is not willing, I cannot
enforce the order and the parent requesting the reunification would have to file a motion
with the court. If Christina's father is willing, I would meet with him and you separately,
then meet with Christina before I meet with you and Christina together. If being out of
the country is permanent, I am not available to help you. Reunification work is difficult
enough and using Skype to do the therapy is not something that I feel comfortable doing
that. I have some experience with such an arrangement and it was very difficult. You
might try Dr. Kolin as he is the other name in the order. Dr. Schuman

Sent from my iPad

__________________________________________________________

From strahberry@yahoo.com
To Theresa Schuman, PhD, strahberry@yahoo.com
May 12
Hello, Teresa Schuman, PhD.

I have to ask a question, and it does pertain to the final court order which was not followed.
At any time, did Mr. Tippie contact you from the date the order specified? At any time have
you been in contact (other than this correspondence) or spoken to Mr. Tippie or Jenna
Dawson/Tippie? If not I would need that in writing for my records, IF so, I would need the
specific date and the outcome of that request in writing.

Due to the legal ramification of this situation, I need to have a short professional letter
addressing the reasoning behind the denial of such legally required position as being the
therapist for Brian Tippie and Christina, and providing Reunification Therapy for myself and

Page 99 of 142
my daughter. The circumstances in which a psychologist is legally required to disclose
information to others and the final court order deems this necessary to proceed.

It is apparent that the other parent is not willing to follow the order- as it stated that he was
to set up the therapy with Christina, and I would be contacted for reunification therapy
therefore after. The problem here is the willingness, not the location. In this case, court
ordered clients have the privilege of resisting treatment, even though it is ordered by the
judicial system to receive therapy.

I have a Skype account and can facilitate the necessary contact, even by phone, at anytime it
is requested.

At this time, I have to let you know by bringing this forward I fear for the safety of
my child, Christina Lynn Tippie. "That a court ordered litigant (ordered patient)
poses a serious danger of violence to the victim (unjustified mental suffering,
psychological and physical abuse) to Christina Lynn Tippie, and it bears a duty to
exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that danger." In as
much as I am trying to follow the order and have been completely denied a
relationship with my daughter; it is a duty to warn you, that further control and abuse
with reaching out from a plea from my daughter will trigger further abuse and
isolation by her father that has deemed her a possession and not a person of worth
(daughter’s words).

Indeed, while the California court did not reach the issue of threats reported by other third
parties … the court did not rule out future extension of the Tarasoff doctrine to cover such
cases as well. (Ewing v. Goldstein (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 807 and Ewing v. Northridge
Hospital Medical Center (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 1289).
"Conceive of circumstances involving an alleged breach of a psychotherapist's duty to warn
in which expert guidance may be useful." (Even a court order bears responsibility)
Psychologists create, and to the extent the records are under their control, maintain,
disseminate, store, retain, and dispose of records and data relating to their professional and
scientific work in order to (1) facilitate provision of services later by them or by other
professionals, (2) allow for replication of research design and analyses, (3) meet institutional
requirements, (4) ensure accuracy of billing and payments, and (5) ensure compliance with
law. (APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, 6.01) (A Civil Code §
43.92 (a))

I am not copying this to Brian William Tippie, but if you do (read what was written above
first). Hopefully he will not cancel several telephone calls in a row, as he has done in the past
(Mother's Day week-Tuesday call)-when Christina really wants to talk to someone that
listens. My concerns are valid and the only way to get Christina some help is by asking for
the court order to be followed.

Since you have indicated that I am to contact Dr. Randy Kolin, would you have his direct
number and e-mail?

Sincerely,
Joyce Lynn Welsh (Christina Lynn Tippie‟s Mother-Born January 18, 1999)
Page 100 of 142
_______________________________________________________________________
From Theresa Schuman, PhD
To strahberry@yahoo.com, b_tippie@yahoo.com
May 12 at 7:02 PM
Hi Joyce,
I received your e-mail and am replying back to both of you so that you each know what
communication I have had. To attempt to answer your questions:
1. I do not believe that Mr. Tippie contacted me; however, it has been seven years, I do
not believe I got a copy of the order previously; I get many calls, so I can't be certain, but
I don't believe I have had contact with him.
2. The court order is an order for the two of you, it does not bind me. I believe I gave
you (below) several scenarios concerning circumstances in which I could or could not be
involved. I hope that what I wrote was clear enough.
3. I do not know either of you and cannot write something formal for the court. You can
use this e-mail as verification.
4. Unfortunately, I do not have a business phone number for Dr. Kolin. You can probably
find one on the Internet or from the operator.

I hope this answers all of your questions. I'm sorry I could not be of more help.

Theresa M. Schuman, PhD

Clinical Psychologist PSY 10715
_____________________________________________________________

From Brian Tippie

To Theresa Schuman, PhD, strahberry@yahoo.com
May 12
I would just like to add that I did attempt a connection with Dr. Theresa Schumann
around the first week of January 2008. However, I did not pursue further as the mother
was reachable to confirm a time or date in which she was willing to start. It was discussed
that both parents needed to attend for the first initial visits as you iterated in you previous
email. As no communication regarding mothers availability happened thereafter I was
unable to bring Christina for the initial visit.

I would like to also add that once the question about permanent residency is addressed I
am more than happy to bring Christina in for face-to-face visits. I would agree with Dr.
Schuman that using Skype is not a practical means in which to begin reunification
therapy especially since we are dealing with a seven year separation. As this therapy is
ultimately for the benefit of Christina, I would suggest we follow the recommended
orders for the allotted six months as stated in the court orders.

Let me know if/when we wish to proceed and I with schedule accordingly.

Thank you,
Brian
_______________________________________________________________________

Page 101 of 142

From tmschumanphd@sbcglobal.net
To Brian Tippie, strahberry@yahoo.com
May 12
Hi Joyce and Brian,
Brian may have well contacted me in 2008—that would have been prior to my moving
my office from Concord to Walnut Creek. If it never went past the first phone call
and/or if I never met with either of you, I would not remember. So you have my
information and my answer. If there is a chance when both of you are in the US, we can
talk about proceeding. If Joyce continues to live in Guatemala, then I will have to pass.
Dr. S
______________________________________________________________________________

From strahberry@yahoo.com
To Theresa Schuman, strahberry@yahoo.com
May 12
Dr. Teresa Schuman and Brian Tippie,

Thank you, Dr. Teresa Schuman for the response back and the needed information. This
information confirms what was already known, as I know you would have asked for the final
court order, even one faxed. I will be in contact with Dr. Kolin, hopefully this week and see
what can be done about this situation. Hope you have a nice week and thank you again for
your time on this matter.

Sincerely, Joyce Lynn Welsh (Christina Lynn Tippie‟s Mother- born January 18, 1999).

I have always consistently responded to correspondences and would like to notate the
following:.
At the time I was given 15 minute (1/1/08) contact with our daughter, Christina Lynn
Tippie, I called her every week on Tuesday as ordered. When the calls were cut short, or not
answered at all, I wrote a motion to the court to mandate Brian Tippie, her father to allow
the calls every week for the entire 15 minutes. Judge Mary Ann O'Malley ordered the calls be
made between 6:00 PM and 6:15 PM, and from the moment of contact with Christina, the
minutes would start. I also made it known that Brian Tippie did not follow the therapy
ordered in the final court order, and the judge advised him to contact the therapists and to
follow the order (this was approx. March 2008). I continued to call faithfully until my move,
and called as soon as I had a device (computer) to contact Christina (she was happy) with.
Ever since I have been calling her on Tuesday except when Brian Tippie deemed the call to
be cancelled (usually all holidays that fall within that specific week or before the following
Tuesday).

The order is clear as to who needed to sign up for Christina, for the initial contact- and I
would be brought into the reunification therapy after the first therapy visits with father and
daughter commenced. At this point Christina needs help which is my main concern and
focus. I know Skype has been ordered for other parents in order to keep contact with their
children in having a relationship. Christina would be happy to chat with her mother on
Skype, as would any child that has a bonded attachment to their mother. Maybe it would be
a good suggestion that Brian seek counseling, and work out his aggression towards

Page 102 of 142

Christina‟s mother Joyce, at the same time, maybe it might also be good for Christina to
have someone listen to her and give her the skills to manage her situation, concerns and
work through them- It would be a benefit for her.

At this time, Brian, for the best interest of Christina, you might consider counseling. She
desperately needs the assistance of a professional therapists, who will work with her and in
the interim it would benefit the relationship of her parents. Contact Dr. Kolin and set up the
therapy- follow through with the court order, even though it has been this long, it still is the
order.

Thank you again, Dr. Teresa Schuman,

and Brian Tippie ( I will call Christina tomorrow at 6:00 PM- please allow her to have the
cancelled minutes of last week- which would be 30 minutes in total).

Sincerely, Joyce Lynn Welsh (Christina Lynn Tippie‟s Mother- Born January 18, 1999)
________________________________________________________________________
*** I had called Dr. Randy Kolin, giving him all the contact information and
followed up with the below e-mails.

From Strahberry@yahoo.com
To rkpsyd@yahoo.com, strahberry@yahoo.com
May 19 at 7:22 AM
Dr. Randy Kolin,

I sent an e-mail on May 14, 2014, and am resending today May 19, 2014,
awaiting your response.

Sincerely,
Joyce L. Welsh

From strahberry@yahoo.com
To rkpsyd@yahoo.com, strahberry@yahoo.com
May 14, 2014
Dr. Randy Kolin,

Dear Randy Kolin,

There is a court final order attached to this 'copy of e-mails, of correspondence with Dr.
Teresa Schuman, Brian William Tippie and myself" and listed in the final order are two
names, Teresa Schuman and Randy Kolin as the therapists for Brian and our daughter
Christina Lynn Tippie, and the reunification therapy for myself with Christina Lynn Tippie.
As it is apparent, there has not been a follow through, except for the calls that I make per
week (although denied on a regular basis- now it is two weeks going on three again) and I
signed the document for my daughter to go on the cruise.

Page 103 of 142

From strahberry@yahoo.com
To Theresa Schuman, strahberry@yahoo.com
May 11 at 6:58 AM
Dear Teresa Shuman,

Thank you for contacting me, after I left messages on April 25, 2014 and two times on May
9, 2014. It is greatly appreciated.

From your response, it seems that you are not aware of the final court order or the
circumstances as to my urgency for contacting you- I will do the best I can to bring you up
to speed.

In 2007, a final order was completed by Judge Barry Baskin from the Contra Costa County
Courthouse in Martinez, Ca. (copy below).

I called to see if Brian William Tippie had "used his best efforts at facilitating the
reunification therapy," and was told that he had not contacted you (this was in the beginning
of 2008). Since that time and to my knowledge, nothing has been done; except his allowance
of the 15 minute calls, when he deemed it permissible.

Our child, Christina Lynn Tippie is now 15 years old and pleading for help. I have
consistently been calling her each week and she has done what her father has required of her:
most, if not all of the negative comments, or carrying messages from her father through her
to me, has been rectified. Despite the history that has shown damage, my daughter still has a
bond and seeks a relationship with her mother. This is the reasoning for contacting you to
comply with/ and to follow through the court order that was ignored by Christina‟s father,
Brian William Tippie purposely.

I believe at this time, a one hour call per week with Christina with a qualified reunification
therapist would satisfy the final order and assist Christina in the healing process. Although,
Brian William Tippie had made it clear, “I will make sure you never see your daughter
again,” and it has become the case. Christina feels the effects of isolation, not being able to
communicate openly (without fear) and has indicated that she wants a relationship with her
mother.

The final court order had stipulated your assistance in this process and I am seeking your
direction in complying with the order. I am in Guatemala and my number is 502-4440-2315,
skype name is strahlady, E-mail is strahberry@yahoo.com. I have also copied this message to
Christina‟s father, Brian William Tippie (His number is 925-917-1854, e-mail is
b_tippie@yahoo.com).

Sincerely,
Ms. Joyce Lynn Welsh (Mother to Christina Lynn Tippie-dob Jan. 18, 1999).

