Preview
ELIZABETH KARNAZES
P.O. Box 4747
1
Foster City, CA 94404
2 (650) 345-9200
Defendant in pro per
3
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
4 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
5
6 DAVID MELCHNER ) Case No. CIV458258
)
7 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT ELIZABETH KARNAZES’S
) OBJECTION TO THE HONORABLE
8 vs. ) SUSAN L. GREENBERG
9 ) FOR CAUSE
ELIZABETH KARNAZES, )
10 ) Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1 (2011)
Defendant. )
11 ) Hearing date: February 22, 2024
12
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
13
14 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Elizabeth Karnazes (hereinafter referred to as “KARNAZES” or
15 “Defendant”), respectfully requests that the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg recuse herself from these proceedings and
16 not hear or decide any matters in this case at this time. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§170-170.9 (2005) (2011).
Defendant Elizabeth Karnazes objects to the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg hearing and deciding any and all issues
17
in this case due to partiality, judicial bias, prejudice, and other reasons as stated herein and in any supporting documents or
18
oral statements. Id.
19
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1 provides in pertinent part:
20 § 170.1. Grounds for disqualification
21 (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following are true:
(1)
22 (A) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
23 (B) A judge shall be deemed to have personal knowledge within the meaning of this paragraph if the judge, or
the spouse of the judge, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such
24 a person is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding…..
…. (6)
25 (A)For any reason:
(i) The judge believes his or his recusal would further the interests of justice.
26 (ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or his capacity to be impartial.
27 (iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.
(B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. Cal. Code Civ.
28 Proc. § 170.1 (2011).
Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 1 Case No. CIV458258
KARNAZES is acutely and painfully aware that she has been the subject of much gossip at the San Mateo County,
1 California, courthouse, where it appears to be the belief of some that KARNAZES is a disgruntled ex-girlfriend of
2 Attorney HARTFORD, that this case is just the result of a bad break-up of a long-term dating relationship, and
KARNAZES is upset because Attorney HARTFORD got the better of her. Nothing could be further from the truth!
3
Attorney HARTFORD used KARNAZES as his sexual slave for two decades, making her perform degrading
4
sexual acts for assistance with her legal work and threatening to “destroy” and “end” her if she ever told anyone.
5
Attorney HARTFORD was a sexual predator and KARNAZES was his victim1. Attorney HARTFORD never dated
6 KARNAZES, never gave her gifts, was never interested in demonstrating affection, never remembered her on holidays
7 or birthdays, never invited her to social events, and never pursued any romantic relationship at all. Attorney
8 HARTFORD repeatedly told KARNAZES that performing sex acts upon his demand was “the cost of doing business
9 in a man’s world.” KARNAZES felt completely dependent upon Attorney Hartford and did not believe she could
support her children without legal guidance. KARNAZES was also terrified that if she ever crossed Attorney Hartford,
10
he would make good on his threats to “destroy” and “end” her. KARNAZES could see no way out of the situation and
11
believed that Hartford would help her practice law and “have her back,” so long as she did not fight when he demanded
12 sex. If the facts of this case had all occurred in 2019 instead of 2009, KARNAZES believes she would have had a
13 chance for justice, but all of this occurred before the “ME TOO!” movement.
14 The Redwood City Police Department recommended that the San Mateo County District Attorney file
15 charges against Attorney JOHN J. HARTFORD for felony rape, California Penal Code Section 261, and felony
forced oral copulation, California Penal Code Section 288a of ELIZABETH KARNAZES. Decorated, and highly
16
respected, Detective Sergeant Ken Cochran interviewed multiple witnesses, and KARNAZES was interviewed multiple
17
times for several hours in the presence of a counselor from Rape Trauma Services. Upon information and belief, as of
18 this date, no action has been taken to file charges against rapist and sexual predator JOHN J. HARTFORD by the San
19 Mateo County District Attorney. The Redwood City Police Report Number is R09-10-0644.
20 The assistant District Attorney who spoke with KARNAZES stated that felony charges were not being filed because
21 HARTFORD was an experienced criminal trial lawyer and a “formidable opponent,” and the District Attorney’s Office
did not believe they could win the case against such odds despite the evidence and recommendation of the Redwood
22
City Police Department. KARNAZES has been denied access to the complete Redwood City Police report by the San
23
Mateo County Attorney despite the fact that the investigating detective has no objection to providing KARNAZES with
24
said report. Id.
