NEWSMAKINGNEWS

THE  KELLI  NUNEZ  CASE: THE  CONSPIRACY
[
Part 2, 6/26/03]

by Virginia McCullough

Yesterday this writer covered the twisted allegiance between the courts, the district attorney, militia lawyers and the Richard Peterson, the man responsible for controlling the mind of Kelli Nunez, a desperate mother who tried to protect her daughters from the man she believed was abusing them in the worse possible way,  their father Danny Nunez.

It is VERY important to remember that the power of any district attorney is absolute.  A district attorney has the authority of a god in the county he or she represents.  If  district attorneys  have no moral compass to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" every citizen in the county is at risk.  No citizen can rest assured that they will not be brought up on false charges for any variety of reasons. At that point the district attorney is your god with the sole decision to prosecute or drop the charges.

This is exactly what happened to Kelli Nunez.  It is also what happened to Danny Nunez, the father of Anna and Emily.  In my interview with Danny Nunez and his finance Sharon Zeff in August 2002, Danny explained his work history.  He said that he had worked at Dolby Labs on printed circuit boards for computer networks from 1986 until 1989.  He denied Kelli Nunez's allegations that he had hacked into the company's computers leading to his dismissal.  He then followed his boss at Dolby Labs to Good Guys and worked there from 1995 until 1999.

On June 11, 1999 Daniel Nunez and his brother came to Kelli Nunez's home accompanied  by Concord police officers and armed with a "stipulation and order for removal of personal property" issued on 6-11-99 and signed by Judge Judith Craddick citing case no. D98-03617.  The order did not list approximately $8,000 dollars worth of computer equipment that Kelli alleged Daniel had taken from Good Guys, his former employer.  Kelli Nunez invited Officer Rhodes and the two brothers into the home where she introduced them to Good Guys Fraud Investigations Unit manager.  The equipment was discovered by Kelli Nunez in the garage of the home she was moving out of and she called the manager and told him the computer equipment was stolen and belonged to Good Guys.  According to the Concord Police Department report filed by Officer Zalec, Badge #0313 on 6-12-99 "Daniel (Nunez) was an employee for The Good Guys Corporation, but left the company about three weeks ago. theft.  The loss prevention manager at Good Guys confirmed that the equipment had, in fact, belonged to Danny Nunez's former employer and misdemeanor charges were filed against Daniel Patrick Nunez on November 4, 1999 (See Case 99-14096)  by Contra Costa District Attorney Gary T. Yancey.
 
Danny Nunez promptly hired a local attorney named Paula Lorentzen to defend him.  Ms. Lorentzen is also listed as a judge pro-tempore in the very same court that is now determining the fate of Kelli Nunez and Jr. Manning. She is also said to be a close friend of judge Judy Craddick who issued a strange hand written order filed May 25, 1999.  That order superseded "the emergency protective order authorized by Judge Hiramoto yesterday 5/24/99" (an order in favor of Kelli Nunez)  and gives "temporary custody to Daniel Nunez and required all visitation by Kelli Nielsen (wrong last name) be professionally supervised is the prevailing order of the court."  A copy of this hurriedly hand written order was sent to Sgt. Steve Gillespie of the Concord Police Department and faxed to (925) 691-6639.  By March 2, 2000 the district attorney mysteriously dismissed all charges against Daniel Nunez.
charges.

Judge pro tempore/attorney Paula Lorentzen continued to work for Danny Nunez, only now she would represent him in his attempt to gain full and exclusive custody of Kelli Nunez's two youngest daughters.

The lines were drawn in the circus of the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa and the decision had already been made about what parent would be the victor and what parent would be criminalized by the system.  Anything that happened after May 25, 1999 was pre-determined by the alliances cited above.

On August 3, 2002 this writer interviewed Kelli Nunez in jail.  Just before being escorted in to visit with Kelli, Rich Peterson showed up with Kelli's oldest daughter in tow and the three of us were escorted to a visiting room where we had a two hours visit with Kelli.  As is typical the usual glass barrier between was between the prisoner and the visitors.  During this visit Kelli Nunez related a strange encounter that she had on July 25, 2002, when a man who she believed to be an attorney sent by Peterson to help her, was allowed to have a "contact" visit with her.  Contact visits are usually reserved for attorneys so that they can speak in confidence with their clients and exchange legal paper work.

In this case, however, the man was not an attorney but a private investigator authorized by Danny Nunez's attorney Paula A. Lorentzen to have a contact visit with mother Kelli. Nunez.  On July 25, 2002 Lorentzen addressed a letter to the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department which stated:

Please be advised that I am authorizing and requesting that Curtis Hocum of Reality Check Investigations, my investigator and Ray Rivera, an employee of my investigator, be allowed entry to the Martinez facility for the purpose of interviewing Kelli Nunez.  

The purpose of the visit was to hand deliver the following proposal to Kelli Nunez:

Proposal to Kelli Nunez
Dated: 7/21/02

Overview of Deal

The essential goal is find a way to end the impasse that the parties have now reach (sic) with regard to the (sic) their daughters Anna and Emily.

Mother feels based on a UCC-1 filing that she owns the children and therefore father has no right to them, since she has declared them as her exclusive property.  As a result mother is refusing to disclose the whereabouts of the children.  Mother has been in jail since 5/7 (May 7, 2002) as a result of direct contempt for refusing to turn the children over to their father.  Father has full physical and legal custody of the children.  Mother believes her UCC filling supersedes the family court rulings.

As a result of the direct contempt mother cannot file motions to advance her position in this matter.  There is no limit to length of time to be served for direct contempt.  Time served for direct contempt cannot be applied toward other charges.

