THE TRUTH
Washington State Commission of Judicial Conduct ~VS~ Pierce County Superior Court Judge, The Honorable Ruldoph J. Tollefson.
The hearing was to begin Monday, 10 July 2000. However, and very wisely I might add, Judge Tollefson chose NOT to put his fate into the hands of a legal system, not even he trusted.
Judge Tollefson was charged with overstepping his bounds in a Paternity case – that later turned into a child custody case [Lynda J. Allen vs. Mark R. Inderbitzin - Pierce County Cause No. 94-5-00454-5].
The charges stemmed from Judge Tollefson's attempt to actually look into a complaint filed by the Mother [Lynda Allen] against the Guardian Ad Litem (herein after GAL), assigned to her young daughter's case.
The GAL program was initially set into place to "help" the vulnerable, while act as the “seeing eye dog” for the Judge assigned to a case. The GAL's duty is primarily to ensure that the best interests of the client are protected.
This is done by first investigating what the best interest of their client is, then reporting this to the Court, so that the court may make an informed decision.
What did Judge Tollefson see, and hear, that "raised red flags in his mind", which compelled him to pick up a telephone and inquire as to the validity of a GAL's investigation on a case? – Not just any case, THIS CASE involving MY YOUNG DAUGHTER. *
MY STORY
In Feb. of 1994, after enduring another round of beatings at the hands of Mr.Inderbitzin, Ms.Allen took her then two year old daughter, and moved out. In March of 1994, Mr.Inderbitzin initiated a paternity action against Ms.Allen, asking to be named the father of Ms.Allen's daughter, and seeking unsupervised access to the child.
Ms.Allen was without legal representation, when she asked the court to grant Mr. Inderbitzin limited supervised visitation, due to his [documented] history of sexual abuse of children, and his [documented] history of acts of domestic violence, (which included threats to kill an elderly woman.)
A GAL {Steven Dwight Downing} was assigned to this case on 10 March 1994. This GAL demanded that Mr.Inderbitzin have unsupervised access to Ms. Allen's daughter, without investigating, nor even meeting Ms. Allen to hear her concerns. The court granted the GAL's recommendation.
Six months after unsupervised visits began, Ms.Allen's daughter returned to her, complaining that Mr. Inderbitzin had touched her inappropriately. She further had a signs of physical trauma to her personal area. Ms.Allen consulted the pediatrician, who advised that the child should be seen immediately.
Immediately following this incident, Mr.Inderbitzin, (not wanting to answer the charges of sexually abusing a child, sought to muddy the waters by now seeking sole custody of the child, and hence give himself the ability to downplay the severity of the charges as simply a dirty trick on the mother's part in a "custody battle".)
Judge VICKY LYNN HOGAN transferred custody of Ms.Allen's 3-year old daughter to Mr.Inderbitzin, and limited Ms.Allen's contact with her daughter.
This was also done, in light of the fact that Mr. Inderbitzin molested this child, AND another child in 1984. Judge HOGAN also restricted Ms.Allen's contact with her daughter; to now 3 hours a week of supervised contact, which was to take place in the GAL’s small office. ALL PURSUANT TO THE GAL's RECOMMENDATIONS, even though this GAL had not done one ounce of investigative work!
If this Judge had been following the LAW, this would never have happened. This judge violated two statues RCW 26.26.100, and RCW 26.09.187 (which set forth the guidelines restricting the assignment of children to people with history of domestic abuse and sexual misconduct).
However, in Pierce County, they make their own rules up as the go along, knowing full well that they face no repercussion.
From Vicki Hogan's 1 illegitimate, and illegal ruling on 22 June 1995, litigation has been NON-STOP. Numerous times Mr. Inderbitzin’s Attorney filed action after action, to the point that Ms. Allen lost her job, not once, but 3 times. When Ms. Allen gave into the idea that she could not entertain the idea of “employment”, for fear of loosing yet another job, and gaining a bad reputation with employers, she resolved herself to put her full attention on this court case. For that, she was penalized again…
Now Mr. Inderbitzin was after child support, and because Ms. Allen was no longer working, her income was imputed to a substantially higher rate then she ever made (rather then going off of previous employment earnings). Because of her inability to pay child support, she was constantly threatened with jail sentences…
Ms. Allen continued her fight, not only for her daughter’s safety, but also for her constitutional right to share a life with her only child. Mr.Inderbitzin fought only to protect himself from criminal convictions by keeping the child isolated, (in a catholic school and away from anyone who might lend an ear to the child) and away from Ms.Allen, and her family. Mr.Inderbitzin was successful in this case, only because the GAL has acted, and has continued to act as a defense attorney on Mr.Inderbitzin's behalf (in violation of the GAL rules.)
