For 2 simple reasons Bowman should recuse himself in Foster vs Gildred:
1. Judge Bowman misrepresented the Court by avoiding the Law in the return of an order on plaintiffs complaint amendment 1st, sighting it to be “Incoherent, Disjointed and a Ramble”. This decision was made exclusively specific to Blaine’s personal opinion. One that was based on Bowman’s experience as a Psychologist and not a Judge.
Questions: practicing Law surrounding people’s lives as a Phycologist? (Is sounding of potential corruption).
Mr Blaine’s career highlights “THAT AN ATTORNEY SHOULD NEVER RISKS HIS CAREER over ONE CLIENT”
Good advice:
But, in “Foster vs Gildred” Blaine is risking “His CAREER over A SINGLE CIVIL SUPERIOR COURT CASE that is simple”
Judge Bowman in “MY” opinion is not a colleague to his 135 Superior Court Judges and is SPECIFICALLY A BULLY TO FEMALE JUDGES.
There are many other reasons for Bowman to recuse and retire IMMEDIATELY.
Current issue #2.
Judge Bowman K. Blaine openly with blatant disregard to the bench instructed Gildred Defense Attorney Terence Leo Greene of Delmore Greene LLP to file two answers to one amended complaint. 3. Favored Gildred option to EDIT a yearlong unanswered unopposed with no appearance entry record on Gildred Cross-Complaint is flat outright disregarded to LAW.
Michael Foster” under Bowman’s acquiescence the Defense THOUGHT (assumed) a document with no record of entry by the Courts Clerk to be that of the Plaintiffs complaint amended
Shame on Blaine. But here’s my OPINION: Blaine K Bowman is unable to provide an unbiased court in Foster vs Gildred and in all probability overall. A LAZY NON-THINKER who’d favored the “LEGALLY TOOTHLESS Terrence Terry Leo Greene of Delmore Greene LLP is painfully bias. Michael Foster Pro Se FOSTER IS NOT AN ATTORNEY neither had he benefited from an attorney’s guide in the installation of a complaint that is VERY “SIMPLE, Factual & Straightforward”
The CRUST OF: Foster vs. Gildred
The situation involving Judge Keri G. Katz and Judge Bowman K. Blaine in the Foster vs. Gildred case raises significant concerns about judicial conduct and potential biases and even corruption by way of “Judicial Extortion”.
Judge Keri G. Katz
Judge Keri G. Katz retired after a long and distinguished career, having served the San Diego legal community for over 37 years. Her retirement came shortly after she ruled against Tom Gildred of the influential Gildred Family of San Diego. Her ruling in the Foster vs. Gildred case subdued Defendant Gildred. Judge Katz's ruling was seen as fair and impartial, addressing the legal issues based on the evidence presented.
Judge Bowman K. Blaine however,
After Judge Katz's retirement, Judge Bowman K. Blaine took over the Foster vs. Gildred case. His rulings have been in stark contrast to those of Judge Katz. There are concerns that Judge Bowman has shown bias and favoritism towards the Gildred defense, particularly in allowing the defense to file a second answer to the plaintiff's amended complaint based on an unrecorded document. This has raised questions about his impartiality and whether his actions are influenced by biases or corruption amounting to Judicial Racketeering where a judicial officer received financial kickbacks from settlements or money judgements in highly complicated civil cases against the San Diego Superior Court.
Identifiable Concerns and Allegations in Foster vs Gildred:
Bias and Prejudice: Judge Bowman's rulings have been perceived as biased, favoring the defense and not allowing the plaintiff a fair chance to respond.
Judicial Misconduct: There are allegations of judicial misconduct, including inappropriate conduct and rulings that have compromised the fairness of the legal proceedings.
Potential Corruption: Some believe that Judge Bowman's actions may be influenced by corruption, given the stark contrast between his rulings and those of Judge Katz.
These concerns highlight the need for a thorough investigation into Judge Bowman's conduct to ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially in the Foster vs. Gildred case.
Judge Bowman's actions are currently under review by the California Judiciary in an earlier report filed by Michael Foster the plaintiff in Foster vs Gildred.