CASE NO. D05-0622

Page 104 of 142

Brian Tippie vs. Joyce L. Welsh

Custody/ Visitation:
Sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor child, Christina L. Tippie, d.o.b. 1/18/99,
to father, Brian W. Tippie, with professionally supervised visitation to mother as follows:
a. For at least six months visits between the respondent and Christina will be in a
supervised and therapeutic environment, once a week for one hour with Teresa
Schuman of Concord and failing her, with Randy Kolin of Walnut Creek at a mutually
convenient time starting from the beginning of December. The goal of such therapy will be
to determine whether and when therapeutic visits could be ended, whether professionally
supervised visitation may be phased in and under what circumstances, if any, it may be
phased out. A report from Dr. Schuman or Dr. Kolin should be provided to both parties
once six months of such visits have been concluded. The monthly child support payable
by Respondent to Petitioner may be used to pay these providers who are now
designated as appropriate recipients of the support payments due to Petitioner.
Respondent is ordered to not visit with Christina at her school or anywhere else until the
conclusion of the therapeutic visits and further order of court. Before the visits commence
the doctor(s) are to be provide full and complete reports from Dr. Hobbs and Dr. Perryman,
this order and all other orders made in this case re: custody and/or visitation.
b. Neither party is to use derogatory or disparaging remarks concerning the other
parent in the presence of Christina or to allow any third party to make these types of
comments or repeat them to Christina. The parties are to inform Christina (if asked) that
this situation is simply the result of the legal system at work, that both parties hope for a
change and the current situation is not the fault of any other party. Petitioner is to use his
best efforts at facilitating the reunification therapy and is to attend sessions, if
required to do so by the therapist. Respondent is also ordered to attend the
reunification therapy as required by the therapist.
c. Upon receipt of such report (following six (6) months of such visits) either party can file
a motion to modify this order, which is now a permanent order which, in the absence of a
material change in circumstances, is not a modifiable order.
d. Petitioner can go on the vacation requested and in the event that Respondent fails to
sign the appropriate passport and travel documentation today, the Clerk of the Court is
authorized to do so on respondent‟s behalf.
e. Respondent will be entitled to phone call visitation with Christina each Tuesday
from 6:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. effective 1/1/08, and Petitioner will be entitled to record such
phone calls to ensure compliance with the Court‟s order.
This final judgement resolves all motions and any other pending issues in this case. The
Court notes that Respondent did file a request for the recusal of Judge Baskin which was
never personally served as required by CCP 170.3(c)(1). It is therefore mooted by this
judgment. Even if it had been personally served the motion would be stricken as untimely as
Respondent stated from inception that Judge Baskin is biased, therefore the motion was not
made “at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the
ground for disqualification.” Under CCP 170.3(c)(1).
The clerk is directed to enter a final judgment today in accordance with this order. Parties are
reminded that they have the right to appeal this order and that the time to file an appeal runs
from today‟s date.

Page 105 of 142

November 16, 2007

From Theresa Schuman, PhD

To strahberry@yahoo.com, b_tippie@yahoo.com
May 12 at 7:02 PM
Hi Joyce,
I received your e-mail and am replying back to both of you so that you each know what
communication I have had. To attempt to answer your questions:
1. I do not believe that Mr. Tippie contacted me; however, it has been seven years, I do not
believe I got a copy of the order previously; I get many calls, so I can't be certain, but I don't
believe I have had contact with him.
2. The court order is an order for the two of you, it does not bind me. I believe I gave you
(below) several scenarios concerning circumstances in which I could or could not be
involved. I hope that what I wrote was clear enough.
3. I do not know either of you and cannot write something formal for the court. You can
use this e-mail as verification.
4. Unfortunately, I do not have a business phone number for Dr. Kolin. You can probably
find one on the Internet or from the operator.

I hope this answers all of your questions. I'm sorry I could not be of more help.

Theresa M. Schuman, PhD

Clinical Psychologist PSY 10715

Sent from my iPad

From Strahberry@yahoo.com
To Theresa Schuman, strahberry@yahoo.com
May 12

Dr. Teresa Schuman and Brian Tippie,

Thank you, Dr. Teresa Schuman for the response back and the needed information. This
information confirms what was already known, as I know you would have asked for the final
court order, even one faxed. I will be in contact with Dr. Kolin, hopefully this week and see
what can be done about this situation. Hope you have a nice week and thank you again for
your time on this matter.

Sincerely, Joyce Lynn Welsh (Christina Lynn Tippie‟s Mother- born January 18, 1999).

I have always consistently responded to correspondences and would like to notate the
following:.
At the time I was given 15 minute (1/1/08) contact with our daughter, Christina Lynn
Tippie, I called her every week on Tuesday as ordered. When the calls were cut short, or not
answered at all, I wrote a motion to the court to mandate Brian Tippie, her father to allow

Page 106 of 142

the calls every week for the entire 15 minutes. Judge Mary Ann O'Malley ordered the calls be
made between 6:00 PM and 6:15 PM, and from the moment of contact with Christina, the
minutes would start. I also made it known that Brian Tippie did not follow the therapy
ordered in the final court order, and the judge advised him to contact the therapists
and to follow the order (this was approx. March 2008). I continued to call faithfully until
my move, and called as soon as I had a device (computer) to contact Christina (she was
happy) with. Ever since I have been calling her on Tuesday except when Brian Tippie
deemed the call to be cancelled (usually all holidays that fall within that specific week or
before the following Tuesday).

The order is clear as to who needed to sign up for Christina, for the initial contact- and I
would be brought into the reunification therapy after the first therapy visits with father and
daughter commenced. At this point Christina needs help which is my main concern and
focus. I know Skype has been ordered for other parents in order to keep contact with their
children in having a relationship. Christina would be happy to chat with her mother on
Skype, as would any child that has a bonded attachment to their mother. Maybe it would be
a good suggestion that Brian seek counseling, and work out his aggression towards
Christina‟s mother Joyce, at the same time, maybe it might also be good for Christina to
have someone listen to her and give her the skills to manage her situation, concerns and
work through them- It would be a benefit for her.

At this time, Brian, for the best interest of Christina, you might consider counseling. She
desperately needs the assistance of a professional therapists, who will work with her and in
the interim it would benefit the relationship of her parents. Contact Dr. Kolin and set up the
therapy- follow through with the court order, even though it has been this long, it still is the
order.

Thank you again, Dr. Teresa Schuman,

and Brian Tippie ( I will call Christina tomorrow at 6:00 PM- please allow her to have the
cancelled minutes of last week- which would be 30 minutes in total).

Sincerely, Joyce Lynn Welsh (Christina Lynn Tippie‟s Mother- Born January 18, 1999)

From strahberry@yahoo.com
To rkpsyd@yahoo.com, strahberry@yahoo.com
Jun 9

Dr. Randy Kolin,

I called this morning, leaving a detailed message with my phone number and e-
mail address and that I had e-mailed you prior.
The purpose of this contact is to set up a reunification therapy with my
daughter, Christina, due to her father neglecting to follow the order- which the
order is in this line of communication. At this time your attention is necessary;
it has almost been a months‟ time since the first e-mail requesting your
Page 107 of 142
attention to this matter.

Please respond as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Joyce Welsh
_____________________________________________________________
From Randy Kolin
To strahberry@yahoo.com
Jun 11
Ms. Welsh,

I do not provide reunification therapy services. I provide co-parenting therapy.

Perhaps you could find another therapist that does do this type of therapy.

My schedule is very constrained for time and I do not have time to do this on a regular
ongoing basis.

Randy Kolin, Psy.D.

1600 S. Main St., Ste. #220
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
PH. 925-287-9656
FAX 925-871-3571

______________________________________________________________________

From strahberry@yahoo.com
To To rkpsyd@yahoo.com, strahberry@yahoo.com
Jun 27

Mr. Randy Kolin,

It is my understanding that the court, themselves, have decreased your

arrangement representing a child(ren) and making recommendations. Your
webpages have incorrect (misrepresenting) information and should be updated
to reflect what you are allowed to do before a court of law.

Although, your name is listed on the final court order as one of the therapists,
which you no longer provide this service; I have to complete the investigative
portion to move forward. So, with that in mind, there are questions that I have
to ask and need an answer as soon as possible (15-30 days).

Page 108 of 142

Questions:
Have you, or did you receive a call, text, fax (electronic message) or any form
of communication from Mr. Brian Tippie from this moment backwards to
December of 2007?

If you had received this communication, what was said, exactly, and what date
and time was this communication on?

Did you get a copy of the final order at any time, other than reading it in the
electronic messages from the communication with Teresa Schuman?

Did Brian Tippie leave a message on your message machine (etc.) at any time?
And did you call him back? What was the date of the message, and when did
you call him back? What was communicated between the both of you?

Did you provide supervised visitation or therapeutic counseling as of 2007

(December)? IF not, what was your professional arrangement with the courts,
and what did you provide at that time? IF you did, what was your role in cases
before the court?

Did you have several cases representing litigants or their child(ren) in Judge
Baskins courtroom? How many cases did you handle in the year of 2007 before
Judge Baskin? Given, you are not required to name names in these cases due
to the privacy act, but how long (averaged) did you play the role in those cases
(months, years)?

Have you ever had ex-parte communication with either Commissioner Berkow,
or Judge Barry Baskin at any time while „they‟ appointed you to the cases?

When did the court take your role in cases away, and was there an
investigation? What year and month did the court cease your role in cases?

I understand you are „constrained for time,‟ but so am I, respectfully. These

questions are very important; as my contact is very interested in completing
their investigation.
It has been 7 years, I have waited- Now it is critical to getting the answers.

Respectfully.
Ms. Joyce Lynn Welsh

_____________________________________________________________
Page 109 of 142
From strahberry@yahoo.com
To rkpsyd@yahoo.com, strahberry@yahoo.com
July 21, 2014 at 8:24 AM
Mr. Randy Kolin,

It is now, July 21, 2014, (24 days) after asking the below questions and not
getting any answers. Your non-response has been incorporated into the
document that is being sent to the White House (and other government
agencies).

As suggested, you had 15-30 days to complete the questions regarding the case
which listed you as a participant. Since I have not met you and have been told
of your decreased arrangements in the court system- that will be included. The
questions that were asked are straight forward and are needing to be answered-
you only have 6 (six) more days to complete your portion of the document.

This will be the last time I contact you regarding these questions, before I
bundle up the package and send. With it the full case, including your response
and the corruption, illegal acts and connections, will be mailed.

Sincerely,
Ms. Joyce L. Welsh
Christina Lynn Tippie's mother, born January 18, 1999.
____________________________________________________________

From Randy Kolin

To strahberry@yahoo.com
July 21, 2014 at 12:26 PM
Ms .Welsh,

I have no idea what your case is about. We have never spoken and I do not
recall ever speaking to anyone about your case ever. I have never had any role
in this and have no involvement whatsoever. Please stop wasting our time with
this as I have never been involved and have no desire to be involved in this
matter.

Dr. Randy Kolin, Psy.D.

_____________________________________________________________

Under state and federal law, the term for claims against fiduciaries does not
run upon injury, but upon plaintiff‘s discovery of ―all facts‖ relevant to each
claim. ―Generally speaking, a cause of action accrues at ‗the time when the

Page 110 of 142

cause of action is complete with all of its elements.‘‖ Code Civ. Proc., §
312; Fox v. Ethicon Endo–Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797, 806 (2005).

Failure to follow the final court order, including the 15 minute calls each
week on Tuesday. In Moffat v. Moffat, 27 Cal.3d 645, which provided in
pertinent part: "The determination or enforcement of a duty of support owed
to one obligee is unaffected by any interference by another obligee with
rights of custody or visitation granted by a court." Except in this case, the
‗owed‘ was named as Teresa Schuman, or Randy Kolin as ―these providers
who are now designated as appropriate recipients of the support payments
due to Petitioner.‖ Brian Tippie, the obdurately, refused to comply with the
therapy/ reunification order and ha[d] thus denied Christina Tippie to know
and be with her mother. Christina‘s feeling of worth in her ‗family‘ equates
as being worthless- she only has friends at school, has not lived a normal
childhood and has been punished severely by wanting a relationship with her
mother. In such circumstances, Christina‘s need for sustenance must be the
paramount consideration; not being groomed to hate her mother because the
threat of not seeing her ever has in fact become the truth and forced on her to
deal with.