25
26 1
It is important to note that the San Mateo Superior Court never appeared to consider these facts in its rulings on
27 this case. The Superior Court Orders were all structured such that the Superior Court avoided making any rulings
considering this issue. Additionally, at no point in time has Attorney HARTFORD denied under penalty of
28 perjury that he raped, sexually abused, physically abused, emotionally abused, and financially abused
KARNAZES. Id.
Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 2 Case No. CIV458258
Due at least in part to the failure and refusal of the San Mateo County District Attorney to prosecute Attorney
HARTFORD, it appears that the several of the judges of the San Mateo County Court and their support staff have
1
wrongfully concluded that KARNAZES was not raped and sexually, financially, and emotionally abused by Attorney
2 HARTFORD and have treated KARNAZES like a pariah. KARNAZES is profoundly concerned that she cannot
3 receive a fair hearing or any justice in San Mateo County because of court gossip and unjust conclusions that Attorney
4 HARTFORD is “innocent” of the charges of raping and sexually and emotionally abusing KARNAZES.
Despite Attorney HARTFORD’S close friend Attorney LEE’S denials, Attorney LEE has no personal
5
knowledge of the facts. Despite the passage of time and multiple opportunities to do so, Attorney HARTFORD has
6
never denied under penalty of perjury either in writing or by oral testimony that he did, in fact, rape and sexually,
7
physically, financially, and emotionally abuse KARNAZES. Attorney HARTFORD refused to cooperate with the
8 police. HARTFORD is a rapist sexual abuser and should be criminally prosecuted for his crimes despite the fact that he
9 is a “formidable opponent.”
10 Attorneys HARTFORD and LEE will not stop their incessant harassment of KARNAZES until the court forces
11 them to stop. Attorney HARTFORD is making good on his threats, “I will end you!” and “I will destroy you,” if
KARNAZES ever told anyone about his felonious actions.
12
13 DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH KARNAZES
14
15 I, ELIZABETH KARNAZES, declare as follows:
1. I am the Defendant in pro per herein.
16
2. I have never received a reassignment for all purposes to the Hon. Susan L Greenberg in this case.
17
3. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg (hereinafter referred to as “Greenberg”), before whom hearings in the aforesaid
18 action have occurred and may be pending and to whom it may be assigned is biased and prejudiced against me, so that I
19 believe I cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg.
20 4. The Susan L. Greenberg is disqualified from hearing this matter and this case under the provisions of California Code
21 of Civil Procedure Section 170.1, which provides in pertinent part, “A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of
the following is true: … A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to
22
be impartial,” on the grounds stated below. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1, supra.
23
5. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg knows that I am representing myself in this case, she is biased and prejudiced
24
against me, and she should therefore recuse herself. Id.
25 6. Prior to formally filing documents for the disqualification of The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg February 16, 2024,
26 upon information and belief, the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg was served with a copy of my recusal documents.
27 7. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg has failed to declare her disqualification in the manner provided by law. Id.
28
Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 3 Case No. CIV458258
8. when I saw that a hearing was set before Judge Greenberg in this case, I had a nagging feeling that something was
wrong but I simply couldn’t remember what had happened in the past.
1
9. I am very ill, on strong medication, not thinking clearly, and made the mistake of them to recuse Judge Greenberg
2 when I first saw her name on this case.
3 10. When I requested ex parte relief, which I believe should have been at the very least heard and Judge Greenberg
4 unreasonably refused to hear my ex parte request, I checked my files and realized exactly who Judge Greenberg was
and that I needed to immediately recuse her.
5
11. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg wrongfully made disparaging remarks about me calling me spiteful and
6
destructive related to proceedings in another case in 2018, when she was completely unfamiliar with the facts of the
7
case, where I was the victim of violence.
