(GSA) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEFRAUDS UNITED STATES SOLDIER

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLANT DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

HASHIM M. BOMANI

vs.

THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Case No.: B227347    L.A.S.C. No. VD065587

                       APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF CASE

This case arises out of a judgment of dissolution of marriage between Appellant Hashim M. Bomani and Plaintiff Stephanie M. Wilson. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY[1], FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.[2]) are co-conspirators in matters WILSON v. BOMANI. Mr. Bomani appeals the fraudulent accounting schemes utilized by Respondents (THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.) Mr. Bomani alleges that the Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) who knowingly and/or intentionally committed fraud, corruption and/or collusion. Mr. Bomani alleges that Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) engaged in very noticeable irregularities, misconduct and impropriety. Mr. Bomani alleges that Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES) engaged in collusion in order to conceal, understate and omit over $1,000,000.00 (ONE-MILLION-DOLLARS) in property, assets and/or income and filed fraudulent and/or misleading financial statements in the Court of law.

ISSUES PRESENTED

  1. Whether Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) unscrupulously filed false and/or misleading financial declarations in order to skew and/or blur the Trial Court(s) discretion.

  2. Whether Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) exercised irregularities, misconduct and collusion in order to mislead and/or deceive the Trial Court(s) discretion.

  3. Whether Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) knowingly and/or intentionally concealed, understated and omitted over $1,000,000.00 (ONE-MILLION-DOLLARS) in property, assets and/or income in order to mislead, skew and/or blur the Trial Court(s) discretion and render a fraudulent child support obligation upon Appellant, Hashim M. Bomani.

  4. Whether Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) received special favor and/or preferential treatment because Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) is a 35 year veteran Probation Officer employed by the Los Angeles County Probation Department.

  5. Whether Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION  OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) knowingly and/or intentionally disregarded child support order issued by Commissioner Robert B. Axel[4] and fraudulently over-charged Mr. Bomani’s child support obligation by garnishing[5] more than the amount than the amount that was ordered.

  6. Whether Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) knowingly and/or intentionally omitted $7,000.00 (SEVEN-THOUSAND-DOLLARS) in direct payments[6] to Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON.)

  7. Whether Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) knowingly and/or intentionally failed to consider and/or apply Mr. Bomani’s Declaration of Payment History,[7] which reflects an over-payment by Mr. Bomani to  Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) in the amount of $12,272.37 (TWELVE-THOUSAND-TWO-HUNDRED-SEVENTY-TWO-DOLLARS-AND-37/100.)

  8. Whether Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) knowingly and/or intentionally failed to allocate $1,233.64 of the $6, 088.73 collected by Respondent (THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) per CSE Non Custodial Payment History[8].

  9. Whether Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) knowingly and/or intentionally applied a fraudulent child support obligation to Mr. Bomani’s person via Dissomaster Report issued March 10 2010, and Dissomaster Report issued July 7. 2008 which show contradictions and/or irregularities of income compared to child support obligation[9].

  10. Whether Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN

    SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) knowingly and/or intentionally applied fraudulent arrearages[10] to Mr. Bomani’s child support obligation.

  11.  Whether two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts. Thus compelling the Court of Appeals to substitute its authority and decision for that of the Trial Judges.

