Advocates Exposing Judge Patricia Gardner Cannot Get Justice

Michigan Corruption

An advocate went to a Speedway gas station in Allendale Michigan. It was late at night and you had to go across a parking lot easement to get to the gas pumps. The advocate did not see the potholes measuring almost the with of the vehicle. Once they got gas, they noticed the steering wheels was not correct. The advocate contacted Speedway below and a case was started. The advocate then took the vehicle to be looked at

SPEEDWAY SUPER AMERICA LLC

500 Speedway Dr.

Evon OH 25323

Phone (937) 864-3000

The advocate had to find out who had the easement as speedway was not communicating with the advocate and dragging their feet. Speedway employees were saying the parking lot was not their property. So, the advocate had to get in contact with the owners of the property to find out they have an easement. Speedway denies they need to fix the advocates vehicle.

The advocate took the car to Nissan Gezon Motors 3985 Plainfield Ave NE, Grand Rapids, Mi 49525 phone (616) 361-7361. When the advocate called, they were told that Nissan does a 27-point inspection. On February 20, 2019 a frontend alignment was done on the car. The steering wheels was still not correct, so the advocate called Nissan and took the vehicle back on March 4, 2019. The steering wheel was still not correct and when the advocate called, they were told it was windy that day so the alignment might not be exact.

Several months later the advocate moved out of Michigan. The back tire started wearing tread fast. Thinking the cause was because the vehicle was pulling a cargo trailer. Once to the destination, a new tire was purchased and then a new tire for the other side. When the advocate checked the air in the tire a few months later, it was noted that the new back tire was wearing fast. After taking the vehicle to a mechanic it was noticed that the back needed an alignment. Both the front and back end were aligned, and the steering wheel is now perfect.

When the advocate called Nissan on January 13, 2020 and talked to the mechanic and explained the situation, he stated that because it had been almost a year it could not be proven it was from their mistake and they would not fix it. He stated that when the advocate called they wanted a front end alignment. The advocate never stated that was what was wrong since they are not a mechanic. The advocate remembers the customer service women stating that was all that was needed, but she also stated a 27-point inspection was provided by their mechanics. On the day of the first service, the shop was extremely busy, and the advocate waited a few hours for the vehicle to be fixed.

When the advocate check on LARA, the government website for business owners the advocate discovered who the owner was.

  Entity type:   DOMESTIC PROFIT CORPORATION

Identification Number: 800042583		Old ID Number: 044566
Date of Incorporation in Michigan:   01/22/1964 The name and address of the Resident Agent:
Resident Agent Name:	MARY HUIZENGA

Mary’s last name sounded familiar to the advocate. After researching the advocate discovered Mary is the relatives of a congressman, Bill Huizenga. He is Michigan’s 2 district representative in Holland. The site states, “One of the most important things that I do as a US Representative is to help people with federal problems.”

Washington, D.C. Office
2232 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4401

Grandville Office
4555 Wilson Ave. SW Suite 3,
Grandville, MI 49418
Phone: (616) 570-0917

Grand Haven Office
1 South Harbor Ave. Suite 6B,
Grand Haven, MI 49417
Phone: (616) 414-5516

The advocate can’t take the dealership to court because it will be in Kent County, Michigan where the corruption in the divorce/custody case took place and the same judges are part of the civil court. Even if the advocate was able to get honest people in their case, the dealership owner would just make a call to her congressman representative family member and pull strings and the case would be fixed. This is the reality of Michigan and how things are run in the state. You can never get justice in Michigan once you go after a corrupt judge.

The whistleblower act is a joke! Ask Judge Patricia Gardner, she will agree.

Kent County Michigan Lying Lawyer

When you write an affidavit it means that everything you say must be true. If it is not true you can go to jail. Donna Mobilia states, "When I asked each of them if they had a hearing with me, they said "no," but they were here, "to watch me."  This was not true and they both could prove it because they had recordings on them. Deanna knew how to get recorders into the courthouse.

When Donna seen/saw the couple she freaked out. They were standing outside of the courtroom talking to a mom and leaning up against the window. She asked them why they were there and they stated they were there to give support to a mother. She went into a private room and called security. She then was escorted out of the building. After the mom's hearing, they left and Donna was coming back into the courthouse with some female friends. (I guess when you do shady shit you are always paranoid.) Pretty sure after this incident dishonest judges and attorneys are not walking to and from their offices to the court.