Due to the involvement from the White House during President Bushes
term, and the retaliation that followed after; as I reported misconduct of a
Commissioner Berkow, to 13 different government agencies (1 pound of
paper). As you know retaliation is rarely limited to one or two vindictive
court personnel and is likely to include other close appointees, and
colleagues who join in shunning, accusing and sabotaging the person who
blew the whistle or exposed the elephant in the room- wrong doing that was
previously kept quiet. The potential for retaliation is greater when
organizations in which leadership is unstable or changing, acts of secrecy,
and limits opportunities for advancement are more determined to hold onto
their position, by any means available. Authoritarian leaders do not view
having to address a problem as the problem, and the one who brought the
problem to light is the one who is likely to be the target. Commissioner
Berkow was removed soon after her recusal on my case, but remained in the
Family Court as the Child Support Commissioner (we call it the penalty
box). The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County had a meeting with
Josanna Berkow and asked her to resign. She in turn threatened to sue to
board, for discrimination of age, sex and religion. She does not work in the
courthouse anymore (but remained there for the duration), but now she is
teaching at John F. Kennedy University as a professor of law. Still making
Page 111 of 142
comments about litigants who are self-represented in a negative manner, and
still dealing in drugs with her husband (Dave Badtke).

From this retaliation, I have been threatened by the judges to my life being
taken away (shot), my constitutional rights were therefore removed by Judge
Barry Baskin in court (as stated himself), being verbally abused by the court
employees, and having all my rights denied (even when there was no
opposing motion- Judge Baskin represented Brian as his attorney). The
retaliation shifted quite rapidly throughout the court house, and Judge
Baskin questioned my mental stability, even when I stated he did not have
the professional degree of a psychologists. Since I had the raw data
transferred (subpoena) to a real professional, Dr. Daniel Rybicki, Psy.D.,
DABPS, who concluded another report from the MMPI (raw data) and
matched the results with the court appointee report, which he found it to be
―grossly inadequate, nothing to anchor findings, speculations and unfounded
conclusions.‖ Judge Baskin omitted that (Dr. Rybicki‘s report from the
record) report and ordered all the reports that were false be given to the
therapists in the final order. Dr. Rybicki, Psy.D., DABPS, stated the raw data
was ran on the incorrect (16pf) level, one that was not to be used in child
custody cases. Although, in the findings for Brian Tippie, it was gravely
worse, and it mentioned he needed further counseling. (Brian Tippie‘s
mother, Nancy Buck, is an alcoholic, recluse and has suicidal tendencies,
whereas his father, Wayne Tippie was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder in
2004- both are related, as their grandmothers are sisters).

Karen Hobbs ordered me to take my children out of school, on Friday and

was over an hour late. I had asked for the weekend but she said she does not
do the weekends. Brian Tippie‘s interview was on Saturday.

I had seen Karen Ruth Hobbs (I submitted a complaint to the Board of

Psychology on Karen Hobbs) after receiving the report from Dr. Rybicki,
Psy.D., DABPS. Karen Hobbs contacted Vicki McReynolds (Mediator for
the court), who contacted CPS and told them that I was an unfit mother. Jill
Heenan (Child Family Services-CPS) did an interview with my three
children and found the report to be unsubstantiated. Thomas McCord, and
Dr. Gracer (through Karen Hobbs and Berkow) was also ordered as
therapists. Thomas McCord: did the ink blot, and MMPI (he had cancelled
several appointments, and made it seem I was the one, he was also 30
minutes late to the interview). He asked me if I saw animals when I was
doing the ink blot, and was a bit pushy. Dr. Gracer found nothing wrong
Page 112 of 142
with my personality, but mentioned stress related to the court and
representing myself.
My daughter was being seen by Heidi Perryman (close friends with
Hobbs and Berkow)- from my understanding Heidi was there to make
Christina adjust to her father having a sexual relationship with his new
girlfriend and former fired boss (due to the affair).

COMMUNICATION TO DR. KAUFMAN

Dr. Robert Kaufman, Ph. D.,

Thank you for the message received on my work number 925-949-

4814 at 12:02 p.m. on September 6, 2007 which stated:

Oh, Hi, Per Joyce Welsh.

This is Dr. Kaufman calling, Um, listen I'm out of town, actually on
vacation, I got your message, Uh, Uh, Uh, So I'm just going to leave you a
quick message here. Um, I can, Uh, I can give you the information. We can
talk when I get back next week. What I would recommend is that you
(pause) sign a release of information with Dr. Perryman. Um, Ah, so that she
and I can talk. And once I get that in place then I can figure out what is
going on and what's needed here, because I really don't know anything about
the situation. So, Um, if you can do that and Ah, give me a call when that's
in place, that would be Ah, great- and then I can talk Uh, with you and give
you an idea of what's entailed in the work your asking about.
Ok. Thanks very much, bye-bye.

Per the Unreported Minute Order Re: Continuing Trial Date, dated
June 15, 2007 and mailed to all parties, including Dr. Heidi Perryman,
Ph.D., and yourself, Dr. Robert Kaufman, Ph.D. I am a bit confused as to
your reference in your message, ―because I really don't know anything about
the situation,‖ surely by receiving this letter, and as a psychologists who was
ordered to perform such an evaluation and being recommended by Dr. Heidi
Perryman, I believe communication between Dr. Heidi Perryman and
yourself had to have had occurred. The letter noticeably indicated that
―Correspondence having been received by this Court from Dr. Heidi P.
Perryman, Ph.D.‖ a normal person would question receiving such a letter
and would immediately contact Dr. Heidi Perryman to investigate the
narrative history of the case. Tainted information prior to going forward has
occurred in this case already.
Page 113 of 142
 As I mentioned in my first telephone call and by leaving a message
regarding ―full psychological evaluation and testing,‖ which you were
recommended by Dr. Heidi Perryman and therefore ordered by the court to
perform this evaluation and testing. As you know, I have not seen Dr. Heidi
Perryman as my therapist and do not have a contract/ plan on record. My
child Christina Lynn Tippie had been ordered to see Dr. Heidi Perryman in
early 2005. As the years have gone by both parents objected to Dr. Heidi
Perryman, the court appointed therapist continuing with our daughter.

As a professional in the field of psychology, there must be trust in the

ability to communicate- something I do not have in your ability. Since I left
a detailed message soon after receiving the ―suitable (such as to suit;
appropriate; fitting; becoming to whom?) professional (‗s)‖ name, which Dr.
Heidi Perryman was requested to recommend, and had not heard from your
office at all (even with a courtesy call to confirm the first call was received),
I continued to locate a suitable professional of my choosing.

I called again on September 4, 2007 my message: Dialed 510-428-

1602, Robert Kaufman (second message to date) on September 4, 2007 at
approx. 3:28 pm.

Message on the machine of Dr. Kaufman: Hello, this is Dr. Bob

Kaufman, I will be out of the office until Monday September 10. If this is a
clinical emergency, please call Dr. Christine Pigeon at 510-653-5238,
otherwise leave a message at the tone, including your phone number and I
will get back to you on my return. Thank you. (Beep)

Joyce L. Welsh‘s message left on Dr. Kaufman‘s message machine:

Hi, Dr. Kaufman, this is Joyce Welsh; my home number is 925-229-2544, or
my work number Monday through Friday 925-949-4814. I have been
ordered by the court per Dr. Perryman, indicating you are appointed as the
court 730 expert. I received this information earlier and I did call and leave
information, a message indicating that I needed you to give me a call back. I
gave all the information to contact me and I haven‘t heard anything from
you. Um I have to have a, as I indicated before, undergo a full psychiatric
evaluation and testing to determine her (myself) suitability for visitation and
whether supervised professionally or otherwise. This is indicated by Dr.
Heidi Perryman, which is my daughter, Christina Tippie‘s 730 court
Page 114 of 142
appointed therapist. If you would give me a call. Also indicating on my prior
message that I left, I am asking how much it would cost for a full psychiatric
evaluation and testing. And if you would give me a call back as soon as you
receive this information, I would appreciate it. Again my number is 925-, I
do have a message machine, 229-2544, my work number is 925-949-
4814.Thank you.
End of call- hung up.

Since I had not heard from you, I had to find an alternative

professional in the time frame in which I was to have completed the testing,
and submit the findings/ report into the record for trial on November 14,
2007.

I would like to make this known, originally there was to have been an
evaluation as to the suicide of both parents, Brian W. Tippie and Joyce L.
Welsh for a child custody case in Contra Costa County. Prior to the
scheduled meeting, Dr. Karen Hobbs and Brian W. Tippie‘s and attorney,
Lisa Gilmore had telephone, fax and written letter communication with Dr.
Karen Hobbs, which could be construed as biased and partiality to one
person. The findings of Dr. Karen Hobbs, and Dr. McCord were unfounded.
I submitted a document into the court as to the meeting with Dr. Karen
Hobbs, and the rushed testing of the MMPI in which Dr. Karen Hobbs had
both of us take. Dr. Karen Hobbs also requested that I take medication; she
named about 13 different anti-depressant medications by name and advised
the court this information. I do not think Dr. Karen Hobbs is qualified to
prescribe medication. Dr. Karen Hobbs requested that I see a Psychiatrist as
to her choosing.

I was ordered to see Dr. Gracer, M.D.by Dr. Karen Hobbs for a
second evaluation and his opinion as to my mental stability. Dr. Gracer did
not side with the findings of Dr. Karen Hobbs or Dr. McCord. Dr. Gracer
wrote a report and indicated, ―This is to confirm that on both appointments,
Joyce Welsh appeared completely normal in the interview.‖

Furthermore, and with the assistance of several letters and two

subpoena‘s, I was able to have all my raw data from the MMPI given
directly to Dr. Daniel Rybicki, Psy.D.,DABPS for a second opinion. In Dr.
Daniel Rybicki‘s report of October 25, 2006 he found the ―Review of Dr.
McCord testing with Joyce reveals several SERIOUS errors in
methodology,‖ and ― Dr. McCord used 16PF which is not normed on
Page 115 of 142
custody litigants,‖ ―None of those scaled were significantly elevated (all
within normal band-width),‖ ―Joyce recalls him asking repeatedly if she saw
animals on the card. Interpretation made by Dr. McCord on Rorschach was
done at ―intuitive level‖‖ ―No empirical basis and totally lacking in scientific
rigor.‖ Several important matters were addressed in Dr. Daniel Rybicki‘s
findings, in which he found the report to be ‗grossly inadequate.‖ ―Dr.
Hobbs appears to have done nothing to reduce the risk of confirmatory bias
in her approach to the assessment.‖ It states: ―Dr. Hobbs appears to ignore
contradictory data that does not fit her hypothesis.‖ This has lead to
iatrogenic harm, which is a big contributor to current problems. From this
report, the court appointed therapists have not been professional in their
reporting, that is the reason I will not oblige to another court appointed hired
co-conspirator.

A Forensic Psychologist re-evaluated the report of Dr. Karen Hobbs,

and Dr. McCord, Dr. Daniel Rybicki had no interest in the case, and was
non-biased to reporting the findings of the original testing.

I have been faithfully seeing a psychologist since the ‗grossly

inadequate‘ report was produced, and will not sign a release of any
information to anyone. That is my right.

I have taken several steps in finding a board certified professional, one

that would communicate and had the decency to call me back regarding the
message I had left when I contacted several therapists/ psychologists/
psychiatrics/etc. . By not responding, I was forced to find assistance
elsewhere.

I found Dr. Robert I. Picker, M.D. who is a Diplomate in Psychiatry,

American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. The time frame in this order
was specific, therefore by your inactions to respond, clearly showed me an
uninterested psychologist to who knew or should have known by the letter
mailed June 15, 2007, entitled Unreported Minute Order Re: Continuing
Trial Date, you were aware of the situation.

