Source: http://freenancy.com/COURTDOC.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 03:52:50+00:00

Document:
visiting Judge robert baysinger grants golins’ motion to transfer venue from santa clara county to san mateo county, a neutral venue.
DISMISSAL of golins’ civil suit REVERSED ON APPEAL IN CURRENT State ACTION!!
In a stunning reversal, the Golins have revived their civil suit and restored their access to the trial court!
Despite the confusion and noise generated by the State defendants for seven years, the Court of Appeal agreed that there was more likely than not to be merit to their case, and now the case may move forward again, despite three years of languishing in the appeals court.
Mr. David J. Beauvais argued successfully for the family on November 18, 2010.
Golin v. Allenby, Sixth District Court of Appeal (No. H032619), appeal from dismissal of state civil lawsuit on purported “vexatious litigant” determination grounds and failure to pay $500,000 bond, filed 2/21/08.
· Amended Complaint for damages and Injunctive Relief, filed August 22, 2006.
· Motion for Change of Venue, filed June 6, 2007.
· Amended Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Reconsider, filed June 11, 2007.
· Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Demurrers, Filed May, 21, 2007.
· Objection to Taking of Judicial Notice, filed May 22, 2007.
· Order of Judge Neal A. Cabrinha August 8, 2007, declaring bench recusal of entire Santa Clara County Court, and appointing visiting Judge Thomas P. Breen by appointment of Judicial Counsel.
· Challenge of Judge Hon. Thomas P. Breen, September 17, 2007. Judge Breen initially refused to recuse himself when challenged.
· Notice of Disqualification of Hon. Thomas P. Breen, September 18, 2007.
· Petition for Writ of Mandate of Hon. Thomas P. Breen, September 21, 2007. Judge Breen recused himself.
· Renewed Motion for Change of Venue, October 5, 2007.
· Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to SARC’s Anti-SLAPP Motion, filed October 5, 2007. SARC’s Motion to strike Golins’ entire case fails as a matter of law, being filed seven months too late.
· Plaintiffs Opposition to City of Palo Alto’s Motion for Vexatious Litigant Determination, with Memorandum of Points and Authorities., filed November 5, 2007.
· Plaintiffs Reply Brief to Attorney General’s Opposition to Renotice of Motion to Reconsider Guardian Ad Litem Appointment for Nancy Golin with Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Filed November 5, 2007.
· Petition for Writ of Mandate, to Third District Court of Appeal, filed November 13, 2006, denied November 20, 2006 (no opinion). (Case No. Case No. C054107). Appealing denial of countermotion to retain venue in Sacramento County and revocation of guardian ad litem.
· Petition for Review, to California Supreme Court, filed November 30, 2006, appealing denial of writ of mandate of Third Circuit Court of Appeal. (Case No. S148450).
· Petitioner’s Reply Brief in Support of Review, in response to San Andreas Regional Center’s Answer, filed December 20, 2006. California Supreme Court denied petition for review on January 3, 2007, ten minutes before this reply brief was delivered by UPS, denying parents’ right to rebut the arguments of San Andreas against review. Was denied by Chief Justice Ronald George, on his own.
· Amicus Letter of National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse (NASGA) in support of review, filed with California Supreme Court, December 8, 2006.
Case No. 03-cv-04791, dismissed March 23, 2004.
· Appellants' Reply Brief, February 22, 2005, by Jeffrey Golin, (was lost by court).
Memoriam---We were terribly saddened at the inestimable loss of Donna Crowder from Atwater, CA, who helped us in so many ways, died July 23, 2006 from a sudden recurrence of cancer, which overcame her in a very brief time, and we deeply grieve her loss. See article about Donna’s death. Her spirit, energy and dedication to taming recent oppressive incursions of overwhelming state authority into the family will live on however.
· Petition for Rehearing En Banc, July 6, 2005, by Jeffrey Golin, denied by same three judge panel without memorandum Kleinfeld, Tashima and Thomas, August 15, 2005.
· Memorandum of Additional Citations in Support of Rehearing En Banc, July 13, 2005, by Jeffrey Golin.
Golin et al v. Allenby et al, Section 1983(5) Civil Rights Lawsuit, petition to United States Supreme Court, Case No. 05-791. Filed December 14, 2005, certiorari denied March 27, 2006.
· Petition for Writ of Certiorari to United States Supreme Court, Golin v. Allenby, Docket No. 05-791, December 14, 2005, by Gerard Wallace, Esq. (see, http://www.grandparentsrightslaw.com/gerardwallaceesq.html ) (Respondent County and Regional Center were granted 30 day continuance to file Briefs in Opposition, and at last moment on February 22, 2006, decided to file waivers rather than opposing briefs).
· Supplemental Brief of Petitioners, Golin v. Allenby, Docket No 05-791, filed February 22, 2006 (pending), by Gerard Wallace (citing intervening United States v. Georgia, and “Tainted Trials, Stolen Justice” Mercury News study of misconduct in Santa Clara County Courts.
· Petitioners’ Second Supplemental Brief, Golin v. Allenby, Docket No. 05-791, submitted March 11, 2006 (pending) by Gerard Wallace, briefing by parents in response to Court’s request on receipt of Motion to Defer, suggesting that the court consider opinion in Marshall before deciding their case.
In re Conservatorship of Nancy Golin, papers filed in Santa Clara County Court in pretrial and post-trial motions, Case No. 1-02-PR-151096.
* Disclaimer: The contents of this page or any links from it are not intended to be construed as legal advice, but are intended solely as historical and evidentiary support for the Free Nancy effort. Mr. Golin is not an attorney, does not have a license to practice law, does not represent himself as such, and has never done so. He has never been a lawyer previously, does not give legal advice, or practice law, or holds himself out as qualified to or entitled to practice law. Doing so would be illegal under California law as “unauthorized practice of law” (UPL) and is a crime (B&P §6126(a)) Any information given on this site is not to be relied upon by anyone else as legal advice, but solely as a free expression of political opinion, which is protected under the First Amendment to every citizen. To avoid confusion, it is advised that persons with legal problems seek professional assistance with their cases. Because it is illegal, Mr. Golin does not authorize anyone to offer his legal services, and objects to any person who misrepresents him as practicing law without a license. The forms and arguments advanced in these papers cannot be relied upon for any case other than that of Nancy Golin and her family.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §6126