Richard called Deanna later that day and let her know he had a Personal Protection Order (PPO) served on him and there was a PPO for her as well. Deanna states, she called Judge Danial Zemiatis secretary Brian who stated he had a PPO for her. Deanna says she told him when she was in the court in a few days she would get it. When Deanna went to get the PPO it had disappeared.

Richard Owens former spouse had hired Donna Mobila to handle her divorce case. She had done a lot of dishonest stuff in the case as you can imagine. Richard did not go into a lot of what she had done. A few days later Richard called Deanna and stated he had a lot of dirt on Donna that he was going to expose after his surgery. He stated that he used the false affidavit against Donna to bargain for something he wanted in his case but did not state exactly what that was. That was the last time Deanna had heard from Richard.

Deanna Kloostra had Donna Mobilia placed into her case by Judge Patricia Gardner. Donna did not protect Deanna's kids. Judge Gardner signed a Personal Protection Order (PPO) in 1999 for Deanna. When her former spouse violated the order and called Deanna's boss and tried to get her fired from her job, he violated the order. Judge Gardner fined him $50 for violating the order. A few years later she, with the recommendation of Donna Mobilia, that Deanna's former spouse receive custody.

With lots of times on her hands, Deanna researched Donna Mobilia and others in her case and found out that Donna's spouse was the Vice President of the bank where Deanna's former spouse Divorce attorney's law firm was located. So Donna and her spouse met in the back of the bank with Deanna's former spouse and his attorney and sold custody.

Just after Deanna sent out a press release of custody being sold and named names, Richard Owens was killed. Richard came home to a fire in his home. He called 911 and stated there was a fire and said, "Ouch!" and the phone went dead. He was found in his kitchen and died from smoke inhalation.  Did Richard say ouch because he was injected in the back of his neck with some kind of drug that rendered him unable to move and then inhaled smoke? Did Donna place a hit out on Richard? What really happened to Richard because a lot of people do not believe he died from breathing in smoke!

Deanna exposed the sale of custody in 2013 and then she started being followed. In 2014 she left the state of Michigan. She returned in 2017 and left again in 2019 because she was planning on exposing this corruption.

Deanna has been trying to get a hold of anyone from Richards family but so far has not been able to locate them. If you have any information or know a family member have them email VictimsofJudgeGardner@gmail.com or call Deanna at 505-933-5029.

Judge Patricia Gardner Facebook Page

Have you seen our Facebook Page about this judge? Parents who have been a victim of this judge can learn even more about this dishonest judge. She is giving abusive parents custody and keeping good parents from the children's lives. She scares anyone who works in the court house building, a ten floor building. There is one person she is afraid of and that is Deanna Kloostra. Deanna researched this judge and the players in her case and found some interesting corruption. Learn more at  https://www.facebook.com/Victims-of-Judge-Gardner-149550385144002/?fref=nf

Danger of Commingling and Conversion of Client and Third Party Funds

By Thomas P. Sukowicz

All lawyers know that it is wrong to steal from clients. These days, however, the ethics rules require that lawyers to do more than avoid stealing. In most states, they contain requirements about the kinds of accounts in which client and third party funds may be held, notices to be sent, kinds of records that must be kept, and accounting for the funds. For example, all states require that lawyers maintain separate trust accounts for client and third party funds to avoid commingling those funds with the lawyer’s own money.

Commingling
ABA Model Rule 1.15, the rule upon which many states’ rules are based, requires that lawyers avoid commingling by keeping the funds of clients and third persons separate from those of the lawyer. Commingling occurs when a lawyer holds his or her own funds in the same account that is holding client or third party funds. Commingling is, itself, a violation of the ethics rules and may subject a lawyer to discipline.

Avoiding commingling may not always be easy because of confusion as to whether certain funds belong to lawyers or to their clients. For example, some fees belong to the lawyer as soon as they are paid. It would be a commingling violation in most jurisdictions to deposit these fees in a client trust account. Other fees are merely advances that the lawyer will earn as he or she bills for time spent on the client’s behalf. These funds currently belong to the client and should be deposited into the trust account under the rules as interpreted by most states.