Due to the current circumstances, and by the court‘s own wording,

―required if Respondent arranges for and concludes the requisite testing.‖
With the recommendation of Dr. Heidi Perryman with whom I have no trust
or faith in her psychological abilities to be fair or impartial, I do not need
your services. Dr. Heidi Perryman gave your name as the person in which I
Page 116 of 142
was to have seen; again, you are court appointed by Dr. Heidi Perryman and
she has clearly made it known that she does not like me. Therefore, my trust
in your abilities fall along the same lines as my knowledge of the damage
court appointed therapists work, for their best interest to this matter would
be to follow the lead of another court appointed therapist and that in itself is
a detriment to any litigant who has been fragmented by their mishandling
and exploitation.

9:39 am September 11, 2007, 70 seconds. Left on my work answering

machine.

[Dr. Kaufman call including the Ums, and Ah‘s]

Oh, Hi Per Joyce Welsh, this is Dr. Bob Kaufman calling again. Um,
gonna leave you another message here. Um, Ah, in terms of, I‘m happy to
talk with you. Um, about whatever this case is about, I really don‘t have
information about it. Um, and if you want to leave some good times to get a
hold of you, that would be good. 510-428-1602.
Um, again it might be expeditious if, um, we can talk on the phone,
Ahh, I won‘t be able to give you much of an estimate of what is all, is
entailed, until I talk to Dr. Perryman and I need your specific release to do
that. So, if you have a fax. Um, I can fax you a form to do that. Ah, and then
I can find out what, a little bit more about what, what‘s going on.
Um, So, give me a call back 510-428-1602.

Um, and we can talk about what the next steps might be.
Thanks very much,

Hung up.

―Due process requires affording a litigant a reasonable opportunity, by

continuance or otherwise, to respond to evidence or argument that is new,
surprising, and relevant.‖ ( In re Marriage of O'Connell (1992) 8
Cal.App.4th 565, 574-575, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 334. The court's actions violated
Joyce's essential rights of due process of law. Furthermore, because the
petitioner conducted no hearing as to any allegations of abuse towards the
petitioner‘s/respondent‘s daughter; there is nothing in the record on which to
base a finding that professional supervised visitation is warranted.

Page 117 of 142

 By being a non-represented litigant before Contra Costa Family Court
it seems the laws have no bearing to the procedures in which I have to
perform, in example: CCP 391.7 (a), which states in part….‖enter a prefiling
order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in
the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the
presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. …‖
Under the conditions of this pre-filing order, the requirement‘s defined by
law stipulate ‗new litigation in the courts‘, not pre-existing litigation in
which the case of Tippie v. Welsh falls under. Denial to present documents
with merit, on my own existing case is dependent upon the presiding judge‘s
time and signature; which I had notified Judge Bruiniers about.

Dr, Kaufman, Ph.D., is not a psychiatrist, so in order to satisfy the

requirements of the court order- Due to the compliance of the court order, I
was forced to find another psychiatrist within the specified 60-day time
frame. To perform the requirements of the court ordered evaluation, I made
the effort to contact Dr. Kaufman shortly following the designation of his
services, but to no avail was the attempt returned. I found Dr. Robert
Picker, M.D., by phone and arranged to accomplish and/or meet my
obligations under said order.

The Declaration submitted on August 28, 2007, Tuesday, took until today
September 4, 2007 to obtain back from the Family Law Courthouse (an
additional 4 days) due to the pre-filing order. Within the 60 days from the
last order of June 15, 2007 (excluding weekends, holidays) respondent had
performed the necessary requirements of an evaluation, which is the
Declaration and report filed on August 28, 2007 for approval. From June to
the date of the report ordered by Hon. Barry Baskin, I was in compliance of
the 60 days. As of today‘s date, I have approximately three (3) days to
complete another evaluation or be in contempt of court.

I have had six evaluations, Dr. Karen Hobbs, Ph.D., Dr. McCord, Ph.D., Dr.
Gracer, Ph.D., Dr. Mary Jones, Ph.D., Dr. Daniel Rybicki, Psy.D, DABPS,
and Dr.Robert Picker, M.D., (Brian W. Tippie additionally requested another
therapist for reunification, which Brian knew the date and time of the
scheduled session with Dr. Harper, Ph. D. and failed to show) either court
appointed or of my own choosing during this 3 ½ year family law case
#D05-00622, -which comply with court orders. The last two evaluations are
the most current. Yet the court chose to require another evaluation, this time
a conflict of interest ordering Dr. Heidi Perryman to ‗nominate a suitable
Page 118 of 142
professional for this purpose‘ which would be ‗to determine her
[respondents] suitability for visitation and whether it is supervised
professionally or otherwise.‘ Dr. Perryman has been my daughter‘s
appointed therapist for the duration of these proceedings. Which I have
repeatedly stated to the court I do not have confidence in Dr. Heidi
Perryman‘s professional abilities, I question her ethics and believe she has
continued the separation anxiety in which my daughter feels to date. Dr.
Heidi Perryman has had several sessions with my child even when Christina
has objected to seeing her, and her father has indicated he wanted to
cancel/discontinue Dr. Perryman‘s service: all parties have indicated this on
the record, but yet Dr. Heidi Perryman continues against the parents/child‘s
wishes: A violation of her license, ethic‘s and her profession.

April 3, 2007-TRIAL NOTES BY RESPONDENT

I, Joyce L. Welsh, am IN PRO PER and declare as follows:

I am declaring under penalty of perjury, under the State of California,
that the foregoing is true and correct and that this is my notes as to what was
said during the trial on April 3, 2007, described as follows:

Prior to Trial, and while we were standing outside the courtroom,

Brian Tippie asked that I come over and speak to him. Christine Althaus
went with me to speak to Brian Tippie. Brian Tippie wanted to have full
physical and full legal custody of Christina Lynn Tippie (DOB 1/18/99), I
said 50/50 or the lowest I would go would be 60/40, physical custody and
shared legal.
Marita Mayer, Public Defender came over and asked that Christine be
excused, and that Brian and I would be able to speak together about custody.
Soon after we started to communicate about custody, the courtroom was
opened and we were encouraged to go into court for trial.

Judge Barry Baskin said at the beginning that the witnesses were not
going to be here- I took that as Dr. Karen Hobbs, Dr. Heidi Perryman, Dr.
Thomas McCord, Dr. James Gracer, and Commissioner Berkow would not
be attending. My opinion was that each person either contacted the bailiff or
Judge Barry Baskin directly, or contacted Commissioner Berkow directly
and she spoke to Barry Baskin about not attending.
Marita Mayer was present and made that on the record for the
contempt charges. I know that I had not signed any other documents, since
recanting on the filing prior to the last hearing. I did not sign at that time or

Page 119 of 142

prior to going into the courtroom. Judge Barry Baskin stated that he needed
to have Marita Mayer‘s cell phone available, if they were to call her. She
offered that she would be made available by phone. Judge Barry Baskin was
trying to figure out what date would be open for the next hearing for the
contempt charges in order for Marita Mayer to be available. He first placed
the hearing on, I believe May 3, 2007, and then said something about OSC
date; Marilyn Jones said something about being full, and then settled with
May 9, 2007. (Judge Barry Baskin wanted to find a date with an opening if
anything else needed further discussion in this case). Judge Barry Baskin
said something about adding the hearing to the tail end, which was to be at
2:30 p.m. My understanding was the contempt and vexatious was being held
over to the next hearing. At that time, Judge Barry Baskin went ahead and
dismissed Marita Mayer from the court, but before she left the respondent‘s
side of the ‗bench‘- she turned to Brian Tippie and said to make it ‗Liberal
visitations!‘ She said she would be in touch, and see you later gesture.

Judge Barry Baskin ‗had noticed‘ that we, petitioner and respondent,
were talking together, and wanted to have us continue. He asked the people
in the courtroom to leave while we discussed the custody arrangements
further, with the bailiff present. Kristen A. Johnson (court transcriber) was
also present in the courtroom, typing on her machine/ computer, and Marilyn
Jones (Court clerk).

Brian Tippie had a document prepared and I tried to write on it as we

were deciding on issues addressed, but he said I was not allowed to write on
his document. So, the bailiff gave us a ‗Superior Court of California, County
of Contra Costa, Stipulation and Order‘ (original with 2 carbon copies-
(Famlaw-38/rev 5-2-05). We went through the four (4) pages together and I
was the one who filled in the information, as Brian Tippie had his document.
One by one we went over each area, and it was decided between us, and
signed:

1. Both litigants were PRO PER

2. We came up with; Petitioner shall have primary physical custody
of the minor child/ren subject to the following visitation, actual custody by
the other party: Wed (every) pick up at Daycare by 6 p.m. Drop off @
7:30 p.m. (no later than) at Library (Concord).
3. N/A Mediation and/ or Evaluation
4. N/A Property Control
5. Child Support 1 yr. re-assessment (temporary)
Page 120 of 142
 6. N/A Spousal Support
7. 50/50 reunification fees (Petitioner) co-pay- and 50/50
reunification fees (Respondent) co-pay. A min. of 3 sessions or until the
reunification therapist deems successful. Respondent‘s choice of therapist.
8. N/A Restraining order
9. (Checked next to selection) The matter is continued to, set for
review at 0 o‘clock, on April, 2008 on the following issues, on all issues.
10. N/A Attorney fees and costs
11. Phone calls [this was discussed between us, but not decided=
crossed out- Pet. Alternating Fridays 7:00-7:30, 15 min. Respondent. Every
Thursday, 7:00-7:30 15 min.]
NO fees paid by respondent to Heidi Perryman.
On the last page was the heading Stipulation and Order-attached page,
in which we wrote the following:
1. Friday pick up at Day care by 6pm drop off by 7:30 Sunday at
Library.
2. Regular visitation begins once reunification has been deemed
successful.
3. Reunification to start upon contact w/therapist by respondent‘s
insurance (immediately)
4. Any change in schedule 24 hr notification, or any emergency
occurs as much time or immediately notified
5. Tardiness could be responsible for fees due to miss pick up or drop
off.

I did not know, at the time, but the bailiff went out into the hall and
dismissed everyone from further proceedings- at about 3:30 pm. At 3:40
pm., I excused myself from court and went to the restroom. The bailiff said
she would let me back in, as the door was locked. I noticed John and
Christine still sitting in the hall, Brian‘s father, Wayne Tippie and his wife
Lindy Scott were down the hall. I went to the restroom (5 minutes or so) and
came back. I waved to Brian‘s father as I was going back into the courtroom.
I spoke briefly to John and Christine. When I went back to the courtroom,
the bailiff was talking to the petitioner, I gestured I wanted back in, and she
got up and came over to let me in (I believe the bailiff, Marilyn Jones and
Kristen A. Johnson was still in the room when I left).
At about 4:00 pm, Marilyn Jones took the document that we just
completed, and said she would have Judge Barry Baskin look it over.
Marilyn Jones went back into the judge‘s chambers. Approx. 15 minutes
later, Marilyn Jones came back out and said that Judge Barry Baskin would
Page 121 of 142
not sign this order without supervised visitation. In order for the Stipulation
to be signed by the judge, I had to agree to supervised visitation. I did state
that I did nothing to deserve supervised visitation, but Marilyn Jones said the
judge would not sign the agreement without that added. The bailiff handed
me, ―Information for the non-professional supervisor visitation program.‖
Judge Barry Baskin came out and asked if we had anything else that we
wanted to add to the document, we said we had some questions- I
specifically said we could not decide on telephone communications. Judge
Barry Baskin said we could hold the questions until he was back in court.
My opinion was that he was not going to add anything after the document
was signed.
Judge Barry Baskin, the bailiff, Kristen A. Johnson (transcriber), and
Marilyn Jones were before the court again, on the record. Judge Barry
Baskin asked that the door be unlocked and all could come back in. John
Moldock, Christine Althaus, Wayne Tippie and Lindy Scott entered into the
room and took their seats.
Trial: Judge Barry Baskin asked if we accepted the stipulation (even
though I did not want supervised visits and was forced to sign under duress)
- both of us had to acknowledge yes. Judge Barry Baskin stated he was
dismissing the contempt charges, (I wrote exact wording, ―Discharge
contempt charge-criminal) and that I was to contact Marita Mayer and tell
her that the contempt was dismissed (On Thursday, April 5, 2007, I believe I
called and left a detailed message on her work phone- Marita Mayer, the
Public Defender, called back and advised me that the bailiff called her on
4/3/07 at approximately 4:45-5:00 pm. and stated that the contempt charges
were dismissed).
Judge Barry Baskin stated nothing on the record as to the reason the
contempt charges were dismissed. Judge Barry Baskin stated that the
vexatious will remain until the hearing on May 9, 2007 at 2:30 pm. He also
stated, ―Discharge frivolous, cannot guarantee discharge, and likely to
discharge- referring to vexatious charges (changing his wording). There was
no reason why the charge should carry over, and Judge Barry Baskin did not
offer any reasons.
I asked about co-parenting classes, Judge Barry Baskin added that
issue to May 9, 2007 hearing, but stated to Brian Tippie (Petitioner) to
submit the reasons it should not take place. Judge Barry Baskin said, (I
believe in these words) ―Usually it‘s a good thing,‖ ―but could not force
Brian to do it.‖

Page 122 of 142

 A copy of the Stipulation was handed to the petitioner and respondent.
We were then dismissed.