 STANDARD OF REVIEW

Respondents (FESIA A. DAVENPORT and RICHARD HOJIN KIM) offer the following conjecture, “The appellate court will review a discretionary ruling solely to decide whether the trial judge abused the Court’s discretion in reaching the decision”. This conjecture carries no weight against the postulations and/or axioms presented by Mr. Bomani are compelling and forthright. Surely, this court does not find it acceptable that Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) are blatantly deceiving and/or misleading this Court’s processes. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) surmise[11] that Mr. Bomani’s visitation with his children has been 0%, yet for some odd reason Respondents fail to postulate conclusive evidence[12] showing Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) disrespected and/or disobeyed court visitation orders[13] [14]. Respondents (FESIA A. DAVENPORT and RICHARD HOJIN KIM) fraudulently surmised[15] that Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) does not belongs to a cult religious organization[16], yet Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) admits and declares that Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON)  pledges allegiance to a religious cult known as The Jehovah’s Witnesses.[17] [18] [19] Respondent’s (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON’S) religious organization engages in child sex abuse and pedophilia[20], and therefore, poses imminent danger[21] [22] to the health, safety and welfare of Mr. Bomani’s children. Moreover, Trial Judge[23] made gross error in child custody determination.  The Trial Judge should have disqualified[24] himself for failure to acknowledge evidence showing Mr. Bomani’s outstanding citizenship[25]. Moreover, that fact that Mr. Bomani is a fully Credentialed Teacher[26] authorized to teach K-12 in the State of California, as well as honorably serving in the United States Military[27], willing to pay the ultimate price for the United States of American, should have warranted some consideration by the Trial Judge during custody[28] [29] [30]determination. Moreover, minimal due process requires that the State establish parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence before terminating parental rights[31]. All inculpatory evidence points to the fact, that Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) colluded and knowingly and/or intentionally concealed, understated and omitted over $1,000,000.00 (ONE-MILLION-DOLLARS) in property, assets and income in order to deceive and/or mislead Judicial Representatives of the Superior Court of Los Angeles and Mr. Bomani. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) presented fraudulent and misleading financial declarations showing gross errors and purposeful omissions. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) used whimsical, arbitrary and fraudulent accounting schemes on Income and Expense Declarations, Disso-masters and Federal Guideline Calculation Result Summary’s. Judicial Representatives of the Superior Court of Los Angeles were manipulated and mislead by the collusion, connivance, conspiring and fraud perpetrated by Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.) This case reveals that Respondents (THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) knowingly and/or intentionally concealed, understated and omitted controvertible evidence in order to defraud and corrupt the discretion of Judicial Representatives of the Superior Court of Los Angeles. This case is criminal on its face and in its nature, and therefore warrants criminal indictment and/or prosecution of the following individuals and/or governmental entities: STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.) Furthermore, sound judicial over-sight requires Judicial Officers to presume elements of doubt, conformity to both inductive and deductive reasoning, and consideration for the effect a ruling will have on all parties involved.

Whether the following statues have significant merit in establishing the bases for relief sought by Mr. Bomani:

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES, LOCAL RULES, RULE 14.9: In addition to the schedule and pay stubs required to be attached to the Income and Expense Declaration, parties will bring copies of State and Federal Income Tax Returns (including all supporting schedule and forms) and all loan applications (whether or not the loan was granted for the last two years.[32]

FAMILY CODE SECTION 2100: The Legislature finds and declares the following:  (a) It is the policy of the State of California (1) to marshal, preserve, and protect community and quasi-community assets and liabilities that exist at the date of separation so as to avoid dissipation of the community estate before distribution, (2) to ensure fair and sufficient child and spousal support awards, and (3) to achieve a division of community and quasi-community assets and liabilities on the dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal separation of the parties asprovided under California law. (b) Sound public policy further favors the reduction of the adversarial nature of marital dissolution and the attendant costs by fostering full disclosure and cooperative discovery. (c) In order to promote this public policy, a full and accurate disclosure of all assets and liabilities in which one or both parties have or may have an interest must be made in the early stages of a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation of the parties, regardless of the characterization as community or separate, together with a disclosure of all income and expenses of the parties. Moreover, each party has a continuing duty to immediately, fully, and accurately update and augment that disclosure to the extent there have been any material changes so that at the time the parties enter into an agreement for the resolution of any of these issues, or at the time of trial on these issues, each party will have a full and complete knowledge of the relevant underlying facts.