8 12. Additionally, upon information and belief upon information and belief, Judge Greenberg was heard gossiping about
9 my case against the Past Honorable Kathleen McKenna, stating that I in some manner deserved the assault and battery I
10 experienced in the courtroom, which damaged and prejudiced me. Id.
11 13. , upon information and belief upon information and belief, Judge Greenberg had a personal relationship with the Past
Honorable Kathleen McKenna, whom I successfully sued for assaulting and battering me in open court in Karnazes v.
12
McKenna CIV406301.
13
14. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg was heard to say John J. Hartford and I deserved each other in a negative tone,
14 which directly affects this case and demonstrates out of court opinions about the facts and issues in this case.
15 15. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg had no decisions on the merits in this case.
16 16. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg personal and out-of-court hearsay knowledge of the facts and issues in this case
17 has caused her to for me an opinion and pre-judged the case and improperly influenced her as the trier of fact.
17. The Susan L. Greenberg failed and refused to disclose her out-of-court behavior, which she knew was highly
18
relevant to the proceedings in Karnazes v. Ferry, CIV524843, and I did not learn about it until after the fact, when it was
19
too late for me to take protective action on behalf of my family and me. Id.
20
18. I had forgotten about Judge Greenberg’s gossiping about me and characterizing me as spiteful and destructive.
21 19. When I came to court for what should have been a simple extension of time based on my ill health, Judge Greenberg
22 took extraordinary steps to avoid hearing my ex parte request. At that time, I looked back through the history of my
23 other cases and discovered my notes about Judge Greenberg.
20. In an abundance of caution, I must ask Judge Greenberg to recuse yourself from this case as my entire life is on the
24
line, and I could lose my home, which are not matters that I can risk having heard by a judge that is biased and
25
prejudiced against me, as Judge Greenberg is biased and prejudiced against me.
26
21. This behavior alone is cause for refusal.
27 22. Judge Greenberg obviously knows she is biased and prejudiced against me, and she has gone to great and illegal
28 lengths to avoid hearing my ex parte request, when she was legally obligated to recuse himself from my cases.
Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 4 Case No. CIV458258
23. There were comments by Judge Greenberg about me that were improper and untruthful, which Judge Greenberg
should not have made as a jurist, to another jurist and lay people and attorneys.
1
24. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg should recuse herself from the case in the interests of justice, as she appears to
2 be unable to keep her personal knowledge of the facts and her bias and prejudice against me at bay and is actively
3 trying to harm me. Id.
4 25. A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg would
ever be able to be impartial towards me. Id., Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 170.1, supra, at subd. (a)(6)(A)(iii).
5
26. Therefore, the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg is disqualified from presiding over any proceedings before the
6
court where I am involved.
7
27. Judge Greenberg has violated California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and
8 independence of the judiciary, Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
9 all of the judge’s activities, Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently,
10 and diligently, Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to
11 minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations, and Canon 6. Compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethic
and should be sanctioned by the courts for his improper behavior. Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, Canons 1-4, 6 (2015).
12
28. I believe that the facts and case law cited herein support the disqualification of the Honorable Susan L.
13
Greenberg.
14 29. In Briggs v. Superior Court (hereinafter referred to as “Briggs”), the defendants in a constructive contempt case
15 filed a disqualification motion against the trial judge and alleged that the judge had expressed his opinion about
16 the merits of the contempt case to the membership of a bar association of which he was a member, and whose
17 endorsement and financial support he sought. The constructive contempt case had been instituted at the request
of that same bar group. Briggs v. Superior Court, 215 Cal. 336, 337-338 (1932).
18
30. The trial judge in Briggs had accused the defendants of having knowingly made false statements, which caused
19
the Court of Appeal to remove the judge from hearing the contempt trial:
20
As the trier of the facts, he will be called upon to pass on the credibility of these petitioners as the principal
21 witnesses in their own behalf. Is it humanly possible or probable that a judge who has stated under oath that it
is his opinion that these petitioners have deliberately falsified under oath can pass upon their credibility with
22 that impartial judicial mind which should exist in the trier of the facts? We think it not probable. Id. at 339,
345.