Signed on April 12, 2007 and submitted to be filed by permission

(Which it was denied). Brian was not forced to obtain anyone to evaluate
him; in fact, he has made it known that he will not be evaluated at all. The
measures have been against the final orders and he still has gotten away with
not following anything required of him-at my detriment.
The vexatious portion of this was directly controlled by Barry Baskin,
who had told me to listen to your friends and get their help, but was looking
directly at William Parker. Two days after the hearing, William Parker
called me and came over, ―to help.‖ He contacted an attorney in L.A. and
had documents sent over, telling me that this will make a difference in your
case. He told me not to read them, but just sign them and submit them into
the court, along with suing Judge Barry Baskin in the civil court. I had, by
that time lost most of everything and knew anything and everything I did
would be used against me (As Brian was being represented by Judge Barry
Baskin). I found out later that William Parker‘s case was more lenient on
him, and he was able to get more visits with his kids. It was a setup, directly
orchestrated by the judge himself. Even so, the motion that Barry Baskin
submitted against me was not even standard practice and would have not
been accepted in any court as it was written. Barry Baskin was the third
party in the case, embroiled.

LETTER TO JENNA TIPPIE, E-MAILED ON JULY 22, 2014

jazzcommon@hotmail.com

Jenna Tippie,

Before you delete this electronic mail, I ask that you read it:

Understanding what happened could answer some of your concerns, and maybe help
Christina at the same time.

IN the beginning, I was very popular with the group of BBS‘ers as Strawberry. There was
about 200 people online chatting, and I was a forum-op by doing good work and
connecting with people. Brian was Stymey (look that word up) and started a chat sessions
with me online, while he was also doing so with other women- one being Sinful One. We
chatted for months before meeting at an outing for the group. HE took me to dinner soon
after, saying, ―I want to grow old with you.‖ I paid for the dinner and shortly after he
made the decision to move in. When I found out I was pregnant, this was while I was

Page 123 of 142

working on the river as a Crew Foreman (running 5 crews), and he took me to an abortion
clinic to terminate the pregnancy. He did not want the baby I was carrying. I could not
kill Christina; I paid for all of the expenses of her birth, bought everything she needed.

I am not sure how you were told about the occurrence the night before I left to my
daughter‘s house or what happened up to that point. After Brian and I obtained ‗our‘
house, I was told that I could only upgrade the backyard. See before being in the house, I
was responsible for paying rent and the utilities at the other houses (Sacramento and
Martinez). Things changed drastically when we moved into the house on Santa Fe
Avenue. When Brian was looking to change jobs, his moods got worse. He said that he
deserved to go out with the guys from work to the titty bars. He earned that right. Other
than working full time, I took care of my children, cleaned the house, helped with
homework, maintained the back and front yard (Brian mowed once in all of those years),
made sure to socialize my children, volunteer at their schools, and from as far back as I
remember, my house was the neighborhood house where the children were welcomed
and their mothers knew they were safe.

The night that Brian sat on the couch and said to me, I will tell you about my friend, IF
you tell me how you would commit suicide. At the time I was a driving instructor and
had watched all the movies-with that in mind, I was also in shock at his statement and
behavior. He sat on the couch and I sat on the coffee table. He started by telling me about
his ring, how he told you the history of it. He said you hired him and that he was hoping
that I would have found the hotel bill on the credit card, when you both shacked up. HE
said that if I commit suicide, then he would have the house and would move you in. After
he rambled off about the affair and I mentioned some of the movies (NEVER intending
to commit suicide), he started yelling. Waking the kids up; as they came into the living
room, he told them Mother is going to commit suicide. I told them over and over again
that I was not going to commit suicide. They were in their nightgowns, and it was cold
that night. I could not calm them down, as Brian continued to tell them that they needed
to keep Mom from committing suicide. I went outside; telling them everything would be
okay, go back inside and get in bed. As Brian stood at the door, holding it open, with his
smile (because he wanted to startle the kids into believing I was going to kill myself), he
prompted them to run to the car (barefoot) and stop Mom. I told them I would be back, to
go inside and get into bed-it was too cold and I was not going to do as what Brian said. It
was cruel for Brian to have done this, but later on I figured out he had a purpose to get rid
of me and replace Christina‘s mother with you. He told me that you were not able to have
a baby, and that his little girl would adjust to having her mother gone and be your little
girl. He seldom did anything with the kids. In fact when we had outings he would always
complain about it- although we had a good time and the kids enjoyed themselves.

The suicidal comment was not my words, it was Brian‘s. When Brian stated, ―I will
make sure you never see your daughter again,‖ it was due to your e-mail saying you are
breaking up with him.

He never told you that he intended on slicing his wrist and was in the kitchen with a knife
to his wrist, ―It would be so easy.‖ This was after the affair started and we were always

Page 124 of 142

trying not to walk on egg shells around him. HE closed himself in our room, and told all
of us not to come in, while he was on the computer with you OR slept on the couch with
his new cell phone.

Your computer will have a program that has the ability to copy all that you type, because
he has to know what you are saying and who it is being said to. When he said I cheated
with someone on the computer, did you know he wanted me to do this while we were
together and I did not feel comfortable, but when I left the computer, he would continue
the conversation! He also told my close friends that since we were together, they were not
welcomed. He separates you from friendships; he is all that you need-including where
you work and the times that you are allowed to work. His focus is primarily directed to
himself, no one else matters.

See when I spoke to Brian‘s grandmother, she had told me things that I did not know. I
am passing them onto you. Brian‘s mother, Nancy Buck for years has been an alcoholic
and recluse. She told me while I was 7 months pregnant that she tried to end her life
several times a year- she has suicidal tendencies. One time Brian did not want to rescue
her, so I drove to Sacramento to take her to the hospital. The doctor told me that she
would have died by the morning. Her father thanked me. She would spend all her money
that her father gave her to live on in alcohol. At the end of the month she was out of food,
so I would help her with giving her $30.00 in store chips under the circumstances she did
not buy alcohol or cigarettes. She is a manic depressive with suicidal tendencies and as
Brian would refer to her, she does nothing, useless- he had me deal with her. After the
breakup-she told me that she hated me for taking Brian- which when he moved into my 4
bedroom house, it was only on a temporary basis. He wanted to get away from his mother
and I was the escape goat.

Irene also told me that everyone in their family did not like Nancy. See Brian‘s mother
and father are relatives- their great grandmothers are sisters. The genealogy goes up one
side of the tree. Brian‘s Dad was diagnosed in 2004 as having a bipolar disorder. Irene
told me that they were waiting for her to pass to get the house- it happened.

When Christina was taken away, did you ever think that her urinating on herself meant
anything? Did you also know when she was able to come home to stay the weekend, she
accidently urinated (dime spot) on my bed and jumped up, running to the bathroom. That
when I got to her she was sobbing, telling me that she will sit on the toilet for hours, it‘s
her punishment. I would not allow that. I cleaned her up and she asked if we could sleep
on the floor together-she was a little happy child with her family. I know Brian used
severe punishments, and the kids would be left on the toilet for hours. When I got home,
whoever was on the toilet was asleep. NEVER DID I PLACE ANY OF THE KIDS
ON THE TOILET- I knew going to the restroom is NOT a punishment, it‘s a right. Nor
did it have to convey to the child that being punished is associated with going to the
bathroom. Christina told me then, if she did not wet herself, could she come back home?

Did he also tell you that if he did not bring up his grades, his father would ship him off to
his alcoholic mother? (Soon after he moved in with his mother).

Page 125 of 142

Christina thinks her father thinks she is a liar. Well, let me tell you- when she came home
and told me that she saw her father holding your hands and kissing- SHE WAS CALLED
A LIAR (over and over again by her father). She was punished for telling the truth (I
believed her). Not like when Brian blamed the dog on anything that he did sort of stuff as
a child. - Christina was a typical child and when she got caught, appropriate behavior
followed. Scientific evidence and the real experience of a child while her mind was
learning to process certain behaviors has played a part in her thought process and her
worth. Although, she said, once in a while my step mother defends me- it does not equate
to her need for an attachment to someone that truly believes in her. You have a son now,
NEVER LET HIM CHALLENGE BRIAN, WHEN HE IS 3 years old watch for the
signs. When you are out and you notice something different in the way your child acts or
behaves, you better think and react.

Brian encourages you to recognize his superiority. He made himself as a ‗saver‘, a

‗prince in shining armor‘, -he did the same to me. His ideology is preoccupied with
thoughts and fantasies of great success, power and being intelligent. But he lacks the
ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others. He will use others to get to his
goal, and then leave them to the side, forgetting them altogether. He has an over-inflated
sense of self importance and will belittle anyone that challenges that sense. You should
have already felt the ‗walking on eggs‘ as being extremely cautious in one‘s actions or
words, especially, so as to avoid offending or angering Brian. Brian has suffered from
Mood Swings-so, you tread on eggshells because there‘s no knowing what will set him
off.

The reason that he (Brian) does not want Christina to contact her sisters and brother, is
that they will tell her the truth as to what happened- it would change how you view him
and as he portrays himself after he was abusive to my children and me. Christina, will in
time, find out what happened by those that were abused by Brian.
You cannot change the fact that Christina does love her mother; even when Brian
punishes her by using control to hurt her when she does show any affection for her
mother (or cancels calls for over 4 weeks). Brian does not allow Christina to love her
mother- it requires a deep programming on Brian‘s part to separate the bond that
Christina and I have had and will remain to have when she is of age. The bonding for
Christina with her mother has been disrupted – but she still has fond memories of being
with her family and has a deep feeling inside on how she really feels for her family (but
has to hide). As a mother, you are part of that abuse and it is destroying a young girl‘s
likelihood of a meaningful relationship.

Human on human forced loses is the worst lose a person can feel. Christina not only has
lost her mom, but she was forced to believe she was the only child-even when she had
two half-sisters and a half-brother. She knew them, she loved them, she was accepted by
them and she was part of them. Do you think she feels attached to your 8 month old son?
Did you know Miles and Christina were inseparable? Even when Miles was injured by
Brian when he was 3 years old, and told never to say anything about it to his [Miles]
mom- he told me what happened after Brian left. His abuse was over the course of years,

Page 126 of 142

but he is concerned about his little sister and still loves her with close memories he
cherishes. Did you also know that Deanna was being manipulated by Brian, promises that
went nowhere, he also abused her and she wanted to move away from him? After moving
in with Aunt Terry and Brian‘s continued abuse, she asked to move to her fathers. Did
you also know that at NO TIME did I deny my children‘s father any visitation with his
children, but Brian said he should pay more child support and see his children less? I had
children with my ex-husband, and he was allowed to love his children, as they were
allowed to love their father.

Before Brian left, he sat on Miles causing him to grasp for air. This was after they were
wrestling and Miles was winning. I came into the living room because I heard Miles
asking Brian to get off of him in a weak voice. When I told Brian to get off of him, he got
upset and made me follow him into the room and proceeded to tell me (paraphrasing),
“NEVER CHALLENGE MY AUTHORITY IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN
AGAIN!” I told him it was not his authority that I was challenging, it was that he was
hurting Miles and that was not acceptable.

