The most defining moment in my lawsuit came on August 6, 2026, when my peremptory challenge against Judge Patrick Broderick was granted. His removal was not procedural—it was necessary. His spouse, Susan Radford (Broderick), was a client of Whitestar Group, the same private investigations firm that:
Served the summons and complaint in my lawsuit
Attempted to recruit me, pay me in cash, and influence my legal decisions
Is under active BSIS/DSLE investigation because of my complaints
Employed multiple Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office personnel while receiving expanding County contracts
Whitestar’s misconduct is directly tied to my case. Broderick’s spouse’s affiliation with Whitestar created a mandatory conflict of interest, and his removal set the tone for everything that followed.
This case has not been a normal civil lawsuit. It has been a collision between political networks, private security contracting, law‑enforcement entanglements, and judicial ethics.
On February 5, 2025, I was served by:
“MARK T. ANDREWS FOR WHITESTAR GROUP.”
Whitestar was directly involved in executing service of process for the plaintiffs.
The timing was impossible to ignore:
Feb 27, 2025: Whitestar CEO Mark Adams contacted me offering investigative work.
Mar 11, 2025: Adams met with me in person and reiterated the offer.
Mar 12, 2025: Whitestar served my co‑defendant, Laura Ainsworth.
Whitestar was simultaneously:
Working for the plaintiffs
Paying me in cash
Offering me investigative assignments
Attempting to influence my communications with opposing counsel
Whitestar was both inside the lawsuit and inside my life.
I reported Whitestar for:
Coercion
Extortion
Bribery
Improper PI employment practices
This investigation later triggered judicial recusals.
Whitestar employed multiple current or recently retired Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office personnel:
Lt. Sean Jones
Sgt. Robert Crabb
Deputy Rod McMasters
At the same time, the Sheriff’s Office:
Approved Whitestar’s invoices
Oversaw Whitestar’s performance
Expanded Whitestar’s contracts
This overlap triggered a formal FPPC investigation:
FPPC Case No. 2026‑00246 — opened March 25, 2026
Investigating Lt. Sean Jones’ off‑duty employment with Whitestar
The investigation remains active.
The City of Sonoma contracts with the Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement services.
The City of Sonoma’s Chief, Brandon Cutting, was deposed by the plaintiffs in my lawsuit.
This means:
A Sheriff’s Office official is a witness
Whitestar employed Sheriff’s personnel
Whitestar served my summons
Whitestar attempted to influence me
Whitestar is under investigation
My judge’s spouse works for the County that oversees the Sheriff’s Office
This is a structural conflict of interest, not a hypothetical one.
My case has cycled through four judges, each departure tied to conflicts.
This is the most important removal.
His spouse was a Whitestar client.
Whitestar is under investigation because of my complaint.
Whitestar served my summons.
Whitestar attempted to influence me.
This was a mandatory disqualification under CCP §170.1(a)(2)(A).
On July 21, 2026, Judge Gaskell filed a 170.1 Notice of Recusal.
Her connections to SCWiL and overlapping networks with plaintiffs’ counsel made her continued involvement untenable.
On July 23–24, 2026, a peremptory challenge was filed and granted.
Simonds also had overlapping professional networks with plaintiffs’ counsel.
Honigsberg appeared briefly during a demurrer panel and was administratively reassigned.
The FPPC’s letter confirms:
Pardo failed to disclose disclosable income
He was required to complete the PREP course
He amended his SEIs only after my complaint
I am the complainant.
He is the subject of the complaint.
He now presides over my case.
This matters because:
The County oversees the Sheriff’s Office
The Sheriff’s Office is entangled with Whitestar
Whitestar served my summons
Whitestar is under investigation
A Sheriff’s Office official was deposed in my case
Under Canon 3E(1) and CCP §170.1(a)(6), this creates an appearance of bias.
In SCV‑273578 (County of Sonoma vs. Cupp):
Pardo presided
Pardo issued a monetary judgment in favor of the County
He did not recuse himself
His spouse works for the County
This is a pattern of non‑recusal in County‑involved matters.
The County is not a named party, but it is structurally involved through:
Sheriff’s Office
City of Sonoma contract policing
Whitestar’s County contracts
Whitestar’s employment of Sheriff’s personnel
Whitestar’s service of process
Whitestar’s ongoing investigations
Pardo’s spouse’s employment creates a direct conflict.
My case has had four judges removed or reassigned:
I am now assigned to Judge Oscar A. Pardo.
“For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.” — 2 Corinthians 13:8
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.