23
31. Like the trial judge in Briggs who made his statements under oath, Honorable Susan L. Greenberg made her
24
factual assertions against me behind the scenes during other proceedings in this court.
25
32. In other words, Honorable Susan L. Greenberg claimed the facts to be such that the only inference that could
26
have been drawn from them was that my witnesses and I were dishonest liars.
27
28
Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 5 Case No. CIV458258
33. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg cannot be impartial upon the factual issues on which she had already pre-
determined facts detrimental to me. Yet, she did not voluntarily recuse herself and made specific efforts to rule
1
against me and harm me.
2 34. The due process clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions guarantee me an impartial trial judge, and the
3 Honorable Susan L. Greenberg is not impartial where I am concerned. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309
4 (1991), People v. Brown, 6 Cal.4th 322, 332 (1993).
35. In the instant case, I may need to call the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg as a witness regarding her statement
5
about me to other jurists a, lay people, and attorneys in San Mateo County. Id.
6
36. Obviously, the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg could not and cannot be a judge in a matter in which she herself
7
will be a witness. Id.
8 37. This reason constitutes an independent reason for the disqualification of the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg,
9 separate and apart from the reasons stated above. Id.
10 38. I believe that a person aware of the facts set forth herein might reasonably entertain a doubt that the Honorable
11 Susan L. Greenberg would be able to be impartial in the matter pending before the Court. Id., Cal. Code Civ.
Proc. §170.1, supra.
12
39. This challenge is being brought at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the
13
grounds for disqualification. Id., Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §170.3 (2007).
14 40. Based upon these grounds any other relevant grounds, I believe Judge Greenberg should voluntarily recuse
15 herself from hearing any and all matters concerning me. Id.
16 41. I hereby object to the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg hearing or deciding any and all issues in this case and each
17 and every case where I am involved for cause. Id.
42. A person aware of these facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg would
18
be able to be impartial. Id.
19
43. A judge should recuse himself or herself if:
20
(i) The judge believes their recusal would further the interests of justice.
21 (ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to their capacity to be impartial.
22 (iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. Id.
23 44. Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer and/or party in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. Id.
45. Consequently, this matter should not be assigned to the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg. Id.
24
46. I am currently recovering from a very serious infection, am disabled, and am very ill.
25
47. A confidential Request for Accommodations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and its California
26
counterparts is being submitted to the Court with this ex parte request., with true and correct copies of Karnazes’s
27 medical records and physicians’ off work orders thru July 31, 2024, accompanying it and incorporated therein by
28 reference. Defendant is too ill, and the is no time, to write a formal noticed motion for a continuance, and the
Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 6 Case No. CIV458258
Americans with Disabilities Act and its California counterparts and the California Rules of Court allow for the
relief she is requesting. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et al. (2018), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, et al. (2018), Cal. Rules Ct., R.
1
1.100, 3.1113 (2024).
2 48. Consequently, I apologize if this document is somewhat disorganized and nowhere near my usual standards.
3 49. I have notified opposing counsel and the clerk for the presiding judge of this situation.
4 50. Verification: I am the Plaintiff herein, and I am thoroughly familiar with the facts of this case. I have read the
foregoing statements objecting to the qualification of the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg and verify that the
5
matters stated therein are supported by citations to the record. All facts alleged in this statement, not otherwise
6
supported by citation to the record and exhibits, are true of my own personal knowledge, except those stated upon
7
my information and/or belief, and as to those statements, I believe them to be true.
8 51. There is good cause to grant my request for recusal and/or transfer.
9 52. There is good cause to grant me the relief requested herein.
10 53. The foregoing constitutes good cause for granting me the relief requested.
11 54. The foregoing statements are within my personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, I can testify competently
thereto.
12
55. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct,
13
except as to those matters, which are herein stated upon my information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe
14 them to be true.