Some states’ rules specifically allow funds reasonably sufficient to pay account charges imposed by the bank or funds belonging in part to a client and in part presently or potentially to the lawyer. The portion belonging to the lawyer should be withdrawn when due unless the right of the lawyer or law firm to receive it is disputed by the client, in which event the disputed portion shall not be withdrawn until the dispute is finally resolved.
Most rules also require that lawyers or law firms maintain specific kinds of records related to the handling of such funds and that such records are kept for a certain number of years. Every lawyer should check the ethics rules of the jurisdiction(s) in which he or she is licensed to determine what kinds of records are required to be maintained.

Conversion
Even if a lawyer maintains a separate, identifiable trust account and the kinds of records required in his or her jurisdiction, there is still a risk that the lawyer will be accused of conversion of client or third party funds notwithstanding that the lawyer did not intend to convert such funds and without realizing that the funds were converted.

Interestingly, the ABA Model Rules (like the rules of many jurisdictions) does not contain a rule that explicitly prohibits lawyers from stealing (converting) client funds. The absence of an explicit rule does not mean that lawyers may misappropriate client and third party funds without being subject to discipline. In states that have rules based on the Model Rules, such as Illinois, lawyers who steal client or third party funds are charged in disciplinary proceedings with common law conversion and, usually, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) and conduct that tends to bring the legal profession into disrepute. In states such as Illinois, a lawyer can be disciplined for conduct that is as obviously wrong, even absent an explicit rule prohibiting it.

New York is an example of a state whose ethics rules specifically prohibit conversion of client funds. Its DR 9-102(A) provides that a lawyer in possession of any funds or other property belonging to another person, where such possession is incident to his or her practice of law, is a fiduciary, and must not misappropriate such funds or property or commingle such funds or property with his or her own.

Whether in a jurisdiction with an explicit rule or not, Lawyers who handle client and third party funds can run into problems in many ways. For example, a lawyer might properly deposit client funds in an appropriate trust account, but fail to maintain records showing them exactly how much money is being held in the account for each client at any given time. Without such records, such as a separate ledger for each client whose funds are being held, the lawyer relies on his or her recollection of how much went in the account for a certain client, and how much has already been disbursed. If the lawyer is wrong, as frequently happens, he or she might disburse more funds to himself or herself than are available, thus converting at least a portion of client funds to their own use.

When client trust accounts are audited by the local disciplinary authorities, one of the techniques used to determine whether the lawyer has converted client funds is to add up the aggregate amounts that a lawyer should have in the trust account on any given date for all clients. If the balance in the trust account is less than the aggregate of funds that should be in the account for all clients, then the lawyer is deemed to have “converted” some of the funds belonging to the clients. It is not necessary to identify which client’s funds were converted. It is enough that the funds in the account are less than the total amount the lawyer should have been holding for all clients.

Sometimes the timing of the disbursement of client funds can lead to a charge of conversion. For example, the Illinois Supreme Court found that a lawyer who deposited client settlement funds in a trust account and disbursed the funds before the settlement check had cleared was guilty of conversion. In re Elias, 114 Ill.2d 321, 499 N.E.2d 1327 (1986).

The reason a lawyer may not immediately issue a check to the client is that when a settlement check is deposited into a client trust account, the funds represented by the check are not always immediately available. The funds are not available until they have been collected by the bank at which the trust account is maintained. If a lawyer issues a check to a client before the funds represented by the settlement check have been collected, the lawyer is disbursing funds belonging to someone other than the client. This becomes a serious problem if the settlement check does not clear and the funds are never collected by the lawyer's bank.

An example of this occurs when a settlement check that has been deposited into a client trust account is returned for lack of sufficient funds in the account on which the check was drawn. If the lawyer has already issued a check to the client and the client has negotiated the check, the client has received funds belonging to someone else. The "someone else" should not be the lawyer, because lawyers are not permitted to keep their own funds "commingled" with client funds in a client trust account. Therefore, the funds that the client received are likely to be funds that belong to another client.

Another common way lawyers convert funds is by taking the money of one client and paying it to another client or third person. This can occur rather innocently if the lawyer looses track of exactly how much he or she is holding for each client, and overpays one at the expense of another. While the inadvertence of the conversion and the lack of intent on the part of the lawyer are considered mitigating factors in disciplinary proceedings, they do not excuse the misappropriation that has occurred. Similarly, the fact that all clients ultimately receive all of the funds they are entitled to receive, merely mitigates the misconduct involved in using the funds of the client, even temporarily, without the client’s consent.

