Today is July 20, 2026, and I am preparing for a hearing tomorrow morning that should never have been scheduled. What is happening in Snowden v. Ainsworth is not just a procedural dispute — it is the convergence of a vacated default, a judicial conflict of interest, and a pattern of misconduct involving Whitestar Group CEO Mark Adams and the plaintiffs’ law firm, Clement, Fitzpatrick & Kenworthy (CFK).
This article explains exactly how we got here.
On September 5, 2025, plaintiffs’ attorney Davin Bacho mailed a Request for Entry of Default against my co‑defendant, Laura Ainsworth. In his sworn declaration, he states:
“On September 5, 2025, I served by mail a Request for Entry of Default…”
But the court’s own docket shows that on June 25, 2026, the Court vacated that default due to clerical error:
“Request for Entry of Default filed 9/5/25 — VACATED due to Clerical Error.”
Despite this, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application demanding the Court “reinstate” a default that no longer legally exists.
Their application relies on CCP §473(d), which allows correction of clerical mistakes — not revival of judicial rulings. Reinstating a default is a judicial act, requiring:
a noticed motion
evidence
briefing
and an opportunity to respond
Plaintiffs attempted to bypass all of that by filing ex parte.
The ex parte hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, July 21, 2026, in Department 17 before Judge Jane Gaskell.
But Judge Gaskell cannot legally preside over this case.
During the same period Plaintiff Dawn Holman served as Director of Program Services at the Sonoma County YWCA, Judge Gaskell served as Board President of that same organization.
A Board President and a Program Director operate within the same governance structure. They share oversight responsibilities, attend the same meetings, and work within the same institutional framework.
Under CCP §170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii), a judge is disqualified when:
“A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.”
This is not optional. It is mandatory.
Any ruling issued by a disqualified judge is void.
That is why, today — July 20 — I filed a Notice of Judicial Disqualification.
The plaintiffs’ law firm, CFK, is not just representing the plaintiffs suing me. They are also personal attorneys for Whitestar Group CEO Mark Adams, the private investigator who served the summons in this case.
This dual role was never disclosed to me.
The timeline is alarming:
Feb 5, 2025: I was served in the lawsuit.
Feb 27, 2025: Adams contacted me offering investigative work “under his PI license.”
Mar 11, 2025: He gave me my first assignment and paid me cash.
Mar 12, 2025: My co‑defendant was served — one day after Adams offered me office‑based work.
Summer 2025: Adams met with CFK attorney Erin Carlstrom about my case.
During that meeting, Adams told me he could “help get the lawsuit dismissed” if I stopped posting as an investigative reporter.
That was not help.
It was coercion.
On April 16, 2026, I filed a formal complaint with the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) documenting:
Adams giving me access to TrackOps without fingerprints or a background check
Adams emailing me unencrypted client reports containing Social Security numbers
Adams paying me cash for investigative work despite my lack of a PI license
Adams discussing confidential client matters in public
Adams offering me marijuana and alcohol
Adams attempting to influence my legal case
A BSIS Complaint Resolution Analyst contacted me to request additional documentation. During that call, I learned:
For nearly 1.5 months, Adams has not responded to BSIS.
No rebuttal.
No documentation.
No cooperation.
For a licensed PI, this is extremely serious.
Failure to respond can lead to:
administrative penalties
suspension
revocation
escalation to the Department of Consumer Affairs legal division
A PI refusing to respond to investigators is a red flag all by itself.
On April 15, 2026, after I emailed Santa Rosa officials about Whitestar hosting a political listening session, Adams responded publicly — copying city officials and CFK attorneys.
In that email, he accused me of:
“distorting facts”
engaging in “off the wall antics”
being “wholly lacking in credibility”
He threatened defamation action immediately after I filed a retaliation complaint with the DLSE.
His email was not professional.
It was retaliatory.
And it became part of the BSIS file.
As of July 20, 2026, here is the reality:
The default plaintiffs want reinstated was already vacated.
Their ex parte application is legally improper.
The judge assigned to hear it has a mandatory conflict of interest.
Whitestar’s CEO — tied directly to CFK — is under state investigation.
He has refused to respond to BSIS for 1.5 months.
CFK is representing both the plaintiffs and Adams.
Adams attempted to influence my legal posture while working with CFK.
This is not normal litigation.
This is a coordinated pattern of silence, retaliation, and avoidance.
I filed my judicial disqualification notice today because the law required it.
I filed my BSIS complaint because the public deserves to know when a licensed PI abuses his authority.
I filed my opposition because the plaintiffs’ ex parte application was improper, unsupported, and factually inaccurate.
And I am publishing this because transparency matters — especially when silence is being used as a weapon.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.