Side Note; This GAL is also a lawyer, and holds a conflict of interest, in that he represented two of Ms.Allen's relatives (cousins). What makes this significant is that Ms.Allen was engaged in a lawsuit against the same relatives parents, beginning in 1995, the jury trial ended in 1999. The GAL has made a small fortune off of this case, (Mr.Inderbitzin has paid him well), for his active involvement for over 8-years, and is still maintaining control over this case, even though he is no longer legally able to act as a GAL in the State of Washington (he has been removed from the GAL list, FOR MISCONDUCT) UPDATE = I SEE HIS NAME WAS BACK ON THE LIST. He continues to deny all of Ms. Allen's requests to share a life, a phone call, or even a moment with her daughter.
Ms. Allen’s parental rights have all been terminated, with the exception of paying child support.
Ms.Allen is now forced to live like a prisoner in her own home due to the fear of more illegitimate TERRORIST ATTACKS by this corrupt trio. Ms.Allen is no match for Mr.Inderbitzin's money, nor his Attorney John Fuhrman’s corrupt tactics, nor the GAL's malice.
Mr.Inderbitzin is a self-employed diesel mechanic, who owns a home on acreage, a speedboat, two street bikes, a vintage automobile collection (to include a 52 Chevy, a 62 Chevy truck and a Corvette), a roadster, a 1999 shop truck, and a 1991-pleasure truck, and an airplane. Mr.Inderbitzin has been fortunate enough to pay with cash for all of his belongings, and owns his home outright. He can afford to send the child he stole to a private school (not for the child's well being, but because it is easier to keep her isolated in this environment – private Catholic Schools do not offer counseling to children). His subpoenaed bank records for one month reflect deposits that total $43,000.00. Ms. Allen, on the other hand, owns one broken 1978-camaro and makes a modest income.
This child is "in need" nothing, but the love and affection of her mother. There is case law that states they are to compare the needs of one over the ability of the other to pay. Not only has THIS rule never been followed in this case, but NO COMMON PRACTICES, RULES, or LAWS have either.
Ms. Allen has not stopped her crusade to fight for her constitutionally protected right to hold a meaningful relationship with her daughter.
Ms. Allen was never accused of, nor found to be "unfit", their complaint? "I am over-protective"... For that, my young daughter was ripped out of my arms and I am not allowed to have contact or communication unless the GAL approves of it, in which he never has. My crime? I reported my daughter’s complaints of molestation and attempted rape to the proper authorities.
What did the abused victim learn? That her abuser is powerful, and protected.
The “final trial” came and went in October of 1996, as Judge Waldo Stone slept on the bench, only to order in the end PER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE GAL that Vicki Hogan’s ruling shall be upheld, the child was to remain with Mr. Inderbitzin. Mr. Inderbitzin’s Attorney, John William Fuhrman, is famous for adding “rules” and further propaganda into the order, then what the trial court judge originally ruled upon. He then presents them with no notice to the opposing, for signature. In this “ruling”, among the several things he added, was a stipulation that the mother could not return to court for any reason on this case until the spring of 1997. Ms. Allen’s Attorney resigned from the case, haven given this his best shot.
Shortly following this case, Waldo Stone retired from the bench.
The Honorable Judge RUDY TOLLEFSON took his place.
In the spring of 1997, Ms. Allen acting as pro se (without Attorney) brought forth a motion seeking visitations with her daughter. The GAL showed up, and true to form, continued to misconstrue the facts, and as is normal procedure, Judge Tollefson rubber stamped the GAL's recommendations, and denied Ms. Allen's motion.
It then became readily apparent to Ms.Allen that the only way she would ever attempt to have any contact or communication with her daughter, was to move the court to terminate the GAL from this case. (This move had been made once before by Ms.Allen's former Attorney in 1995, who not only asked to have the GAL removed, but further if he was to remain on this case, then he should be subjected to a CR-35 (psych-eval). Judge Vicki Hogan denied the motion entirely, refusing even to listen to what our "probable cause" was.)