The ethics rules of some states provide for an exception to the prohibition against disbursing funds before the deposited check clears. For example, Illinois Rule 1.15(g), which applies to funds received in connection with the closing of real estate transactions, provides that a lawyer's disbursement of funds deposited but not collected does not violate his or her duty if, prior to the closing, the lawyer has deposited such funds in a segregated Real Estate Funds Account maintained solely for the receipt and disbursement of such funds, and is either acting as a closing agent pursuant to an insured closing letter for a title insurance company licensed in the State of Illinois and uses the REFA solely for the title insurance business, or if the lawyer has met the "good funds" requirements.

The "good funds" requirements are met if the bank in which the REFA is maintained has agreed in a writing directed to the lawyer to honor all disbursement orders drawn on the REFA for all transactions up to a specified dollar amount not less than the total amount being deposited in “good funds” such as a certified check; a government check, a cashier's check, teller's check, bank money order and other checks.

Another common way in which lawyers get into trouble over client funds is when they “borrow” funds being held in their client trust accounts, intending to repay the money once some anticipated fee is received. In one such case, a lawyer who shared office space with other lawyers was short on his share of the office expenses. He took the $1000 he needed from his client trust account, believing he could repay it from the proceeds of a case he expected to settle soon. Shortly thereafter, the State Bar audited the trust account in connection with another matter and discovered the unauthorized $1000 withdrawal. The lawyer was suspended for converting client funds. Iowa S.Ct Bd. of Prof. Ethics v. Gottschalk, 553 NW.2d 322 (1996)

In another case, when a lawyer’s personal checking account was garnished by the IRS for unpaid taxes, he began using his trust account for personal deposits and expenditures. When his check to the State Bar Disciplinary Office bounced, his trust account was audited. The audit revealed that $450 that had been withheld from a personal injury settlement to pay a medical provider was not paid, and the balance in the trust account had gone below zero. The lawyer was suspended for commingling and for conversion of the $450. Comm. on Prof. Ethics & Conduct v. O'Callaghan, 436 N.W.2d 51 (1989).

To avoid mistakes that can lead to serious consequences, such as discipline and civil action, become familiar with your jurisdiction’s rules regarding trust accounts, keep adequate records of the funds you are holding for each client and be very careful not to disburse funds to anyone other than the person entitled to those funds,

http://victimsofjudgegardner.blogspot.com/p/about.html

Election Corrpution In Michiagan

August 14, 2014

by Victims of Judge Gardner

In 2006 Brian Downs ran for Kent County Judge against Judge Daniel Zemaitis. In 2012 Brian ran against Judge Patricia Gardner and Judge Patrick Hillary of Kent county. This year (2014) Brian Downs ran for the 73rd House of Representatives because of Judge Daniel Zemaitis.

Brian has been in a family court battle for years. Judge Zemaitis was on Brian's case even though it is a conflict of interest. Judge Zemaitis has revoked Brian's law license. Judge Patricia Gardner jailed Brian in 2014 just before election. Since Brian could not run against a Kent County judge, he then ran for the 73rd House Of Representatives. 

County elections administrator Carolyn Toliver removed more than 100 good petition signatures to attempt to prevent the mayoral recall election organized by Benton Harbor and Benton Township residents. 

County clerk Sharon Tyler filed a lawsuit against herself in order to prevent the recall election.  Whirlpool most likely directed her to take this action, probably a first in US election history.  Whirlpool was desperate because their man Hightower was losing by a large margin in the absentee ballots. (Those were sent out before the powers-that-be called off the election.)

The Benton Harbor mayoral recall election will now be held on Nov. 4, 2014. The order was issued Tuesday, August 12 by Judge John Dewane after the Aug. 7  civil trial.

The decision to schedule the election hinged on Judge DeWane's decision that the practice of the Berrien County Clerk's office to disqualify both signatures, if a person signed a recall petition twice, violates First Amendment free speech rights.

This is a tremendous victory for people all around the country, with all the corruption not just in Benton Harbor.

A Berrien County Judge ruled the Benton Harbor recall election can be held. This is a major victory for the people against fascist county and city governments, directed by the Whirlpool Corporation.