Christina has absorbed the stress of a cult mentality as to the treatment from Brian. She
gets punished when she has a good conversation with her mother. She is not allowed to
state that she loves her mother. It‘s going to take a long time for her to be deprogrammed.
She is being taught that being part of her mother is bad; she is part of me, she came from
me, has ½ of my genes. Somewhat equated to her punishment on the toilet and her
mentality at the time, that she is bad, and the bathroom represented being bad. She was
forced to accept you in her life, until she finally figured out what has happened and she
does not matter at all. She was and has been a pawn in this equation; having the main
culprit (Brian) believes that he has control over continued harm to Christina‘s mother
through Christina. I know you were part of this; I heard your voice as I was speaking to
Christina as well as her father‘s voice. The change of her conversation was apparent and
the message was being forced upon a child to relay the dislikes of an adult through her;
did you not know that it caused severe harm to Christina?

During your beginning romantic relationship with Christina‘s father, Brian, did you also
know that she (Christina) saw you both (at an age that was shocking) doing ―Not for the
child‘s eyes?‖ She mentioned this in such a way that she recalled that you were on top of
her daddy, with no clothes on. That she was yelled at for not understanding what she did.
Did you also know that same week, when she was spending the night home, and I had a
male friend over, that she went up to him and asked (point blankly), ―Are you going to
sleep with my mommy?‖ Given my friend understood her question, he answered her with
honesty. ―No, I would never sleep with your mommy!‖ The impact on what she
witnessed to this day has affected her past, present and future relationships – Is it okay to
have a relationship with someone for a long period (even considering it a family), and
then cheat on that person, covering up by lies and deception?

Do you also know that when you are not in the house, that Brian will continue the
demeaning talk with Christina, to force her to comply- that she does not feel loved or
appreciated, that she is just the third wheel, locked inside of her-self due to that control?

Page 127 of 142

That by showing hate for her mother feeds Brian‘s needs to harm me by using Christina
as the ultimate weapon. When in fact, her crooked smile, glowing (starved) personality,
replicated teeth, moles that are in the same place as her mother‘s, ears that mimic mine,
even her forehead has the same shape and her matching eyes are all part of her mother,
which is part of her. When Brian demands that she hate her mother, he is really telling
her to hate herself for being part of her mother.

I am a mother, and I love each of my five (5) children; including Christina Lynn Tippie,
as well as Deanna, Kayla and Miles (and our angel Baby Gene).

I know you cannot place yourself in my shoes, but give Christina a fighting chance to
discover herself by becoming close to her mother and her family. She needs to know she
is accepted and loved by those that are and will be important in her life- not when
someone dictates her life and continues to demean her in control.

Best wishes,
Christina‘s Mother, Joyce Lynn Welsh
Cc: Maria

In Child Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations:

Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence
Knowledge and Custody-Visitation Recommendations, Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D.,
Kathleen C. Faller, Ph.D. and Richard M. Tolman, Ph.D., they pointed out, ―Some
evaluators (15%) used only a general personality-psychopathology instrument, such as
the MMPI, rather than a specific instrument to assess DV. Those who used such general
personality-psychopathology instruments were more likely to believe that false DV
allegations are common and the father in the vignette should have joint or sole
custody. They were less likely to have learned about screening for DV or assessing
dangerousness‖ [bold added]. This was such in my case, as Karen Ruth Hobbs was not
experienced enough to see the signs and in her report she fabricated words that I did not
say. Heidi Perryman, Christina‘s court appointee also would not hear of what she had to
say and told me (Christina) that she [Perryman] said she did not know what she wanted.
But the report clears this phenomenon as in the section that interviews survivors of
Domestic Violence. ―Interviews with survivors who had negative experiences during the
child custody process revealed several themes: Domestic violence was ignored or
minimized in the evaluation; evaluators gave too much weight to survivors‘ mental health
or alleged mental health symptoms; and evaluators performed one-sided and rushed
evaluations.‖ Further down it states, ―‗Some survivors‘ reports of a double standard
regarding mental illness in mothers versus fathers suggest that mothers are being held to a
higher standard. These survivor reports may illustrate the significant relationship between
endorsing patriarchal norms and making custody recommendations that favor offenders.
The survivors also highlighted the need for evaluators to understand the traumatic effects
of the emotional abuse they suffered.‖ As the emotional abuse was directed at me by
Brian Tippie, including why he wanted me out of the picture by deeming me a threat to
myself; if I wanted to know why he was mistreating the family and about his affair, I had
to state something that was not true. ―Evaluators using general measures of

Page 128 of 142

personality-psychopathology were more likely to recommend sole or joint custody to the
abusive father in the case vignette.‖ As seen in this case, retaliation is one of the main
components that was factored in the decision; specifically continuing the false report by
the court appointee‘s, Karen Hobbs and Heidi Perryman, having Brian Tippie responsible
for setting up the therapy (even though it was stated, I will make sure you never see your
daughter again!‖) and Judge Barry Baskin embroiling himself in the case as a third party.
―Ironically, battered mothers‘ attempts to protect their children may be used against them
in custody and visitation decisions (pg.17).‖ After bringing forward the diseased
supervisor and her activities before the court (criminal, civil and family law) in protecting
my child- the attorney and court tried to force yet another visit (which I was not going to
expose my child to a lifetime of medication). But the father was not concerned about this,
and he was willing to expose two diseases on our child. I was punished for not doing the
visit- and the courts used that against me.
―Practitioners may misinterpret the demeanor of battered women. Due to the
trauma of the violence and the added stress of fearing the loss of child custody to
an abuser, survivors may be extremely emotional. Alternately, they may seem
indifferent, due to the numbing effects of posttraumatic stress (APA, 1996;
Erickson, 2006; Crites & Coker, 1988). The hostility some victims show can be a sign
of posttraumatic stress disorder or a reaction to injustices they have endured.
Regardless, such an affect is at odds with the courts image of a ―good mother‖
(Neustein & Lesher, 2005). What may seem like chronic emotional instability
however, is likely to be situational and caused by past and current trauma (Erickson,
2006) (pg. 20). If you had a partner harm your children and the child that you had with
him, with emotional violence directed at you including making it seem as though you
would commit suicide- would you not show signs of stress and having the very system
retaliate against you in all matters? As the court took more away from me without
reasoning, and represented Brian Tippie (Judge Barry Baskin) it was very clear that I was
not going to have anything remotely fair, and never be heard.

COMMUNICATION TO BRIAN TIPPIE

SUBJECT: Need to talk directly about Christina... (18)

I have also called Brian Tippie on his cell phone on July 22, 2014, at 7:00 PM, and 8:10
PM and left a message regarding talking about the calls on Tuesdays. I recalled again on
July 23, 2014, at 7:24 AM, 8:58 AM, 4:56 PM and 6:10 PM, leaving a message about the
calls on Tuesdays, and documenting the times that I attempted to call.
At this time, Brian Tippie has not picked up the phone when I called. The e-mails are
ascending from July 29, 2014, to July 22, 2014. At no time will you find my name
mentioned in an e-mail from Christina‘s father Brian, to her mother Joyce. I have always
been referred to as ‗her‘ or ‗she‘- never Joyce. Due to the past missed calls, Brian advised
me that he would accept a letter for Christina in lieu of a call missed. I wrote two letters
to Christina, and she never received them. No response was given after July 29, 2014 e-
mail.

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:48 AM, Strahberry <strahberry@yahoo.com> wrote:

Brian,

Page 129 of 142

Please refrain from insinuating that I am frustrated, as it is a legal issue, and I am
following the final order. I understand that Christina hangs up due to a parents
involvement and therefore has the impression that a minor has learned this by the action/
or inaction of that parent.

As to your response to your words, ―I do not have time to talk on the phone,‖ it was
directed from your response, and NOT related to Christina. This information is
disrespectful and carries over to Christina in both behavior and mannerism. As you have
stated in the past, ―abides the current court order,‖ so by me calling, I have abided the
current court order, and as Christina‘s father, you have not.

I don‘t think you understand the gravity of this situation, being that you are one of the
main culprits that have caused this and continues to cause such harm to Christina through
the use of punishment, in her room and by demanding she not be in your presents during
a call from her mother. By handing her the phone and NEVER giving her a positive role
in connecting with her mother, and by the very act of ignorance and hate towards her
mother- she has learned not to comply with the current court order. Which reflects on
your behavior and that of her step mothers followed behavior as yours.

I understand if it is not your way, it is no way.

So, I will write to Christina and you can give her the message- by the following Tuesday,
I should be able to get a scanned copy of her response. At the same time she will be able
to write to me in her response and be able to send pictures, or anything she feels she
would like to share. The same goes for her mother- which she (Christina) will be allowed
to receive pictures and other things that her mother sends. If you have a problem with
this, then I would suggest that you speak to her positively about taking the calls on
Tuesday. AS it is apparent, it is not about you, but for the benefit of Christina.

Sincerely,
Ms. Joyce Welsh

On Monday, July 28, 2014 8:33 AM, Brian Tippie <b_tippie@yahoo.com> wrote:
See notes below.

Thanks,
Brian

On Jul 26, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Strahberry <strahberry@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Brian Tippie,

> I do not think you understand the situation. Let me nicely point this out and maybe you
could answer.
> When I can finally get through the message calls (after 6:00 PM) and contact Christina
directly, she says she does not want to talk, then hangs up. If I am not able to talk with

Page 130 of 142

her at the first contact call or the ones after, how is it that ―you [I] need to take it up with
her. Talk to her and figure out a solution.‖ ? When she hangs up! How should I do that?

I understand your point. However, I can not force a teenager to talk. I am not sure what it
is you are looking for me to do. My understanding of the situation is that you are
frustrated by the fact that she hangs up. I can not advise how to rectify this issue other
than to say that this is a teenager acting out as a teenager.
>
> What prevents, ―I do not have time to talk on the phone‖ when it comes to conversing
about our daughter?
I am unsure of this question. If your insinuating that I am responsible for the source of
what she says, you are wrong. I hand her the phone, she goes into her room, and then
hands me the phone when she is done. I do not regulate time/conversation. She is aware
of when and the amount of time to talk. She decides when to talk and when not to.
> You could record the call if you wanted to.
I do.
> I received an e-mail after Christina told me about what you had stated to her to ask me,
and when I asked her to ―ask your father to call me,‖ she did. You told her that you
would call, but never did.
I am not sure what you referring to.
> I also understand that you have Skype and Tango (your number is listed) - if you prefer
to use those programs, I have them set up on my computer with the ability to receive a
call.
The phone is and has been the most reliable source of communication to facilitate the
calls.
> What time and day would you be willing to call regarding this situation?
Emails are the most reliable source of communication to communicate with you. As
stated earlier I can have a written record of the conversation.
> What is Christina doing this summer?
Reading, playing video games, watching movies, sleeping
> Do you have plans for her this summer?
No.
> Will she be going on a summer vacation?
None of your business.

On Saturday, July 26, 2014 2:14 PM, Strahberry <strahberry@yahoo.com> wrote:

Brian Tippie,
I do not think you understand the situation. Let me nicely point this out and maybe you could
answer.
When I can finally get through the message calls (after 6:00 PM) and contact Christina directly,
she says she does not want to talk, then hangs up. If I am not able to talk with her at the first
contact call or the ones after, how is it that “you [I] need to take it up with her. Talk to her and
figure out a solution.” ? When she hangs up? How should I do that?
What prevents, “I do not have time to talk on the phone” when it comes to conversing about
our daughter? You could record the call if you wanted to. I received an e-mail after Christina
told me about what you had stated to her to ask me, and when I asked her to “ask your father to
call me,” she did. You told her that you would call, but never did. I also understand that you

Page 131 of 142

have Skype and Tango (your number is listed) - if you prefer to use those programs, I have them
set up on my computer with the ability to receive a call. What time and day would you be willing
to call regarding this situation?
What is Christina doing this summer?
Do you have plans for her this summer?
Will she be going on a summer vacation?

Thank you,
Ms. Joyce Welsh

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 5:24 PM, Brian Tippie <b_tippie@yahoo.com> wrote:
(The red font is his reply)
Brian,

I am not sure how to make this any easier, as a '?" mark is a question. That is why having
a conversation (on the phone) would make it easier to have the answer answered; not
having the question answered defeats the e-mail communication when one party does not
recognize the question.