FAMILY CODE SECTION 3550: (a) In a proceeding involving child, family, or spousal support, no party to the proceeding may refuse to submit copies of the party’s state and federal income tax returns to the court, whether individual or joint. (b) The tax returns may be examined by the other party and are discoverable by the other party. A party also may be examined by the other party as to the contents of a tax return submitted pursuant to this section. (c) If the court finds that it is relevant to the case to retain the tax return, the tax return shall be sealed and maintained as a confidential record of the court. If the court finds that the tax return is not relevant to disposition of the case, all copies of the tax return shall be returned to the party who submitted it.

FAMILY CODE SECTION 3629: (a) At the hearing on the application for the expedited support order, all parties who are parents of the child or children who are the subject of the action shall produce copies of their most recently filed federal and state income tax returns. (b) A tax return so submitted may be reviewed by the other parties, and a party also may be examined by the other parties as to the contents of the return. (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), a party who fails to submit documents to the court as required by this chapter shall not be granted the relief that the party has requested. (d) The court may grant the requested relief if the party submits a declaration under penalty of perjury that (1) no such document exists, or (2) in the case of a tax return, it cannot be produced, but a copy has been requested from the Internal Revenue Service or Franchise Tax Board.

FAMILY CODE SECTION 2107 (c) If a party fails to comply with any provision of this chapter, the court shall, in addition to any other remedy provided by law, impose money sanctions against the non-complying party. Sanctions shall be in an amount sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct, and shall include reasonable attorney’s fees, costs incurred, or both, unless the court finds that the non-complying party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

 CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 182 (a) if two or more persons conspire: (1) to commit any crime. (2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime. (3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding. (4) To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses or by false promises with fraudulent intent not to perform those promises. (5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws. (6) To commit any crime against the person of the President or Vice President of the United States, the Governor of any state or territory, any United States justice or judge, or the secretary of any of the executive departments of the United States. They are punishable as follows: When they conspire to commit any crime against the person of any official specified in paragraph (6), they are guilty of a felony and are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for five, seven, or nine years. When they conspire to commit any other felony, they shall be punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of that felony. If the felony is one for which different punishments are prescribed for different degrees, the jury or court which finds the defendant guilty thereof shall determine the degree of the felony the defendant conspired to commit. If the degree is not so determined, the punishment for conspiracy to commit the felony shall be that prescribed for the lesser degree, except in the case of conspiracy to commit murder, in which case the punishment shall be that prescribed for murder in the first degree. If the felony is conspiracy to commit two or more felonies which have different punishments and the commission of those felonies constitute but one offense of conspiracy, the penalty shall be that prescribed for the felony which has the greater maximum term. When they conspire to do an act described in paragraph (4), they shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. When they conspire to do any of the other acts described in this section, they shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. When they receive a felony conviction for conspiring to commit identity theft, as defined in Section 530.5, the court may impose a fine of up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.) All cases of conspiracy may be prosecuted and tried in the superior court of any county in which any overt act tending to affect the conspiracy shall be done. (b)Upon a trial for conspiracy, in a case where an overt act is necessary to constitute the offense, the defendant cannot be convicted unless one or more overt acts are expressly alleged in the indictment or information, nor unless one of the acts alleged is proved; but other overt acts not alleged may be given in evidence.

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 518: Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.

 CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 118 & 126: (a) every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter he or she knows to be false, is guilty of  perjury. SECTION 126: Perjury is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years.

 FAMILY.CODE SECTION 750 &751: 750. A husband and wife may hold property as joint tenants or tenants in common, or as community property, or as community property with a right of survivorship. 751. The respective interests of the husband and wife in community property during continuance of the marriage relation are present, existing, and equal interests.