To learn more about what is going on with these cases, please check out their websites. 

Victims of Judge Gardner                                  Rev. Edward Pinkney

Victimsofjudgegardner.blogspot.com                    bhbanco.org

How One Obtains Liberty

JUDGE PATRICIA GARDNER OF KENT COUNTY ROBO-SIGNING DOCUMENTS

Posted July 16, 2014

by Victims of Judge Gardner

 

KENT COUNT, Michigan - Deanna Kloostra started receiving a bill from the financial department of the 17^th Circuit Court last year for a bill from 2004. It has been discovered that others in Kent County have received such notices form 2004. What makes Deanna’s case a little different from most is that, Deanna has been in the 17^th Circuit Court for 15 years and is working on exposing Judge Patricia Gardner for her harming of families and most of all Children.

The bill was from 2004 for $277.50 and sent from the Kent County finance department. Imagine her surprise after nine years receiving a bill she never knew she owed. At first she thought it was a mistake and the courts would figure things out, but in 2014, she was still receiving the bill. The bill states the amount owed and the year the bill was from. In January Deanna wrote a letter to the court clerk, asking for a contact person’s information who could help with the issues, a copy of the judge’s order, and that she would not accept responsibility of the bill.

Deanna has been dealing with the 17^th Circuit Court since 1999 when her divorce was started. Her former spouse ended up with custody of her children and her children being concealed from her. Deanna started a website to educate women across the United States about what is going on in the family courts. She also used the website as a safety measure. Several times Judge Patricia Gardner had threatened to send this mother to jail. Deanna has met over 80 other mothers who have Gardner on their case and have lost custody of their children. Deanna has fought in the courts for visitation to be able to see her children for the last six years. Deanna’s youngest daughter is the only child under the age of 18 and just turned 15 on July 9^th.

Deanna ran for Kent County Commissioner in 2012 so she could get more exposure, not only for her case, but for what families that are going through the same kind of situation in Kent County. Deanna believes that in order to stop abusive of families in her county, you have to go to the source of the money. Deanna has met hundreds of other mothers in Kent County without custody of their children by other judges in the 17^th Circuit Court. She advocates for mothers, but has also been known to advocate for fathers also. Deanna is known all over the United States by mothers who have been through her situation and for her creative approaches to reach mothers and educate the public on families being harmed. Deanna is also friends with Brian Downs who is running for the 73^rd district House of Representatives in Michigan this year. Judge Daniel Zemaitis, Deanna’s current judge, refused to take Brian off his case load, even though Brian ran against him in 2006. Judge Zemaitis took Brian’s law license away so Brian could not run against Judge Zemaitis this year in the elections for judge. Judge Gardner has placed Brian in jail, just days after Brian signed up to run in the 2014 elections. 

Deanna canceled her website and Facebook page in 2013 and decided she was burnt out. She does have the blog Abused Swan that you can check out to keep up to date on Deanna’s case. http://abusedswanblogger.blogspot.com/  Deanna says she has her website available and ready to go if she is threatened with jail or feels the need for safety once again. Deanna says, “Who knows, maybe in a few months I will put the website back up, but for now, I am working on different angels to stop families from being hurt.” Deanna would not elaborate on what she is doing, but we are sure it will be interesting.

After sending a letter requesting to communicate with someone at the finance department of the court, Deanna was served with an order to appear in court by Judge Gardner. In 2005 Gardner removed herself from Deanna’s case and another mother’s case, stating she was being harassed. When Deanna started her website AbusedSwan.com, the step father to the other mother’s case started a website about Judge Gardner at GardDog.org. Judge Daniel Zemaitis became both of these mother’s new judge. Judge Gardner has no jurisdiction over Deanna’s case. Now that Gardner signed this order, Deanna states Gardner has put herself back on the case. Deanna says, “You can’t take yourself off a case claiming you are being harassed and then sign orders when you feel like it.” Deanna believes Gardner was given a stack of papers to sign by staff and she just, “signed away.” Deanna believes the judge is robo-signing papers and has no clue what she is signing.