With that, Ms. Allen compiled her evidence of over 23-examples of misconduct (to name a few) on the part of the GAL and his inept investigation, and typed out a motion to bring before Judge Tollefson. She filed her motion, and the waiting period began (opponents have a time line to respond in).
Shortly following this, she received a notice in the mail that she was being charged with criminal charges for violating a restraining order (that did not exist). Upon further investigation, she found that the GAL had manufactured evidence against Ms. Allen, alleging that she had been seen at her daughter’s school on a date that she was not even in the state (traveling interstate to assist her father). Coincidence or not, but the date of the this arraignment, was the same date and time that she had scheduled to appear before Judge Tollefson on her motion to terminate the GAL.
Ms. Allen arrived to court early, to attend both hearings. She dropped off a written “plea” notice to answer the charges, and then ran into Judge Tollefson’s courtroom. Ms. Allen began to pour out her complaint for over 45+ minutes, to the only Judge in the history of her case, that did not violate her constitutional right to due process, and who not only listened, but also asked questions as he followed along with Ms.Allen as she read her evidence out loud. Judge Tollefson then took the case under advisement for 30-days, but not before asking the three stooges (Inderbitzin, Fuhrman & Downing) if they would allow Ms.Allen to see her daughter for Christmas. Of course they adamantly refused.
At the end of the 30-day period, on 23 January 1998, Judge Tollefson permanently terminated GAL Downing with prejudice, and replaced him with a GAL that has a reputation as that of a bulldog for seeking the truth (Mr. Doug Schafer). Judge Tollefson granted Ms. Allen liberal visitation with her daughter to begin immediately, and ordered Mr. Inderbitzin to finally undergo a complete psychosexual evaluation.
Ms. Allen took her sister Cindy to pick up her daughter for the weekend visit. Mr. Inderbitzin was over an hour late, and her daughter was crying, and indicated that she was afraid. The transitional period was tough on her, but the visit in and of itself was wonderful.
Mr. Fuhrman immediately appealed the ruling, and moved to have the visits stopped on an emergency basis (which was denied) and Judge Tollefson removed from the case.
It was later discovered that Judge Tollefson read the entire file (at this time 6-7 volumes). To date, no other Judge on this case has ever read the file. Judge Tollefson found that portions of the record were missing, he picked up the phone and attempted to call one of the psychiatrists on the case, seeking a copy of Ms. Allen's evaluation, but, the psychiatrist could not be reached, and he later found a copy of the report. He phoned another psychiatrist {Julia F. Tybor-Moore} to ask if she had knowledge of Mr.Inderbitzin's prior history when she made her report, to which her reply was no, she had not. He phoned another psychiatrist, seeking a copy of Mr.Inderbitzin's 1984 psycho-sexual evaluation, as it was also missing from the 1994 file. As it turned out, his 1984 psychosexual evaluation was incomplete. Inderbitzin refused to submit to any further testing in 1984 and therefore he was never granted unsupervised access to his older daughter.
Two months after Judge Tollefson signed his order terminating the GAL, he issued a 12-page order of his findings in this case, detailing corruption, and the statutory rape Mr. Inderbitzin committed on a 11 year old girl, (which Mr.Inderbitzin never denied),
After he issued this report, the GAL and opposing Attorney filed a complaint with the Commission of Judicial Conduct, alleging that Judge Tollefson made personal attacks against themselves in his 12-page order. A portion of Judge Tollefson’s report was based not only on his own investigation that was prompted out of concern for my daughter, but also based on the new GAL’s investigation.
*Interestingly* Vicki Hogan then began a inside campaign seeking fellow comrades willing to make a complaint against Judge Tollefson, this would include her court reporter, Ms.R.Segamo.
Judge Tollefson was accused by both of them for being verbally abusive. Judge Tollefson admitted to a provoked outburst towards Ms.Segamo, but Judge Tollefson denies any such incident happening with Vicki Hogan.
This whole thing was orchestrated to cast a shadow on an honorable man, with pure intentions. At this juncture, it is imperative to again mention that Vicki Hogan was the original trial court Judge assigned (or hand selected) to this case. She is at risk of exposure to her illegal rulings, which placed my daughter in harms way.
Why did Vicki Hogan work so hard to discredit The Honorable R.J.Tollefson?
Was she "a friendly judge" to Inderbitzin??? Did she recieve compensation for her ruling??? I ponder, how much my child was worth...