ARGUMENT

I.     THE TRIAL COURT(S) HAD NO OTHER CHOICE THAN TO EXCEED THE BOUNDS OF REASON AND ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION AND EXERCISE A MISCARRAIGE OF JUSTICE WHEN RESPONDENT’S COLLUDED AND PRESENTED FRAUDULENT, FALSE, MISLEADING AND CORRUPT FINANCIAL DECLARATIONS AND/OR TESTAMONY BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT(S)

 Since Respondents (THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) became involved in this case they have shown that they cannot present substantial and/or competent evidence showing that Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) complied with THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOCAL RULES, RULE 14.9 and CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE SECTION 2100. How is this fact known? Simply because Respondent’s (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) 2009 and 2010 tax information were never cross-referenced to verify the arbitrary and/or inaccurate computations entered in both the Guideline Calculation Result Summary and Dissomaster. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) fraudulently over-charged[33] [34] Mr. Bomani. Moreover, Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) knowingly and/or intentionally ignored Mr. Bomani’s Declaration of Payment History[35]. On August 3, 2010 Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) attempted to extort money’s from Mr. Bomani by fraudulently charging Mr. Bomani with Contempt[36] and Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) attempted more extortion when she had her colleague (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II CHARMAINE MCNEEL) fraudulently pose as a licensed Child-Care Provider.[37]  Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) knowingly and/or intentionally charged fraudulent arrearages to Mr. Bomani’s person, in that, a Certified Letter[38] from Respondent (LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) stating Mr. Bomani owed no arrearages, yet Respondent (PHILLIP S. SPABER) surmised[39] before Commissioner Robert B. Axel that Mr. Bomani owed $19,025.36 in arrearages. This amount is clearly fraudulent because it was whimsically and/or arbitrarily made with no instruments of payments to corroborate and/or establish its bases. This Court must take judicial notice of the fact that Respondents totally exclude and/or cower away from arguing the bases for the $19,025.36 in arrears set by Commissioner Robert B. Axel. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) have not complied with the Spirit or the Letter of the Law. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES) are engaging in “Damage Control” and have botched the covering up of their criminal intentions. It does not take “Rocket Science” to determine that noticeable fraud and corruption is pulsating from matters WILSON v BOMANI. The fraud and corruption revealed in matters WILSON v BOMANI are cringe worthy to the ultimate degree, and compels this Court to act on behalf of justice.

II.     RESPONDENT’S CRIMINAL INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE TRIAL COURT(S) AND MR. BOMANI, DEMONSTRATES RESPONDENT’S RECALSATRENT MOTIVES AND DEEP DISREPUTE FOR THE LAW AND INSOLENCE TOWARDS THE INTELECTUAL ABILITIES OF THE TRIAL COURT(S)

 Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) colluded to affirmatively, knowingly and/or intentionally file false and/or misleading declarations and/or gave perjures testimony in the Court of Law. This Court must take judicial notice of how Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) deceptively side-step and/or omit the over $1,000,000.00 (ONE-MILLION-DOLLARS) in contested survivorship community property, assets and/or income which, Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) currently possesses. Mr. Bomani postulates, that, if the shoe were on the other foot, or if Mr. Bomani was the powerbroker of over $1,000,000.00 (ONE-MILLION-DOLLARS) in contested survivorship community property, assets and/or income, Respondent (THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) would not hesitate in its diligence to assure that Dissomasters and Federal Guideline Calculation Result Summary’s reflected true and accurate accounting, and that, Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) receives her 50/50 In-Kind share of those contested survivorship community property, assets and/or income. Instead Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) fraudulently ignore, over-look, by-pass, conceal and understate the over $1,000,000.00 (ONE-MILLION-DOLLARS) in  property, assets and/or income[40]. Not to mention the “Stone Walling” by Respondents (FESIA A. DAVENPORT and RICHARD HOJIN KIM) surrounding the mandate of neutrality during child support litigation. In that, Respondent (THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) is mandated by its own policies, procedures and regulations, to remain neutral during child support litigation. Therefore, if collusion is not a significant factor and/or relevant in matters WILSON v BOMANI, why then, did not Mr. Bomani, receive the same representation from Respondent (THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES) with the same vehement and ferocious magnitude that Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) received? This Court must take judicial notice of the fact that on January 5, 2010 Respondent (HAROLD DIAZ), stood before the Honorable Anthony Drewy “Stone Walling” questions pertaining to Respondent’s (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) non-compliance with THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOCAL RULES, RULE 14.9 and CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE SECTION 2100. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) authorized and/or condoned DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON’S non-compliance with THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOCAL RULES, RULE 14.9 and CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE SECTION 2100. Surely, Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) are not claiming to have been unaware of the over $1,000,000.00 (ONE-MILLION-DOLLARS) in contested survivorship community property, assets and/or income.[41] Hence the only documents Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) can affirm, are the fraudulent Dissomasters[42] and/or Federal Guideline Calculation Result Detail[43] that, reflect arbitrary and/or fraudulent computations. It is well established that Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) concealed and understated her income, in that, on January 5, 2010 before the Honorable Anthony Drewy DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON stated she receives rental income[44]. Moreover, DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON filed an Income and Expense Declaration[45] that reflects an arbitrary amount of $861.00 on line representing “Rental Property Income”.[46] This rental income was never reflected in either Dissomaster[47], or in the Federal Guideline Calculation Result Detail[48] [49] executed by THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES. Respondents (FESIA A. DAVENPORT and RICHARD HOJIN KIM) offer a paradox, in that, clearly the numbers don’t add up, for example, Dissomaster[50] issued March 10, 2010 shows Mr. Bomani’s Wages & Salary set at $4,166.00[51] causing Mr. Bomani’s Total Child Support Obligation to be set at $1,119.00. Whereas, Dissomaster[52] issued on August 30, 2010, and corroborated by Respondents,[53] shows Mr. Bomani’s Wages & Salary set at $717.00 and Other Taxable Income set at $1,949.00, and therefore, bring Mr. Bomani’s total income to $2,666.00, yet Mr. Bomani’s child support obligation was set at $1,165.00.  Even more confusing and/or contradictory is the Dissomaster[54] issued July 7, 2008 which set Mr. Bomani’s Wages & Salary at $2,917.00, yet Mr. Bomani’s child support obligation was set at $372.00. These very noticeable contradictions prove serious discrepancies, irregularities and/or accounting abuses. It shows, with certainty that Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) engaged in irregularities, improprieties and misconduct when they set out to intentionally defraud both the Trial Court(s) and Mr. Bomani. Surely, Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) are not admitting their criminal intent to collude, deceive and/or mislead the Trial Court(s) by concealing and/or understating property, assets and/or income[55]? The evidence reveals, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that is exactly what Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) did. How else could the over $1,000,000.00 (ONE-MILLION-DOLLARS) in property, assets and/or income have been so blatantly and/or overtly omitted from Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) testimony and/or declarations.