When Deanna showed up for her hearing, she met with the Friend of The Court finance personal Kerri. She did not have the letter Deanna sent in requesting contact information, or the motion Deanna filed, but was waiting to notice out once she knew for sure Gardner was back on the case. Keri could not answer any of Deanna’s questions so she requested a public defender. At that point the finance manager became involved. What is interesting is the manager would not give Deanna her name when asked. Deanna asked the same questions to the manager that she asked Kerri, her answers were, “I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know.” Once again Deanna asked for a public defender and then the manager got very aggressive and rude. The public defender was not available, so the manager decided Deanna could come back to court in a month and talk with the public defender, since he had already left the building. The presiding judge could not tell Deanna if Judge Gardner was back on the case or not. Deanna states, “It was amazing, no one knew nothing. No one knew what was going on. No one could give me an answer about anything.”

The day before Deanna was to appear back in court, she called to make sure she was still on the schedule for court. She was on the docket for the following month, June, and was told to call another number. Wouldn’t you know, they were on vacation and another number was left for her to call.  Deanna left a message with a Ms. Irwin. The next day a message was received that court was still on and that she could come that day or the following month for the hearing. Deanna returned a message that she went to work since no one had returned her call and would be at the June hearing. You see, Deanna pays child support on a child she cannot visit or speak with over the phone. Deanna states she has been ordered for supervised visits, but the law states that there has to be clear and convincing evidence on the record that a child was harmed, in order to give supervised visitations. Deanna states that there was nothing placed on the record of such things.  We find it interesting that Deanna had a Personal Protection Order (PPO) against her former spouse, and he was never given supervised visitations. Deanna states, “According to the law, if a father had a PPO, he is not to have unsupervised visitations, let alone custody.” Deanna stats the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) that Gardner placed on her case, Attorney Donna Mobilia, used to be on the State Bar of Michigan Domestic Violence Committee and well aware of the domestic violence laws. Deanna has filed numerous motions etc… in order to see her daughter.

At the June hearing, a public defender from Cooley Law did show up. In 2012, Deanna put together a small protest outside of the Grand Rapids, Cooley Law School during their open house? Mother’s brought dolls to represent their children and talked about the conflict of interest between the courts and Cooley Law. The Dean and several teachers came out and spoke to the protesters and state they would meet with the moms. Deanna states that mothers have gone to the Access to Justice Clinic, run by Cooley Law School, and have been turned down for services. Deanna says, “Judge Gardner donated money to help get the clinic built. She is also part of the Inns of Court that takes law students and grooms them to be attorneys.” Judge Zemaitis was also an instructor at the school until the protest. Deanna says, “You cannot have students represent mothers whose teachers are their judge. Not only is this a conflict of interest, but students would see the discrepancies from what they were taught by the instructor (judge) and what they are really doing in our courts.” 

After speaking to her public defender, he spoke with the manager of the Friend of The Court finance department. Deanna was told that Gardner was going to serve a PPO against her and that Judge Zemaitis is on her case. The following Wednesday Deanna called the PPO office and they had no clue what Deanna was talking about. Deanna called the judges secretary and they were not aware of a PPO order either.  Deanna called the PPO office the following week and still no PPO. Deanna called on July 16th and still no order. “In 2004 Gardner was on my case and she would have been the judge to order me to pay any fines. Since Gardner signed an order for me to appear in court, she has put herself back on my case.” Deanna made sure Gardner would be hearing her case by noticing her motion to vacate the judgment with Gardner. Deanna received a letter from Judge Gardner stating her motion would be heard on July 18, 2014 at 8:30am with Judge Zemaitis. Deanna stated, “I wanted to go and sit in her court room anyways, but I know she would call a recess and ask the Sheriff to escort me out of her court room. When you stand up to bullies and confront them, they tend to coward.”

As of today there is no PPO order against Deanna and an order has not been produced that shows Deanna was ordered to pay $277.50 in 2004. When we asked Deanna why she thinks Gardner did not file that PPO, Deanna replied, “First I have not violated any laws or threatened Judge Gardner. Second, I let it be known that I would fight the PPO and invite her victims to the hearing. I guess Gardner does not want to walk into a court room filled with her victims, not to mention the conflict of issues it will create in the court system of Kent County!”

 

More details of the case will be available on the Facebook page, Victims of Judge Gardner. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Victims-of-Judge-Gardner/149550385144002?ref=hl

You can read current press release on our blog at http://victimsofjudgegardner.blogspot.com/

If you have any questions or information please email us at VictimsofJudgeGardner@gmail.com.