I firmly believe, given the nature of the way this case played out;
1. Attorney John Fuhrman GUARENTEED Inderbitzin would win custody of my daughter in the very beginning of this case
2. GAL Downing showed extreme favoritism towards Inderbitzin BEFORE even meeting me.
3. All the PhD’s (post hole diggers) were in favor of Inderbitzin before meeting me.
4. Every Court Commissioner and Judge on this case RECUSSED THEMSELVES AFTER JUDGE TOLLEFSON ISSUED HIS 12-PAGE RULING, SOME STATING “PERSONAL AQUOINTENCE” – this includes Vicki Hogan.
5. Inderbitzin’s bank loans were excessive http://www.piercecountywa.org/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/record.htm (search yourself for mark richard inderbitzin)
6. GAL Downing’s IRS lien [CONSIDERATION AMOUNT 31762.43] was lifted just before my final trial. Search using same link as above.
That this was one of those “friendly” cases, in where one is given a sum or several “financial gifts” influence friendly rulings. (see “comments on the system – BROKEN TRUST).
When the misconduct of a GAL is brought to a Judges attention, it only makes sense for the Judge to look into these allegations himself, to verify the validity of his “eyes and ears.”
In this case, Ms.Allen's motion to terminate the GAL set off red flags in Judge Tollefson's mind, which resulted in his own investigation. His investigation uncovered serious substantial misdeeds, lies, and corruption. Upon further {limited} investigation by GAL Doug Schafer, it was discovered that the corruption didn’t stop with GAL Downing.
When the misconduct of a officer of the court (GAL) is brought to a Judge's attention, specifically, that a GAL lied, withheld pertinent parts of the record, and interfered with a criminal investigation, should a Judge take a closer look into the case, and the evidence therein? That… is the million dollar question.
Or do you believe a Judge should blindly look the other way and allow the abuse to continue, to the detriment of not only the participants in a case, but also to Justice itself?
What is the purpose or intent of a court of law? Is it used to abuse its constituents, or to protect the vulnerable and elderly?
Ms. Allen's only desire was to have the TRUTH known, and therefore she had no problem with the Judge checking the validity of the GAL investigation.
Mr.Inderbitzin's only fear WAS to have the TRUTH known.
The GAL program is turning out to be nothing more than a scam. Some corrupt Judges are receiving a kickback from this scam, while they assist GAL's in ripping off estates from the elderly, completely depleting their assets & bank accounts, leaving heirs with nothing. In cases involving minors, they lean heavily in the favor of "the litigant with all the money". It is purely criminal for a Judge to continue to blindly rubber stamp any recommendation made by a GAL, without first reviewing all of the evidence placed before them.
Mike Reagan was correct in his reply to hearing about legal abuse, he said "follow the dollar". This must be stopped.
Once Judge Tollefson stepped down off of the case, it went back up to the drawing board. Because of the front-page article in the Tacoma News Tribune {5/13/1998}, and Judge Tollefson’s 12-page order, several Judges rushed their “request for reassignment” notices into the presiding Judge. Some had already given prior rulings in this case. Judges Larkin and Felnagle stated “personal acquaintance” (not of mine). Hogan did not give a reason. Judge Van Deren stated “familiarity with case due to GAL committee”. Buckner and Strombom stated “other”. The only Judge willing to take my case, was Bryan Chushcoff.
The next move was to terminate every ruling since the appointment of the GAL (3/10/94 – 2/1998) based on CR-60 (b) (3)(4) http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=sup&set=CR&ruleid=supcr60
Chushcoff denied the motion, and during these hearings he stated he found "nothing wrong with GAL Downings investigation".
Ms. Allen then appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which they kicked down to the appellate court located walking distance from superior court. There had been rumors of Appellate Court Commissioner Donald Meath and his “relations” with the GAL and so on. Because Ms. Allen had received biased rulings from this court before, this was of concern. She begged the Supreme Court to keep the case, which was again denied. She then filed a notice of prejudice against Meath, which was ignored.