Points of Proposal

1.    Father will stipulate to mother being allowed to file a motion to have her UCC-l filing heard.  In exchange for this mother must, at the latest, on the day of the hearing, place the children in protective custody.  No parent will be able to access children until after the resolution of the hearing.  If children are not turned over to protective custody by the determined time of hearing, hearing would be cancelled.

2.    If the UCC-1 filing is proven valid then all claims by father would then be nullified.  Since mother has claimed that Anna and Emily are commercial vehicles father would be relieved of all requirement to pay child support.  However, father would agree to payments of some amount, to be agreed upon later, in exchange for visitation with children.

3.    If mother's UCC-1 filing is proven invalid then the current custody agreement, being father has full legal and physical custody stays in place.  Father is willing to compromise on this point and allow supervised visitation, with father paying half the cost of visitation, and regular phone calls to mother.  Father is also willing to agree to allow another custody evaluation after mother has found stable employment and residence and can prove to no longer be a flight risk.

4.    If the hearing goes beyond a single day the children would remain in protective custody during that time.  No visitation, either by mother or father, would be allowed.

5.    Protective custody can be any type of custody agreed upon by both parties.  This probably would be either CPS, DCPS or some other arrangements made in conjunction with the DA that meets both parties requirements for assurance that the children will not be removed until such time as the hearing on the UCC filing has been concluded.

6.    It will be the responsibility of the mother to file the motion regarding the UCC-1 filing.  In order to include the stipulation that father does not oppose said motion, Paula Lorentzen's office should be notified.

7.    Up until the time that the hearing takes place father will continue to look for children.  If father recovers his daughters before said hearing, children will not be placed in protective custody and it will be up to the courts to determine whether mother's motion goes forward.

8.    By mother, or representative of mother, filing this motion and agreeing to place the children in protective custody at the assigned time the person delivering the children will not be assumed guilty of any crime.  Whatever assurances on this point need to be made, father is willing to stipulate.

9.    This offer does not expire.  This is seen as an expedient end to a situation, which is causing harm to all parties involved, most importantly the children.  

While sitting between Rich Peterson and Kelli's oldest daughter, Kelli holds up the proposal to the glass so that this writer can read it.  Unfortunately, I did not have my glasses. Peterson turns white as a sheet and says he has not seen the document although Kelli tells him she mailed him a copy.  Peterson demands that Kelli put the document to his side of the glass so that he can read it out loud.  I countered and asked Kelli's daughter to read it out loud. Kelli puts the document on her side of the glass and the child reads it out loud to all us.

In a later interview Danny Nunez and his finance Sharon Zeff admit they composed the proposal.  Again, it should be noted that the proposal does NOT expire.

In July 2002 Danny Nunez had not worked since 1999 and lived in a [REDACTED] home owned by Sharon Zeff located at [REDACTED].  They had previously lived together in Foster City at a home located at 917 Laguna Circle where she had filed a homeowners exemption.  While at that location Sharon Zeff had a restraining order issued against her involving Danny and Kelli Nunez's daughters Anna and Emily.  The Juvenile Court case number is #9902160 according to Jim Dolan, the supervisor of records and communications at (650) 286-3309

Kelli refused to sign the proposal document when Hocum finally revealed his identity and his employer.

The implications of this proposal are alarming and it clearly demonstrates a conspiracy between  the Danny Nunez, Sharon Zeff, Paula Lorentzen, judge Judy Craddick and Rich Peterson who engineered placing the children "underground" and who ultimately arranged for their recovery by arranging for the children to be "rescued" and delivered  to the offices of Channel 7, ABC-TV's Dan Noyce.

It was Rich Peterson who arranged for a member of Jr. Manning's group, Advocates for Children and Families, to pick up Anne and Emily from the San Francisco Airport when Kelli flew home from her trip to the east coast.  The woman, Lana Hescock, took her orders directly from Rich Peterson when she went to the airport.  She did NOT get any orders from Jr. Manning or Kelli Nunez.

Rich Peterson arranged to turn over the two little pawns in this circus when he contacted Dan Noyce in October 2002 when his access to Kelli's disability payments expired.  The children were snatched from their beds in the middle of the night in their night clothes and hand delivered to Noyce who arranged for the purchase of new clothes before they were televised by his I-Team for his exclusive series that ran over and over again on Channel 7.

The proposal protects Rich Peterson from being held responsible for his criminal behavior because the custodial father had put it in writing on 7-21-02.  Is this then the reason the district attorney and the courts conveniently have a missing defendant?  The sitting jury has not been told why Rich Peterson is not present in the court room.  The reason he is not present is because he was the mastermind of this whole scenario.  However, if he was  examined could he be trusted to not spill the beans about who really arranged for this court room circus?

In the meantime Danny Nunez has "total access" to his two little girls and so too, does his finance, Sharon Zeff.   He has filed a lawsuit against Contra Costa County seeking money and Zeff is publishing the children's story on the internet at http://www.heroicstories.com/backissue3.html, falsely identifying herself as their step mother.

The children have been deprived any access to their mother, their older sister or their maternal family.  The cruelty of the courts and their current custodian is beyond belief.

by Virginia McCullough © 6-26-03


THE KELLI NUNEZ STORY:  Click.  [Part 9]  Click. [Part 8] CLICK. [Part 7] CLICK. [Part 6] CLICK. [Part 5] CLICK. [Part 4]
CLICK.  [Part 3] CLICK.  [Part 2] CLICK  [Part 1]