15
16 Signed and respectfully submitted this 16th day of February 2024, at Foster City, California,
17
18
19 ELIZABETH KARNAZES, Declarant,
Defendant in pro per, signature by facsimile
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 7 Case No. CIV458258
PROOF OF SERVICE
I declare that I am a resident of the State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and I am not a
1
party to this action. My business address for this matter is P.O. Box 4747, Foster City, California 94404, telephone
2 650-345-9200. On February 16, 2024, I served the following:
3 [ ] I am familiar with the office’s mail collection and processing practices, know that said mail is
collected and deposited with the appropriate overnight delivery service or with the United States Postal
4 Service on the same day it is deposited in interoffice mail, in Foster City, California, and know that
postage thereon is fully prepaid. Following said practice, on February 16, 2024, I served by United
5
States Mail scheduled for delivery the following business day, by placing in an addressed, sealed
6 envelope and depositing in regularly maintained interoffice mail the following documents:
7
DEFENDANT ELIZABETH KARNAZES’S OBJECTION TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN L.
8 GREENBERG FOR CAUSE, PROOF OF SERVICE
9 On the parties and judges listed below:
10 Albert Lee
P.O. Box 330222
11
San Francisco, CA 94133
12
The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg
13 San Mateo County California Superior Court
Department 3, 400 County Center
14 Redwood City, CA 94063
15
The Honorable Presiding Judge Elizabeth Lee
16 San Mateo County California Superior Court
Department 17, 400 County Center
17 Redwood City, CA 94063
18 Said documents were also served electronically, in compliance with California Code of Civil
19 Procedure Sections 1010, 1010.6 on February 16, 2024, by agreement of Cross-Defendant Hartford’s
attorney to AL161237@aol.com and to the Honorable Elizabeth Lee to dept17@sanmateocourt.org,
20 and to the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg to dept3@sanmateocourt.org, from
trevorjohnsonsf@gmail.com. The Internet service provider indicated the transmission was successful.
21 Elizabeth Karnazes does not consent to service by e-mail upon her. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1010,
1010.6 (2024).
22
23 [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
24
Signed: On February 16, 2024, at Foster City, California.
25
26
27 T. Johnson
(signature by facsimile)
28
Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 8 Case No. CIV458258
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 I declare that I am a resident of the State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and I am not a
party to this action. My business address for this matter is P.O. Box 4747, Foster City, California 94404, telephone
3
650-345-9200. On February 16, 2024, I served the following:
4
DEFENDANT ELIZABETH KARNAZES’S OBJECTION TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN L.
5 GREENBERG FOR CAUSE, PROOF OF SERVICE
6
On the parties listed below by personal delivery on February 16, 2024, at the following addresses and for the
7 following:
8 The Susan L. Greenberg, by her clerk Rosa Vega, at approximately 1:30 p.m.________________
9 San Mateo County California Superior Court
Department 3
10 400 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
11
The Honorable Presiding Judge Elizabeth Lee at approximately 1:30 p.m.
12 San Mateo County California Superior Court
13 Department 17
400 County Center
14 Redwood City, CA 94063
15
[X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
16
true and correct.