While all of this was going on, Fuhrman began noting up contempt motions against Ms. Allen, for failure to pay child support. Chushcoff ordered Ms. Allen to pay $700.00 in 7 days or go to jail for 30 days. Ms. Allen knew she could not fight this battle behind bars, and she did not have $700.00. At this point, she went into hiding to continue to fight for her daughter’s safety, in a safe place of her own. This was not the only reason she was motivated to hide. Inderbitzin had threatened her life on several occasions. He had been seen driving past her home a few times, when he had no reason to be there (Ms. Allen lived in a town called Graham, which is separate from his residence of Tacoma and his shop in Puyallup). Further, on occasion, Fuhrman would hold hearings that Ms. Allen had no notice of. When confronted with this (after the fact) Ms. Allen was told the process server had stapled papers to her front porch. On one occasion when Ms. Allen had returned home late, she heard a noise at the front door. Upon investigation she found the process server turning the doorknob of her home. Luckily it was locked. She had no intentions of opening it in her pajamas.
During this time, Judge Chushcoff held a special hearing for Ms. Allen. Chushcoff wanted her to answer to charges that she had spit in a child molesters face. Not just any child molester, but the one that molested her daughter. Under the “law”, a complaint is made to the police, and the prosecuting Attorney decides whether there is probable cause or not to proceed with a complaint. However, in Pierce County, they do not follow the laws.
Ms. Allen had joined suit with both of her sisters, Debi and Cindy, to sue our Uncle Melvin for damages from child molestation they endured at his hands during their childhood. The case was filed in Pierce County in 1995. It didn’t go to trial until 1999. Chushcoff somehow managed to get a hold of this case as well. He had placed a warrant for Ms. Allen’s arrest for failure to pay the $700.00 he ordered her to pay in 7 days. During this trial, her Attorney requested the warrant be temporarily suspended so she could attend the hearing with her sisters. Chushcoff denied the request, even though there was a possibility that if she won, she could pay this court ordered debt. In short, she did not participate with her sisters for this hearing, even though she wanted to, she was committed to continue the fight to free her daughter.
Chushcoff held a special hearing in the Inderbitzin case, wherein he had pre-composed his own order, and ordered her to 3 days in jail, calling her a liar during the trial. His mind was made up before the hearing ever took place. He called for the police to escort her away right from the empty courtroom (no witness’). Ms. Allen spent 3-days in jail.
At this point and time, Ms. Allen awoke to the revelation that THERE IS NO JUSTICE, not in this court, or any court in Washington State.
The appellate court commissioner Donald Meath (the one Ms.Allen filed a notice of prejudice on) decided that this case has “no merit”. Ms. Allen proceeded a second time to the Supreme Court of Washington under the same cause for review. This case never made it past the Supreme Court Clerk.
All the players, set up like a game of Chess. Perfectly positioned to orchestrate a specific outcome. Bribery, fraud, payoffs, prejudice… Will it ever come to an end?
It hasn’t yet.
The outcome? There is none. I do not see my daughter. Not because I do not want to see her. She has no idea how much and how hard I fought for her.
This website is simply a very short testimony of my story. She has no idea of how special she is to me and how much I truly LOVE her with all of my heart. I’d give anything to turn back the clock, and go back to before all these hurts began, and wash them away.
My daughter doesn’t want to have anything to do with me because she has been told that I abandoned her. She is told that I am this horrible bad person that hurt her very much. Or is she simply submissive to his demands, because she has learned that abusers are powerful and protected. {FACT}
Did I file complaints? Oh yes. NUMEROUS. The list is LONG. I filed complaints on every single place I could think of, including the president (at that time slick willy), all to no avail.
You see, the thing I have learned is that when the fox guards the hen house, your complaintive efforts are futile. We have no system of checks and balances. NONE.
My father passed away 5/5/2000. I had put off going to visit him because I had another letter and another complaint to file. I couldn't stop fighting. All that time, wasted. All my hard efforts, for naught. Dad's gone now, and I can't turn back the clock. All these years, my daughter is a teen now, and I am nowhere today in this battle. What would I do differently given my knowledge, and the volumes of other people I've met in my very same predicament? I would have grabbed my young daughter and RUN. That's what I'll tell you today if you write me and ask. Take your precious children and RUN. There is no time machines. You can't turn back time. There is no justice in our courts anymore.
Thank you for reading my story. Please by all means forward my link onto another. Maybe somewhere, somehow, someway, my voice will be heard.
MY HOPE...
... Is that someone in a position to really "do something" - will review my story, and amend a broken system.
This "someone" will have enough morals and integrity - that a price can not be placed upon them to "look the other way".
*Please review the 12-Page Order, Rudys Ltr2 Clerk, and Report-GAL Schafer
© Lynda Allen