[56] It appears improprieties, irregularities and/or misconduct of this magnitude are acceptable common practice because Respondents (FASIA A. DAVENPORT and RICHARD HOJIN KIM) shirk and/or ignore charges and/or allegations pertaining to fraud, corruption and collusion. Instead Respondents (FASIA A. DAVENPORT and RICHARD HOJIN KIM) offer “Red Herrings” and deceitful codification in order to sweep their improprieties and misconduct under the rug. Mr. Bomani alleges that Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) engaged in fraud, corruption and collusion, and these allegations should not be dismissed by this Court nor should this Court excuse the fact that Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) offer not one credible argument in their defense nor do Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) refute and/or dispute Mr. Bomani’s allegations of fraud, corruption and/or collusion. It is expected that Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) will squirm their way out of being indicted and/or prosecuted for their criminal behavior. However, should this court choose to exonerate such crimes, this Court must at the same time grant all relief sought by Mr. Bomani in matters WILSON v BOMANI. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) continue to engage in poor professional ethics and have deceptively misrepresented declarations, and have maliciously violated the Public’s Trust. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) will neither verify nor deny that DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON complied with THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOCAL RULES, RULE 14.9 and CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE SECTION 2100. Why? Because Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) will be incriminating themselves, and affirming their involvement in highly noticeable fraud, racketeering, extortion, perjury, coercion, corruption and collusion. This Court must take judicial notice of the fact that, NO tax documents were submitted by DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON that will verify any of the fraudulent, inaccurate and/or arbitrary accountings and/or computations presented before the Trial Court(s.) Why won’t Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) charge Mr. Bomani with failure to comply with THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOCAL RULES, RULE 14.9 and CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE SECTION 2100? It is because Mr. Bomani whole heartedly complied with THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOCAL RULES, RULE 14.9 and CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE SECTION 2100, Especially, when Respondent (FESIA A. DAVENPORT) threatened Mr. Bomani with “SANCTIONS”[57] Furthermore, since the inception of this divorce Mr. Bomani’s motives have been pure, genuine and in accord with all Judicial Orders. On the other hand, DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON has criminally denied Mr. Bomani visitation with his children. Police Reports[58] and Formal Letters[59] show Respondent, (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) blatantly disrespected and/or disobeyed Court Visitation Orders[60], of which were presented before Judicial Representatives of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, who simply refused to acknowledge DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON’S blatant contempt of a lawful Court Order. Yet, when Mr. Bomani points out noticeable discrepancies, irregularities, misconduct and fraud, Judicial Officer’s of the Superior Court of Los Angeles assume “Demur” and/or  “Judicial  Management”[61] of matters WILSON v BOMANI, and issue orders[62] that deny Mr. Bomani’s “Right of Due Process[63] and Equal Protection under the Law[64]” Mr. Bomani has “Blown the Whistle” on the noticeable fraud and corruption that Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) have engaged in. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) continue to circumvent the law by deliberatively covering up the irregularities, misconduct and impropriety in matters WILSON v BOMANI. Respondents (FESIA A. DAVENPORT and RICHARD HOJIN KIM) are being disingenuous towards this Court by skewing the facts. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) continue to be disingenuous towards this Court. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) have colluded in order to fleece Mr. Bomani, in that, the common sense question to ask is, if Mr. Bomani was the powerbroker of the over $1,000,000.00 (ONE-MILLION-DOLLARS) in contested community property, assets and/or income, would not THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT factor the property, assets and/or income[65] into the child support accountings and/or computations? This Court is reminded that Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) have frozen Mr. Bomani’s bank accounts in an attempt to commandeer Mr. Bomani’s minuscule economical resources, while at the same time over-looking and by-passing Mr. Bomani’s 50/50 In-Kind share of the over $1,000,000.00 (ONE-MILLION-DOLLARS) in contested survivorship community property, assets and/or income[66]. Surely, this warrants Respondent (THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES) to mandate that all parties comply with THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOCAL RULES, RULE 14.9[67] and CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE SECTION 2100, in that, Respondent (FESIA A. DAVENPORT) filed a NOTICE TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE[68] mandating Mr. Bomani to “bring paystubs for the last twelve months… state and federal tax returns for the past two years… completed Income and Expense Declaration… documentation of any hardship”[69] Respondent (FESIA A. DAVENPORT) even threatened to place “SANCTIONS”[70] upon Mr. Bomani’s person should Mr. Bomani fail to comply with the demands of Respondent’s (FESIA A. DAVENPORT) NOTICE TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE, yet Respondent (DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON) received no such mandate and/or notice. The latter fact not only proves foul play and/or collusion, but it represents unequivocally and unadulterated: hucksterism, chicanery, skullduggery and subterfuge, which this Court should tread carefully, as to not become a co-conspirator in such fraud and corruption. Be very clear, DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON is not intellectually capable of such mass fraud, without the assistance of Judicial Officers from THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. Respondents (FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, and RICHARD HOJIN KIM) are “Officers of the Court” who should adhere to the highest of standards instead these Judicial Officers have degraded and maligned their post, and have brought sham upon the American Judicial System. It is recommended that these “Officers of the Court” be disbarred for salaciously defrauding the Trial Court(s), this Court, its process and the Public’s Trust. The Fact of the matter is that, Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) offer no credible defense nor do Respondents refute and/or dispute the fact that DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON did not comply with THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOCAL RULES, RULE 14.9 and CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE SECTION 2100. It is feared that the words in this Reply Brief are being written in vein. However, the record will reflect that Mr. Bomani’s argument and challenge is relevant, qualifying and/or holds absolute merit. Therefore, to “BAR”[71] Mr. Bomani’s charge would be to symbolically cut Mr. Bomani’s throat from ear-to-ear, while simultaneously ripping out Mr. Bomani’s tongue from its roots. DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON’S Response [72] is nothing more than a referendum[73] affirming the fraud and/or corruption this Court must distance itself from. Notice if you will, that Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT[74], PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON[75] and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) do not refute, dispute or defend against any of the charges and/or allegations made against their persons. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) merely offer this Court a mirrored image of this Courts involvement[76] in the symbolic slicing of Mr. Bomani’s throat from ear-to-ear and ripping out Mr. Bomani’s tongue at its roots, all because Mr. Bomani’s charge to this Court requires this Court to render Justice and Equal Protection under the Law. DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON has, enjoyed above-the-law privileges, and therefore, shares in the fraudulent and corrupt practices committed by THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. Therefore, Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) should be indicted and/or prosecuted for the following crimes: racketeering[77], extortion[78], collusion[79], fraud[80], perjury[81], coercion[82], child endangerment[83] and Civil Rights violations[84]. All Parties involved with this case are behooved to heed the fact that Mr. Bomani’s children have been deprived of their father for nearly (5) five years due to failures on the part of the American Judicial System. The Court of Appeals must be absolutely clear in its approach and heed the fact, that there is no relief and/or redemption that will reconcile the alienation, abandonment and psychological destruction that THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON has rendered upon Mr. Bomani’s children.