Judicial misconduct in Foster vs Gildred unfortunately looks quite serious. Here outcomes pending the judicial investigations:
Reprimand: A formal reprimand or warning could be issued to Judge Bowman, highlighting the misconduct and advising against future occurrences.
Suspension: Judge Bowman could face suspension from his judicial duties for a specified period, during which he would not be allowed to preside over cases.
Removal from Office: Foster vs Gildred appears to be conduct that’s severe: As it contemplates a retroactive Lawsuit by the Defense against the San Diego Superior Court if left unattended. Gildred vs SDSC could involve 10’s of millions potential settlement. Judge Bowman could be removed from his position as a corrupt judge. This would involve a formal process and could result in the end of his judicial career.
Loss of Pension and Benefits: If removed from office, Judge Bowman could lose his pension and other benefits associated with his judicial position.
It’s a serious allegation to defraud the bench for the purpose of extortion resulting from potential kick backs from plaintiffs vs SDSC in monetary settlements.
Legal Consequences - Depending on the nature of this type of misconduct:
Judge Bowman could face legal consequences, including fines or other penalties.
Damage to Reputation: Judicial misconduct can severely damage a judge's reputation, both professionally and personally, affecting future career opportunities and public perception.
These consequences aim to maintain the integrity and fairness of the judicial system.
Kindly reply with a brief OPINION about Foster vs Gildred current Status involving Bowman K Blaine, Defendants Gildred and Plaintiff Michael Foster:
iPhone de TekCtek 7+
https://prlog.org/13052280/
Foster vs Gildred
The case Foster vs. Gildred involves a series of legal disputes between Michael Foster and Tom Gildred, along with his wife Carolina Gildred. The core issues revolve around allegations of infidelity, harassment, and the use of frivolous lawsuits to inflict emotional distress.
Background: Tom Gildred, a prominent figure in San Diego, is the founder of FMT Consultants and a member of the influential Gildred family. His wife, Carolina Gildred admits to have had an affair with Michael Foster, a dance teacher. But The Gildreds, particularly Tom, initiated a prolonged legal campaign against Foster, which included filing multiple lawsuits, forgery and police reports in both New York and California.
Legal Tactics: The Gildreds, represented by attorneys Seth Rafkin and Jennifer Bogue, employed various legal strategies in an out of court to harass and intimidate Foster. These tactics included filing frivolous lawsuits, attempting to tarnish Foster's reputation, and even allegedly forging documents to falsely diagnose Foster with mental health issues.
Impact on Foster: The legal actions taken by the Gildreds had a significant impact on Foster, causing him emotional distress and affecting his personal and professional life. The Gildreds' actions were so severe that they allegedly contributed to the death of Foster's mother, who was a cancer patient and died from grief and distress related to the Gildreds' actions. (Now this makes it a little bit more of a serious issue because I AM STILL GRIEVING my mother’s DEATH).
Public Attention: The case garnered attention from the New York Press, particularly the New York Post, which published a story about the Gildreds' allegations against Foster. The story included a photoshopped headshot of Foster, (it also published a photo of Tom when he was little mummy’s boy so cute) which was used to further harm his reputation.
Current Status: As of the latest information, the Gildreds' legal tactics have been challenged, and Foster's attorneys have accused the couple of engaging in Dragonetti frivolous legal filings. The case has been ongoing for several years, with the Gildreds' efforts to harass Foster largely falling apart in the New York Supreme Court. BRIBERY 150k (by NYC standards I expected the minimum 3-6% com. But Nock Louis did not follow suit).
This case highlights the VERY DELIBERATE potential misuse of the legal system to inflict harm and the consequences WITH MOMS HELP such actions on individuals and their families.
Well it’s not FUNNY. But Bowman still has his job to exercise. Foster vs Gildred is scheduled (as I think) March 21, 2025 C-74 San Diego Superior Court.
Can Blaine issue a decision reflecting LAW?
303 W 42ND St.
PO Box 28
New York, NY 10002