On July 2, 2026, attorney Davin R. Bacho filed a petition in Sonoma County Superior Court seeking to confirm a $196,508 arbitration award against former clients Barry Brilliant and Dagmar Hoheneck‑Smith.
From the petition:
“Petitioner… claims that an additional $196,508.28 in fees were incurred… Respondents claim that they do not owe anything further.”
— Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, 26CV05207
He is seeking:
$196,508 in unpaid fees
$196,508 in attorney’s fees for the petition itself
Statutory interest beginning 7/30/2026
Costs of suit
Nearly $400,000 in total.
This is not a minor dispute.
It is a major financial crisis for an attorney.
And the timing of this crisis aligns precisely with the procedural misconduct in the lawsuit filed against me.
The defamation case Snowden vs. Ainsworth (Case No. 24CV07689) was filed on December 18, 2024, with Davin Bacho listed as lead counsel for every plaintiff:
Cary Snowden
Michael Irvine
Dawn Holman
Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley
The docket shows CFK immediately launched a barrage of procedural attacks against me, Adina Flores, and my co‑defendant Laura Ainsworth:
Motion to Strike my Answer
Demurrer to my Answer
Motion to Dismiss
Multiple sanctions notices
Demurrer to my Amended Answer
Ex Parte Application to Reinstate Default
This was not normal litigation.
It was pressure litigation.
On September 5, 2025, CFK filed a Request for Entry of Default against Laura Ainsworth — even though Laura had already filed responsive pleadings and appeared at hearings. The court later confirmed the default was improper:
“The Request for Entry of Default filed on 09/05/2025 was filed through a clerical error… Defendant Laura Ainsworth… was not default eligible.”
— Clerk’s Motion to Vacate, 6/25/2026
Judge Jane Gaskell signed the order vacating the default under CCP §473(d).
But instead of ending the matter, Gaskell recused herself shortly afterward — and only after her recusal, the default was mysteriously reinstated on July 9, 2026.
This sequence means the judge who corrected the error was no longer on the case when the default reappeared, raising serious questions about who reinstated it, why, and under what authority.
The docket shows:
“Request for Entry of Default — REINSTATED per 7/9/2026 Order”
— Court Docket, 7/9/2026
A default that:
Never should have existed
Was admitted to be a clerical error
Was vacated by court order
…was suddenly brought back from the dead.
This is not normal.
This is not accidental.
This is not procedural.
This is influence.
The timeline is impossible to ignore:
The fraudulent default is vacated.
The court admits it was a clerical error.
Arbitrators award Davin $196,508 in his fee dispute.
Davin files his petition to confirm the award — seeking nearly $400,000 total.
The fraudulent default against Laura is mysteriously reinstated.
The default’s resurrection aligns exactly with Davin’s attempt to recover massive financial losses.
This raises a legitimate question:
Did Davin push a fraudulent default — twice — because CFK needed leverage to recoup financial losses?
My Substack reporting documents Whitestar Group’s involvement:
Whitestar served me (2/05/2025)
Whitestar served Laura (3/12/2025)
Whitestar CEO Mark Adams contacted me offering work (2/27/2025)
Whitestar met with me in person (3/11/2025)
Whitestar paid me in cash
Whitestar promised to “fix” the lawsuit if I retracted mandated‑reporter disclosures
Whitestar used the fraudulent default as leverage
The default was not just a court error.
It was a weapon.
And CFK kept that weapon alive — even after the court killed it.
The convergence is undeniable:
BGCSV files a lawsuit to silence mandated‑reporter disclosures.
Whitestar serves the lawsuit.
Whitestar recruits me.
Whitestar pressures me using Laura’s fraudulent default.
CFK maintains the default for nine months.
The court vacates the default.
BSIS verbally claims “no violations” four days later.
Davin files a petition seeking nearly $400,000.
The default is mysteriously reinstated.
This is not coincidence.
This is coordination.
And financial motive is now part of the documented timeline.
A fraudulent default was entered.
A fraudulent default was vacated.
A fraudulent default was reinstated.
The court record proves it.
The question is no longer whether the default was improper — the court already admitted that.
The question is:
Who wanted it back — and why?
As Scripture reminds us:
“For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.” — 2 Corinthians 13:8
And now, the truth is documented.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.