 CONCLUSION

Respectfully, and with the utmost of humility, all parties involved in matter WILSON v BOMANI will in the end, “reap what they have sewn”.  This Court is reminded of the judicial fact that, being wrong is not a crime, and being wrong is not being deceptive, where Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) are deceptive, and therefore, liable and/or criminally liable and/or civilly liable is when Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) knowingly and/or intentionally withhold and/or conceal material information. The law is crystal clear if Respondents conceal and/or misrepresent and/or withhold material information[85] Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) guilty and/or criminally and civilly liable. The proof that Respondents lied and withheld material information[86] is conclusively and/or incontrovertibly evident before this Court. This Court is reminded, “Victory is not to the swift, nor the strong, but to the one who endures.” So as you examine the words in this Reply Brief it is Mr. Bomani’s precatory hope and/or prayer that the frequency vibrations in your chambers continue to shift. Therefore, should this Court fall short of its duties and obligations to write the wrongs manifested in matters WILSON v BOMANI, Mr. Bomani diligently and patiently awaits the inevitability of both reciprocity and retribution from within the low and high frequency vibrations of time and space. Moreover, on the day this Court passes judgment and chooses to render a tenuous and corrupt ruling in matters WILSON v. BOMANI, respectfully, and with an enormous amount of humility, this Court is forewarned and cautioned to think long and hard, for no amount of sleep aid, antacid, pain reliever or psychotropic medication will comfort all culprits involved from that day forward, should this Court’s ruling prove impotent and feeble. Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) have blatantly violated the laws of this Court, and when this Court fails to acknowledge such violation it in turn allows this Court to appear weak and inconsequential. For if this Court’s ruling proves weak and feeble, this Court will have trespassed and trampled upon the inalienable rights of Mr. Bomani’s children. Respectfully and with the utmost of humility, Mr. Bomani expects nothing less than more unjust rulings from this Court. Mr. Bomani’s children have been denied their father for nearly (5) five years, and there is no ransom that neither this Court nor its Nefarious Principalities can pay that will reconcile the void Mr. Bomani’s children have experienced. This Court, and its “ALL SEEING EYE” is hereby admonished, DO WHAT IS RIGHT WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR. Let the record show that all Judicial Officer’s having a hand in matter WILSON v BOMANI, will attest, that Mr. Bomani’s motives were pure and up-right. Furthermore, Mr. Bomani has affirmed good stewardship in the midst of corrupt jurisprudence and presented compelling truths in the midst of blatant fraud and corruption permeating from matters WILSON V BOMANI. May these words serve as record to ordain and seal the fate of America; Mr. Bomani has accepted the reality that this Court intends to hold Mr. Bomani’s children hostage. So be it, this Court presently has the power to hold Mr. Bomani’s children hostage, but this Court will never contain and/or harness the genetic code, this Court and its Judicial Officer’s have revealed their cowardly hand in the destruction of Mr. Bomani’s family unit.  It is Mr. Bomani’s sense that this Court desires him to grovel, at this Courts feet in order to receive justice. This Court has a track record[87] of skewed judicial over-sight. Therefore, Mr. Bomani refuses to bow to this Court’s nefarious jurisprudence, and instead chuckles over the mockery Judicial Officer’s have proven the American Judicial System to be. As you sit in your chambers preparing to offer a ruling upon this fraudulent and corrupt case, you are hereby dared, to rule adversely and perpetuate the fraud and corruption exuding from matters WILSON v BOMANI. Mr. Bomani submits that the American Judicial System is no long authorized to render judgment, nor is this Judicial Body qualified to render a verdict. For the Time Space Continuum usurps your authority and qualification, for it will be the Time Space Continuum that will render a verdict of Guilty as Charged upon this Court and Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.) The American Judicial System and Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) are charged with the following crimes: kidnapping, fraud, conspiracy to defraud, corruption, collusion, racketeering, extortion, coercion, but serious of all counts the entities mentioned above are Guilty of trespassing and trampling upon the inalienable rights of Mr. Bomani’s children. As your Savior was spat upon for stating, “He is the light and the way” The Time Space Continuum will spit upon the American Judicial System, and the Constitution of the United States of America. The American Judicial System is out of time, and therefore, this Court’s attempts to rule in matters WILSON v BOMANI will be merely a gesture of happenstance and vanity. For this Judicial Body has proven insufficient, and therefore, is no longer authorized to pass judgment[88].  The fact of the matter is that, there are only (2) two out-comes for this appeal, either outcome (1) one: Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) are exonerated by this Court, affirm that they have engaged in fraud, corruption, extortion, racketeering, coercion and collusion, to which, this Court proves culpable, and affirms its denouncement of this Courts authority to judge. Or outcome (2) two- The following relief be granted: Mr. Bomani’s Parental Rights[89] be established and enforced, with visitation exchanges to take place at the Downey Police Department; Mr. Bomani’s past, present and future child support obligation be set to zero as an alternative to Respondents (STEVEN J. GOLIGHTLY, FESIA A. DAVENPORT, PHILIP S. SPABER, HAROLD DIAZ, STEVEN SCHNOEBELEN, ARMEDA LOPEZ, RICHARD HOJIN KIM, and DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER II STEPHANIE M. WILSON and THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT) being indicted and/or prosecuted for the crimes outlines in matters WILSON v BOMANI; and Mr. Bomani be awarded his 50/50 In-Kind[90] [91] share of his survivorship community property, assets and/or income[92] in the amount of $417,361.00 (FOUR-HUNDRED-SEVENTEEN-THOUSAND-THREE-HUNDRED-SIXTY-ONE-DOLLARS AND 00/100.)[93] Mr. Bomani now turns precatory focus to the dark cloud currently in America’s midst and leave judgment to the ALL SEEING EYE OF PANTHIEISM. May we all get what we rightfully, deserve. Therefore, Mr. Bomani respectfully, and with the utmost of humility, refers the frequency of your cowardly chambers to the uncompromising damnation of time and space. So excuse Mr. Bomani as he leaves this Court to its dithering reprieve and retreats to study the weather channel.

Respectfully Submitted,

HASHIM M. BOMANI

Appellant

<