What exactly does, "if you two are not seeing eye to eye," mean, please elaborate (my
concern and question also).

I was suggesting that if you do not agree with what she is saying that you need to take it
up with her. Talk to her and figure out a solution.

Is there a problem with conversing over the phone in regards to Christina and the calls on
Tuesday (this has already been asked many times)?

The problem is that I do not have time to talk on the phone. Also, I want a written record
of our discussion.

Please answer these two questions, so I know what the answers are and will understand
more.

Thanks,
Joyce Welsh

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:56 PM, Strahberry <strahberry@yahoo.com> wrote:

Brian,

I am not sure how to make this any easier, as a '?" mark is a question. That is why having
a conversation (on the phone) would make it easier to have the answer answered; not
having the question answered defeats the e-mail communication when one party does not
recognize the question.

What exactly does, "if you two are not seeing eye to eye," mean, please elaborate (my
concern and question also).

Page 132 of 142

Is there a problem with conversing over the phone in regards to Christina and the calls on
Tuesday (this has already been asked many times)?

Please answer these two questions, so I know what the answers are and will understand
more.

Thanks,
Joyce Welsh

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:54 PM, Brian Tippie <b_tippie@yahoo.com> wrote:
I prefer to communicate via email as its the most efficient and am able to have records of
the discussion.

Again, please let me know what it is you are looking to accomplish or any questions you
may have regarding the Tuesday calls.

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:28 AM, Strahberry <strahberry@yahoo.com> wrote:

Brian,

Again, speculation and untrue as to your statement that I was not directed to contact
you by phone and/or document my efforts.

Is there a problem with conversing over the phone in regards to Christina and the calls on
Tuesday (this has already been asked many times)?

As to "barring certain circumstances"- as to the Tuesday's calls, please direct me to where

that was addressed and acknowledged through a court order.

Communication through e-mail has been a problem, in the past as well as this moment. It
seems and is clear that you choose to ignore questions, or concerns, because the answers
can only come from you as the other parent; as this will also be ignored and not
answered, when I do ask a question or have concerns.

What exactly does, "if you two are not seeing eye to eye," mean, please elaborate (my
concern and question also).

I will be calling this evening in hopes that we can have a calm discussion about what is
happening with the Tuesdays calls and why they are not happening.

Sincerely,
Ms. Joyce Welsh (Christina's Mother, Born January 18, 1999).

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 8:47 AM, Brian Tippie <b_tippie@yahoo.com> wrote:
You were not directed to talk to me by phone. You were directed to communicate with
the other parent.

Page 133 of 142

That being said I am still unclear what your question, comment, concerns are that pertains
to me.

Again, I will restate what I mentioned before. My role in this is to make sure that
Christina is available for the Tuesday calls. Which I have done barring certain
circumstances in which you have been notified in advance. As for the calls themselves, I
give her the phone when it rings and she returns it when she is done. What she says or
does with these calls when I hand her the phone is up to her.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

Thanks,
Brian

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:42 AM, Strahberry <strahberry@yahoo.com> wrote:

Brian,

I was directed to call you by phone and discuss this issue as Christina's parents. Is there a
problem with you talking on the phone to Christina's mother?

Sincerely,
Ms. Joyce Welsh

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:37 AM, Brian Tippie <b_tippie@yahoo.com> wrote:
What is it that needs to be discussed? Please email me any questions, comments, or
concerns. Its the best form of communication.

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 10:32 AM, Strahberry <strahberry@yahoo.com> wrote:

Brian,

What time are you available to discuss the call(s) that are to happen on Tuesday by
phone?

Sincerely,
Ms. Joyce Welsh

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 10:29 AM, Brian Tippie <b_tippie@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am still unclear as to what you want to discuss with me. My role in this process is to
make sure that communication is available every Tuesday for 15mins.

As I mentioned, if you have issues regarding your daughter talking with you, you need to
take it up with her. I am unable to force her to talk with you if she is unwilling or if you
two are not seeing eye to eye. All I can recommend is that you keep trying every
Tuesday.

Page 134 of 142

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 11:13 PM, Strahberry <strahberry@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian,

When are you available to talk about this on the phone? As it seems you have the
incorrect information.

Ms. Joyce Welsh

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 11:06 PM, Brian Tippie <b_tippie@yahoo.com> wrote:
As far as I am aware the phone calls are happening and have been for the past many
years. I hand the phone to Christina every Tuesday. She returns the phone when she is
done. When she returns the phone early she mentions that she didn't want to talk. I leave
that between you two.

Thanks,
Brian

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:52 PM, Strahberry <strahberry@yahoo.com> wrote:

Brian.

We need to talk directly about the calls that are court ordered for Tuesdays at 6:00pm
to 6:15pm or when the call starts and goes for 15 minutes.

And the reasoning why they are not happening, and resolve the issues preventing
following the court ordered calls.

Ms. Joyce Welsh

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:44 PM, Brian Tippie <b_tippie@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sure, what is there to talk about?

Thanks,
Brian

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:03 PM, Strahberry <strahberry@yahoo.com> wrote:

Brian,

I have called your phone 925-917-1854, on July 22, 2014 at 7:00 pm and 8:10 pm;
leaving a message that stated that we need to talk directly about Christina.

If you want, you can call me anytime at 502-4440-2315 and I will pick up.

Thank you,
Ms. Joyce Welsh

Page 135 of 142

For years I have been asking for skype calling, or Tango calls and have been denied. Both
programs are free, and Brian‘s phone number is listed on Tango, Jenna has a listing on
Skype. Brian Tippie always has replied that he has no internet connection at home, even
when Christina has told me that they do (as far back as 2009). From the time stamp on
the above e-mails, being after 10:44 PM, Christina‘s awareness is and has always been
correct. There is an internet connection in the household at 1215 Ridgeview PL., Pleasant
Hill, California, 94523.

Monday, December 03 2012, 08:59 AM - #permalink

Hi Amanda,
We've used Jenna Tippie. She is great. Really reliable, organized, great communicator
and has organized our files and general home systems. I would highly recommend her -
she's pleasant, reasonable, and flexible. her email is: jazzcommon@hotmail.com, phone:
510-759-4997.
Joanna
http://www.tbaoakland.org/community/abeslist/looking-for-someone-to-help-us-
organize-declutter

CLOSING:

The Contra Costa County Family Court ignored a significant portion of the procedural
history of this case. When the full history is examined, you should find that the present
action is not one to determine child support arrearages, but an action to establish and
enforce a judgment that has long since become final. To successfully resist enforcement
of this final judgment, Brian Tippie (father) must establish not only that he has a valid
defense against not following the final order, but also that there are equitable grounds to
set aside the final judgment orders, and that he has acted with diligence in seeking relief.
The exact wording, ―I will make sure you never see your daughter again!‖ has been the
driving force of his actions, and/or inactions on this case. He has been represented by
Judge Barry Baskin throughout this case and knew he would not be set straight on any
matters because he was being protected, while I was attacked at every turn.
I am asking the perspective officers, departments, supervisors and anyone else reviewing
this document to include not only the issue specified in the document for review, but also
"every subsidiary issue fairly included in it." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 28(e)(2).)
After the time for ordinary direct attack has passed [which it has not at this moment] (see
Code Civ. Proc., § 473 [allowing up to six months to challenge a judgment entered
through the moving party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect]), a party
may obtain relief from an erroneous judgment by establishing that it was entered through
extrinsic fraud or mistake. (In re Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 342 [165
Cal.Rptr. 792, 612 P.2d 882]; Olivera v. Grace (1942) 19 Cal.2d 570, 575 [122 P.2d 564,
140 A.L.R. 1328].) But due to the circumstances given in this document, I was not
allowed to proceed; even when I went back to the court before Judge Mary Ann
O‘Malley and complained about Brian Tippie not allowing the telephone calls, or
following the orders. The judge, whom I have never seen prior, stated that she was not

Page 136 of 142

going to change anything on the final order- it was well received that I was not to
complain about anything or attempt to address anything again in the court system, even
when there was non-compliance on the petitioners part. During that hearing, I had noticed
a change in the judges behavior from those before my case being called; but when I
stepped up to proceed, her demeanor changed. She was already told what to state and I
believe it was Barry Baskin, Terrence Bruiniers, Commissioner Berkow and others that
had already informed her how to handle this case.
I understand and have read, ―To warrant relief on this ground, the moving party must
establish: (1) facts constituting extrinsic fraud or mistake; (2) a substantial defense on the
merits; and (3) diligence in seeking relief from the adverse judgment. In this case, and
due to being vexatious, I am not allowed to proceed without the written consent in
submitting any documents into the record. It is understood that the appropriate recipients
for the child support payments were now placed in the hands of the therapists and
petitioner was due nothing of child support; as such time until a report could be obtained
and submitted into the record (6 months). If the petitioner is rewarded by granting a
payment not due to him, by way of a final court order, which he chose to resist the
purpose of the support being changed to the therapists (appropriate recipients); he would
be rewarded for non-compliance to that final order. Respondent should be relieved of the
support obligation for the purpose of punishing the alleged misconduct of the custodial
parent and his failure to ascertain the counseling that was needed for Christina and her
mother to build a relationship. Instead, I am known as a 15 minutes phone call a phrase
from the petitioner himself to my daughter.

Even though the Supreme Court held that the dereliction of the custodial parent did not
abrogate the noncustodial parent's duty of support, it did not include non-compliance to
an order that stated the support was due to the therapist‘s, not the petitioner and keeping
our child from a bonding relationship." In a study that was received by the DOJ, These
are cases in which the court disbelieved the mothers‘ abuse allegations and gave the
fathers complete control. The children have been threatened, coerced and punished if
they continue to complain about their father’s abuse or seek a relationship with
their mother. [bold added] In other words the fathers have had tremendous assistance in
silencing the children.‖ None of the court appointee‘s wanted to know the truth, or had
adequate training in Domestic Violence as they were paid by the Petitioner. Although I
was seen by many professionals, who had the correct training- their reports did not
conform to the court appointee‘s reports. Anything that I attempted was blocked, even if
it was correct. That is one reasoning as to bringing this forward now-and knowing what
my daughter has stated, as to her worth, and the punishment for trying to have a
relationship with her mother has added further severe punishment. Her father has tried to
commit suicide as he has learned this by his mother, who has attempted to commit
suicide while Brian was young and had witnessed her attempts. I fear for my daughter, as
she does not have an attachment to her father, her step mother, or the baby in her
immediate family.

―Practitioners may misinterpret the demeanor of battered women. Due to the

trauma of the violence and the added stress of fearing the loss of child custody to
an abuser, survivors may be extremely emotional. Alternately, they may seem

Page 137 of 142

indifferent, due to the numbing effects of posttraumatic stress (APA, 1996;
Erickson, 2006; Crites & Coker, 1988). The hostility some victims show can be a sign
of posttraumatic stress disorder or a reaction to injustices they have endured.
Regardless, such an affect is at odds with the courts image of a ―good mother‖
(Neustein & Lesher, 2005). What may seem like chronic emotional instability,
however, is likely to be situational and caused by past and current trauma (Erickson,
2006). case.‖ How was I to tell about Brian causing my children to believe I was going to
commit suicide, when I never did or had the intent to, but wanted to know what was
happening and was shocked at his response?: when I stated that very situation with the
court appointee‘s, without as much as them asking more questions or acknowledging that
it occurred. Also, during the time I left, I had an infected gallbladder, which would not
process food and I ended up throwing up at 2 in the morning. I drove to my daughter‘s
apartment in Washington State, to get away from the abuse of Brian and was able to eat
for the first time in 6 weeks (holding it down).

Even if the duty to permit visitation is completely independent of the duty to make
support payments, it does not excuse the custodian parent of being non-compliant to the
final order which instructed the custodian parent to pass on the payments to the therapists
as they were the appropriate recipients for that payment. In actuality, the support
payments were changed as visitation and reunification, not support payments to the
petitioner. I had contacted the Child Support Division and enquired about the final order-
they told me that they cannot follow the order but gave no reasoning why. In my 5 years
of out of the country and through researching my own situation, I have never come across
any case even similar to the wording on the final court order and have nothing to submit
as a rebuttal, other than the facts that have been documented.

