On August 5, 2026, I attended proceedings in the Dominic Foppoli civil trial at the Sonoma County Superior Court. What should have been a routine day of public observation turned into an alarming incident involving inconsistent instructions from bailiffs, a public reprimand by Judge Dana Simonds, and starkly unequal treatment between me—an Asian woman and civil‑rights advocate—and Kate O’Weber, a white activist aligned with the plaintiffs.
I appreciate Ms. O’Weber’s military service, and thank her for serving our country. However, I did not appreciate the way that she confronted me outside of the courthouse while I awaited contact with the Sherriff’s Office to discuss unlawful removal.
This article documents what occurred, the legal questions raised, and the broader implications for racial equity and public access to Sonoma County’s courts.
The first confrontation occurred in the hallway. One bailiff told me I was “never allowed to return to the courthouse.” A second bailiff contradicted him minutes later, stating I was required to leave “for today, only.”
No one could cite:
a statute,
a rule,
a written order,
or any legal authority supporting my removal.
As I wrote in my inquiry to court administration:
“The Sheriffs were unable to inform me of the law that I allegedly violated, and could not provide the legal language to support my removal from the premises.”
Removal from a courthouse is a serious action requiring documentation and due process. None were provided.
When I entered the Foppoli courtroom, Judge Simonds announced—before the entire jury—that jurors had allegedly overheard me discussing the case in the hallway. She then repeated the statements she claimed I made, despite asserting that such statements were prohibited.
This contradiction raises a fundamental question:
If the statements were impermissible, why were they repeated publicly in front of jurors?
Additionally:
No juror ever approached me.
No staff member warned me.
No written order was issued.
No legal authority was cited.
Judge Simonds stated this was the first time in her judicial career she had ever issued such an exclusion order. Yet no documentation was produced.
A sheriff’s deputy told me that recording inside the courthouse was prohibited. Yet Kate O’Weber—the Tracking Foppoli representative—has repeatedly recorded videos inside the courthouse without consequence.
From my written account:
“Oddly, the Tracking Foppoli representative has been allowed to record videos & mock those who disagree with her inside the courthouse.”
Kate O’Weber has also disclosed case details in the hallway—precisely the conduct Judge Simonds accused me of—yet she has never been reprimanded.
This discrepancy suggests unequal enforcement of courthouse rules based on affiliation and race.
Outside the building, Kate O’Weber confronted me, attacked my Christian faith, and told me I was “not allowed in the courthouse.” This statement is not only false—it is discriminatory.
Religious identity and expression are protected under the First Amendment and California civil‑rights law. No courthouse rule prohibits faith or religious conversation.
The pattern is clear:
I, an Asian woman and independent civil‑rights advocate, was removed from the courthouse without legal justification.
Kate O’Weber, a white woman aligned with the plaintiffs, was permitted to record videos, disclose case details, and engage in harassment without reprimand.
Judge Simonds publicly repeated alleged statements she claimed were prohibited, then excluded me from the building.
This prompted my direct question to the court:
“As an Asian woman, can the court please explain why white women who are advocates for the plaintiffs are receiving preferential treatment by Judge Simonds?”
In a high‑profile civil‑rights case, equal treatment of all members of the public is essential. What occurred on August 5th suggests a troubling departure from that standard.
I formally requested:
the written order authorizing my removal,
the legal authority Judge Simonds relied upon,
clarification of courthouse recording policies,
and an explanation for the disparate treatment between racial groups and advocacy affiliations.
These questions remain unanswered.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.