The Contra Costa County Family Court has undertaken extensive efforts in collaboration
to delay and prevent Respondent from moving forward, even by threats to her life for
turning in ‗the tip of the iceberg‘ in the case of DEBORAH HILDEBRANDT, and
ROBERT ―BOB‖ CALVILLO and Brian Tippie vs. Joyce Welsh. Proven allegations are
relevant to estoppel are identified as MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE, RACKETEERING, TERRORISM, FALSE ADVERTISING, FRAUDS
AND SWINDLES, HONEST SERVICES FRAUD, KIDNAPPING, EXTORTION,
COLLUSION TO DEFRAUD, RACKETEERING (SEVERAL COUNTS), and various
specific allegations described therein as ―duress‖ ―fraud‖ ―undue influence.‖ In short,
The Contra Costa County Family Court, in conspiracy and enterprise have wrongfully
and violently impeded, oppressed, and delayed the respondent, Joyce L. Welsh from
pursuing action. I bring to you, now, the case, for the safety of myself and that of my
daughter and the public- that due to the courts action, the ‗whistle blower‘ has received
the greatest threat and those that were identified as being criminals were excused from
any appropriate punishment (including the Senator, CEO‘s, Court Officials, and Brian
Tippie). Such circumstances are ―extraordinary‖ and ―beyond plaintiff‘s control,‖ in one
case, and ―beyond respondents control,‖ in another. Both cases had the same elements,
because of their fiduciary and professional relationships, which created special tolling
rules for both active and passive concealment, duress and undue influence. . When
Commissioner Berkow alerted Judge Barry Baskin to concerns, Judge Barry Baskin

Page 138 of 142

furthered the conspiracy by fraudulently inducing Commissioner Berkow to delay in
violation of her fiduciary and PROFESSIONAL DUTIES. Judge Barry Baskin further
induced delay by extorting Joyce Welsh with threats of loss of custody of her daughter by
retribution of Commissioner Berkow (due to the subpoenas being allowed and asking for
them).

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: ―No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.‖ U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, sec. 1. An illegal policy, habit, or
custom of not prosecuting judges for abusing litigants directly and foreseeably will lead
to more abuse as such in this case. Courts in the United States have repeatedly found
government actors liable for creating policies and conditions which foreseeably permit
others to cause injury. See Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982). When
that policy, habit, or custom of permitting crime, causing a deprivation of liberty,
property, speech, or other fundamental rights, or works against a class, the policy is a
violation of equal protection under state and federal constitutions. United States v.
Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Guinn
v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1914); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326;
Screws v. U.S., 325 U.S. 91 (1945). I spoke as a powerless representative to myself, and
was labeled as a ―disgruntled litigant‖—but clearly demonstrable commercial fraud,
extortion, deprivation, and abuse was committed on an enterprise scale. In California, any
judge or commissioner violating a litigant civil rights is acting outside of the scope of
their jurisdiction. Attorneys, judges, and psychologists collaborate to close the deal on
their fraud and your future. That is the reasoning why I am bringing this forward.

I am not an attorney, I have no training as an attorney, but I want to submit the facts to
you and have the appropriate investigation into these cases- with a correction that I am
asking below. I have no rights, from the courts deeming me vexatious, to redress my
grievance‘s, and even if I had the opportunity to do so, state court defenses and state
court prejudices are always in favor of their industry. Conspiracies outside of court
―setting in motion‖ deprivation in court are not immune. Wallace v. Powell, 3:09-cv-
00268-ARC, Document # 1510, filed 9 January 2014 (Plaintiff‘s Request for Judicial
Notice Ex. A); Rankin at 847 (―Although a party conniving with a judge to predetermine
the outcome of a judicial proceeding may deal with him in his ―judicial capacity,‖ the
other party‘s expectation, i. e., judicial impartiality, is actively frustrated by the scheme.
In any event, the agreement is not ―a function normally performed by a judge.‖ It is the
antithesis of the ―principled and fearless decision-making‖ that judicial immunity exists
to protect.‖). Actions by a judge under color of law in the absence of authority are void
as ―coram non judice‖, and a defendant (Judge Barry Baskin as the third party in the
family law case) causing injuries while in coram non judice is entitled to no immunity
whatsoever, but is strictly liable as a trespasser. Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948 (6th
Cir. 1932); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 162 (1965). A judge is only immune for acts
which are ―only performed by judges,‖ as Judge Barry Baskin was representing the
Petitioner in the hearings, he also performed an illegal act of ex-parte with Commissioner

Page 139 of 142

Berkow whereby he disallowed the subpoenas after the expired date, but back dated a
document and cleared the courtroom of pending litigants in their cases to cover for the
illegal act. Judge Barry Baskin also compiled a ―Show Cause‘ document, which was not
acceptable in any court, but used it to deem me vexatious or face jail time.

What I want done, due to this abuse:

1. Reinstate my Passport, #455252692, Date of issue 04 May 2009-expired 03 May

2019: 4552526920USA6211110F1905032318228932<
2. Review the judicial procedures in case #D0-5-0622, D05-00384 and Docket #03-
219833-1 (PC 286.5), Case#C07-00749, and Case# N07-0702. California, Contra
Costa County.
3. Investigate the criminal case against DEBORAH HILDEBRANDT, and ROBERT
―BOB‖ CALVILLO and how the judiciary lost the file and contents/ evidence.
4. Investigate Barry Baskin‘s authority in taking away my constitutional right, as stated
in a hearing and on the record, ―You have no Constitutional Rights!‖
5. If Barry Baskin is found to have violated my constitutional rights, it should be
appropriately addressed and/or reprimand. I was told by Judge Barry Baskin with
malice,‖ You have no constitutional rights.‖ The transcript also states the same.
6. Barry Baskin had shown that Respondent had no constitutional rights throughout the
whole process in the family court hearings and at trial. Including not allowing me to
read from my own prepared written closing statement. Barry Baskin told me that I
was not allowed to read from anything but allowed Brian Tippie to read from his
documentation and prepared statement.
7. Contact Contra Costa County Child Support Department and find reasoning behind
not complying with the final order. The child support was changed to be given to the
therapists, there is no child support order on the final order- and child support
payments, since they were not properly given to the appropriate recipients; and then
there is no child support order. I owe no child support.
8. Due to the facts of this Family Law case being under the control of the very person
that used retaliation at the respondent, because of turning in Commissioner Berkow
to the White House and other agencies of the government; this case should be
investigated extensively and other cases that Berkow and Baskin managed, including
Polk, and Mantas cases.
9. Co-conspiracy through the appointees of Commissioner Berkow and Barry Baskin,
did not accept the correct testing results that were incorrectly done by Hobbs; and
ignored Dr. Daniel Rybicki‘s report, thus continuing the falsified testimony of
Hildebrandt. The court appointee‘s reports are fabricated, false and have nothing to
anchor them to; they are being forced back into the case to continue the abuse
through the court appointees. But Daniel Rybicki‘s report was done correctly- and
not included.
10. Petitioner was non-compliant to the orders, and understood that he did not have to
follow any such orders because nothing would be done to him for noncompliance.
Even to this day, he has proven to be non-compliant. My daughter Christina and her
mother suffered by that non-compliance.

Page 140 of 142

11. Vexatious litigant should be removed from the record. The court on its own made it
possible to stop me from bringing the case to the media. I have not submitted
anything into the court since 2007, which was not found to be vexatious. All the
documents that ―I‖ wrote were responses to Lisa Gilmore, except for William
Parker‘s documents that were submitted as assisting me, per the order of the judge
himself which made me vexatious.
12. I was warned by court and law officials, that my life was in jeopardy and that I
should move as far away as I could. If I ever entered into my birth country, I am in
jeopardy of death for exposing the truth and telling my story.
13. I can and may be contacted through electronic mail at fresabaya@yahoo.com for any
correspondence or answers regarding this document. I do not want any more
retaliation. IF you need a physical address, write to: Fundacion Politecnico La Salle,
Leon. P.O. Box 4, Carretera a Poneloya. Leon, Nicaragua, C.A., ATT: Jack Welsh.
14. Since President Bush did not respond to me directly after such time of turning in
Commissioner Berkow, and not knowing what happened and why I was treated with
malice. I need confirmation of any responses from this document. I want to be
advised as to the process that will take place, after such time you receive this
document.
15. I want to have Skyping or Tango calls with my daughter, as her father has internet
and access to both programs. The calls for 15 minutes are ridiculous as there are
times she wants to talk longer, but is afraid of the consequences of stepping over the
15 minutes with punishment of losing the next call with her mother.
16. Since Brian has made it clear that, ―I will make sure you never see your daughter
again!‖ It has caused Christina harm, and her sisters and brother still love her and
miss her tremendously. She should have the right to contact her rightful siblings by
phone or mail. Brian‘s statement has been ignored, although on the record and does
not comply with the best interest of our child.
17. There was no suggestion of any abuse in the court documents, other than Brian
stating from the suggestion of his attorney (Lisa Gilmore), that I was unstable. I
never abused my daughter at any time. Although Christina was severely punished by
her father and made to sit on the toilet for hours upon hours, causing her to urinate
herself in school, and elsewhere- that issue was ignored by the judge.
18. At the time Brian‘s wife (Jenna-his old boss) delivered a boy, Charles, Christina was
made to be a slave in her own household; she suffers from isolation, and does not
have the necessary social skills as other 15 year old teens. She also has had two
failed relationships and is facing an uphill battle trying to fit in. By having her
connect with her family, she will be able to know herself, and know that she is loved
by those that are her family. She is not the only child as she had stated, as she knows
she has siblings that want to know her.
19. The final court order was done maliciously, by a prejudicial judge with internal
vengeance due to my action of exposing the truth and having The White House
respond (on the judge‘s watch). Which retaliation was used against me by all of
those connected in this case, including the presiding judge, the Commission of
Judicial Performance, clerks, and other officers of the court. It is necessary to have
an investigation and correct the vengeance and retaliation by the judge‘s actions.

Page 141 of 142

20. As listed on the first (1st) page, I am mailing this to the court and making this
document public- it should be submitted into the record, and the court officials are
not to omit their wrong-doing after receiving this document. I am also sending this to
the Board of Supervisors in Contra Costa County for their view and review. A copy
of this is also being forwarded to The White House, where the retaliation occurred
after they were notified and responded to the court directly in removing
Commissioner Berkow from child custody cases and having her supervisor continue
the abuse therefore after. I ask the DOJ to take this seriously, and investigate the
cases-as you will find the facts submitted in this document are accessible in the
record –except the bestiality case and some of the participants that were listed as
high officials (Senators) have been removed from the case. Seeking the Animal
Control officers knowledge might fill in the names- but they will have to have
protection first.
21. This will be mailed first to The White House and the Department of Justice
respectfully. Following it will be mailed to the Board of Supervisors and the court in
Martinez last.
22. All the requests are being asked, and there are some issues that I am not aware of in
asking or have the knowledge about such matters. In absence of not knowing, it
should be included in this document that it is asked, to correct the record and have
the abuse stopped. Yes, I have PTSD, Legal Abuse Syndrome, along with it
Peripheral Neuropathy which was caused by dealing with the retaliation and non-
compliance to a vindictive final order and suffrage of the loss of my daughter, family
and Constitutional Rights.

Everything in this document is true and the record should reflect that it was in fact
retaliation done by the acts of the Supervising Judge Barry Baskin and his court officials
that continued to ignore his abuse. I write this with a clear conscience as to the facts. I
submit this in hopes that my Constitutional Rights will be replaced, correction of the
above requests go forward and that I am turning this in on my own account for the record,
and to seek an investigation as to the wrong-doing of those that participated in severely
punishing me for bringing this forward. My concern has always been for my daughter-
and I know she has suffered a great loss. Her father is not immune to punishment for
what he did and I should not be punished for his negligence or disregard of allowing a
relationship between daughter and mother (and siblings).

Sincerely,
Ms. Joyce Lynn Welsh ______________________________________________
Date: August 2015: The Contra Costa County Family Court, Board of Supervisors.
August 2014: FBI, The White House, The Department of Justice (DOJ)

Page 142 of 142