17
18 Signed February 16, 2024, at Redwood City, California.
19
20
R. Quiaspe
21 (signature by facsimile)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 9 Case No. CIV458258
Preview
ELIZABETH KARNAZES P.O. Box 4747 1 Foster City, CA 94404 2 (650) 345-9200 Defendant in pro per 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 4 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 5 6 DAVID MELCHNER ) Case No. CIV458258 ) 7 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT ELIZABETH KARNAZES’S ) OBJECTION TO THE HONORABLE 8 vs. ) SUSAN L. GREENBERG 9 ) FOR CAUSE ELIZABETH KARNAZES, ) 10 ) Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1 (2011) Defendant. ) 11 ) Hearing date: February 22, 2024 12 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 13 14 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Elizabeth Karnazes (hereinafter referred to as “KARNAZES” or 15 “Defendant”), respectfully requests that the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg recuse herself from these proceedings and 16 not hear or decide any matters in this case at this time. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§170-170.9 (2005) (2011). Defendant Elizabeth Karnazes objects to the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg hearing and deciding any and all issues 17 in this case due to partiality, judicial bias, prejudice, and other reasons as stated herein and in any supporting documents or 18 oral statements. Id. 19 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1 provides in pertinent part: 20 § 170.1. Grounds for disqualification 21 (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following are true: (1) 22 (A) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. 23 (B) A judge shall be deemed to have personal knowledge within the meaning of this paragraph if the judge, or the spouse of the judge, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such 24 a person is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding….. …. (6) 25 (A)For any reason: (i) The judge believes his or his recusal would further the interests of justice. 26 (ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or his capacity to be impartial. 27 (iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. (B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. Cal. Code Civ. 28 Proc. § 170.1 (2011). Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 1 Case No. CIV458258 KARNAZES is acutely and painfully aware that she has been the subject of much gossip at the San Mateo County, 1 California, courthouse, where it appears to be the belief of some that KARNAZES is a disgruntled ex-girlfriend of 2 Attorney HARTFORD, that this case is just the result of a bad break-up of a long-term dating relationship, and KARNAZES is upset because Attorney HARTFORD got the better of her. Nothing could be further from the truth! 3 Attorney HARTFORD used KARNAZES as his sexual slave for two decades, making her perform degrading 4 sexual acts for assistance with her legal work and threatening to “destroy” and “end” her if she ever told anyone. 5 Attorney HARTFORD was a sexual predator and KARNAZES was his victim1. Attorney HARTFORD never dated 6 KARNAZES, never gave her gifts, was never interested in demonstrating affection, never remembered her on holidays 7 or birthdays, never invited her to social events, and never pursued any romantic relationship at all. Attorney 8 HARTFORD repeatedly told KARNAZES that performing sex acts upon his demand was “the cost of doing business 9 in a man’s world.” KARNAZES felt completely dependent upon Attorney Hartford and did not believe she could support her children without legal guidance. KARNAZES was also terrified that if she ever crossed Attorney Hartford, 10 he would make good on his threats to “destroy” and “end” her. KARNAZES could see no way out of the situation and 11 believed that Hartford would help her practice law and “have her back,” so long as she did not fight when he demanded 12 sex. If the facts of this case had all occurred in 2019 instead of 2009, KARNAZES believes she would have had a 13 chance for justice, but all of this occurred before the “ME TOO!” movement. 14 The Redwood City Police Department recommended that the San Mateo County District Attorney file 15 charges against Attorney JOHN J. HARTFORD for felony rape, California Penal Code Section 261, and felony forced oral copulation, California Penal Code Section 288a of ELIZABETH KARNAZES. Decorated, and highly 16 respected, Detective Sergeant Ken Cochran interviewed multiple witnesses, and KARNAZES was interviewed multiple 17 times for several hours in the presence of a counselor from Rape Trauma Services. Upon information and belief, as of 18 this date, no action has been taken to file charges against rapist and sexual predator JOHN J. HARTFORD by the San 19 Mateo County District Attorney. The Redwood City Police Report Number is R09-10-0644. 20 The assistant District Attorney who spoke with KARNAZES stated that felony charges were not being filed because 21 HARTFORD was an experienced criminal trial lawyer and a “formidable opponent,” and the District Attorney’s Office did not believe they could win the case against such odds despite the evidence and recommendation of the Redwood 22 City Police Department. KARNAZES has been denied access to the complete Redwood City Police report by the San 23 Mateo County Attorney despite the fact that the investigating detective has no objection to providing KARNAZES with 24 said report. Id. 25 26 1 It is important to note that the San Mateo Superior Court never appeared to consider these facts in its rulings on 27 this case. The Superior Court Orders were all structured such that the Superior Court avoided making any rulings considering this issue. Additionally, at no point in time has Attorney HARTFORD denied under penalty of 28 perjury that he raped, sexually abused, physically abused, emotionally abused, and financially abused KARNAZES. Id. Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 2 Case No. CIV458258 Due at least in part to the failure and refusal of the San Mateo County District Attorney to prosecute Attorney HARTFORD, it appears that the several of the judges of the San Mateo County Court and their support staff have 1 wrongfully concluded that KARNAZES was not raped and sexually, financially, and emotionally abused by Attorney 2 HARTFORD and have treated KARNAZES like a pariah. KARNAZES is profoundly concerned that she cannot 3 receive a fair hearing or any justice in San Mateo County because of court gossip and unjust conclusions that Attorney 4 HARTFORD is “innocent” of the charges of raping and sexually and emotionally abusing KARNAZES. Despite Attorney HARTFORD’S close friend Attorney LEE’S denials, Attorney LEE has no personal 5 knowledge of the facts. Despite the passage of time and multiple opportunities to do so, Attorney HARTFORD has 6 never denied under penalty of perjury either in writing or by oral testimony that he did, in fact, rape and sexually, 7 physically, financially, and emotionally abuse KARNAZES. Attorney HARTFORD refused to cooperate with the 8 police. HARTFORD is a rapist sexual abuser and should be criminally prosecuted for his crimes despite the fact that he 9 is a “formidable opponent.” 10 Attorneys HARTFORD and LEE will not stop their incessant harassment of KARNAZES until the court forces 11 them to stop. Attorney HARTFORD is making good on his threats, “I will end you!” and “I will destroy you,” if KARNAZES ever told anyone about his felonious actions. 12 13 DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH KARNAZES 14 15 I, ELIZABETH KARNAZES, declare as follows: 1. I am the Defendant in pro per herein. 16 2. I have never received a reassignment for all purposes to the Hon. Susan L Greenberg in this case. 17 3. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg (hereinafter referred to as “Greenberg”), before whom hearings in the aforesaid 18 action have occurred and may be pending and to whom it may be assigned is biased and prejudiced against me, so that I 19 believe I cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg. 20 4. The Susan L. Greenberg is disqualified from hearing this matter and this case under the provisions of California Code 21 of Civil Procedure Section 170.1, which provides in pertinent part, “A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true: … A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to 22 be impartial,” on the grounds stated below. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1, supra. 23 5. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg knows that I am representing myself in this case, she is biased and prejudiced 24 against me, and she should therefore recuse herself. Id. 25 6. Prior to formally filing documents for the disqualification of The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg February 16, 2024, 26 upon information and belief, the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg was served with a copy of my recusal documents. 27 7. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg has failed to declare her disqualification in the manner provided by law. Id. 28 Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 3 Case No. CIV458258 8. when I saw that a hearing was set before Judge Greenberg in this case, I had a nagging feeling that something was wrong but I simply couldn’t remember what had happened in the past. 1 9. I am very ill, on strong medication, not thinking clearly, and made the mistake of them to recuse Judge Greenberg 2 when I first saw her name on this case. 3 10. When I requested ex parte relief, which I believe should have been at the very least heard and Judge Greenberg 4 unreasonably refused to hear my ex parte request, I checked my files and realized exactly who Judge Greenberg was and that I needed to immediately recuse her. 5 11. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg wrongfully made disparaging remarks about me calling me spiteful and 6 destructive related to proceedings in another case in 2018, when she was completely unfamiliar with the facts of the 7 case, where I was the victim of violence. 8 12. Additionally, upon information and belief upon information and belief, Judge Greenberg was heard gossiping about 9 my case against the Past Honorable Kathleen McKenna, stating that I in some manner deserved the assault and battery I 10 experienced in the courtroom, which damaged and prejudiced me. Id. 11 13. , upon information and belief upon information and belief, Judge Greenberg had a personal relationship with the Past Honorable Kathleen McKenna, whom I successfully sued for assaulting and battering me in open court in Karnazes v. 12 McKenna CIV406301. 13 14. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg was heard to say John J. Hartford and I deserved each other in a negative tone, 14 which directly affects this case and demonstrates out of court opinions about the facts and issues in this case. 15 15. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg had no decisions on the merits in this case. 16 16. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg personal and out-of-court hearsay knowledge of the facts and issues in this case 17 has caused her to for me an opinion and pre-judged the case and improperly influenced her as the trier of fact. 17. The Susan L. Greenberg failed and refused to disclose her out-of-court behavior, which she knew was highly 18 relevant to the proceedings in Karnazes v. Ferry, CIV524843, and I did not learn about it until after the fact, when it was 19 too late for me to take protective action on behalf of my family and me. Id. 20 18. I had forgotten about Judge Greenberg’s gossiping about me and characterizing me as spiteful and destructive. 21 19. When I came to court for what should have been a simple extension of time based on my ill health, Judge Greenberg 22 took extraordinary steps to avoid hearing my ex parte request. At that time, I looked back through the history of my 23 other cases and discovered my notes about Judge Greenberg. 20. In an abundance of caution, I must ask Judge Greenberg to recuse yourself from this case as my entire life is on the 24 line, and I could lose my home, which are not matters that I can risk having heard by a judge that is biased and 25 prejudiced against me, as Judge Greenberg is biased and prejudiced against me. 26 21. This behavior alone is cause for refusal. 27 22. Judge Greenberg obviously knows she is biased and prejudiced against me, and she has gone to great and illegal 28 lengths to avoid hearing my ex parte request, when she was legally obligated to recuse himself from my cases. Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 4 Case No. CIV458258 23. There were comments by Judge Greenberg about me that were improper and untruthful, which Judge Greenberg should not have made as a jurist, to another jurist and lay people and attorneys. 1 24. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg should recuse herself from the case in the interests of justice, as she appears to 2 be unable to keep her personal knowledge of the facts and her bias and prejudice against me at bay and is actively 3 trying to harm me. Id. 4 25. A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg would ever be able to be impartial towards me. Id., Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 170.1, supra, at subd. (a)(6)(A)(iii). 5 26. Therefore, the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg is disqualified from presiding over any proceedings before the 6 court where I am involved. 7 27. Judge Greenberg has violated California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and 8 independence of the judiciary, Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in 9 all of the judge’s activities, Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, 10 and diligently, Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to 11 minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations, and Canon 6. Compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethic and should be sanctioned by the courts for his improper behavior. Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, Canons 1-4, 6 (2015). 12 28. I believe that the facts and case law cited herein support the disqualification of the Honorable Susan L. 13 Greenberg. 14 29. In Briggs v. Superior Court (hereinafter referred to as “Briggs”), the defendants in a constructive contempt case 15 filed a disqualification motion against the trial judge and alleged that the judge had expressed his opinion about 16 the merits of the contempt case to the membership of a bar association of which he was a member, and whose 17 endorsement and financial support he sought. The constructive contempt case had been instituted at the request of that same bar group. Briggs v. Superior Court, 215 Cal. 336, 337-338 (1932). 18 30. The trial judge in Briggs had accused the defendants of having knowingly made false statements, which caused 19 the Court of Appeal to remove the judge from hearing the contempt trial: 20 As the trier of the facts, he will be called upon to pass on the credibility of these petitioners as the principal 21 witnesses in their own behalf. Is it humanly possible or probable that a judge who has stated under oath that it is his opinion that these petitioners have deliberately falsified under oath can pass upon their credibility with 22 that impartial judicial mind which should exist in the trier of the facts? We think it not probable. Id. at 339, 345. 23 31. Like the trial judge in Briggs who made his statements under oath, Honorable Susan L. Greenberg made her 24 factual assertions against me behind the scenes during other proceedings in this court. 25 32. In other words, Honorable Susan L. Greenberg claimed the facts to be such that the only inference that could 26 have been drawn from them was that my witnesses and I were dishonest liars. 27 28 Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 5 Case No. CIV458258 33. The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg cannot be impartial upon the factual issues on which she had already pre- determined facts detrimental to me. Yet, she did not voluntarily recuse herself and made specific efforts to rule 1 against me and harm me. 2 34. The due process clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions guarantee me an impartial trial judge, and the 3 Honorable Susan L. Greenberg is not impartial where I am concerned. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309 4 (1991), People v. Brown, 6 Cal.4th 322, 332 (1993). 35. In the instant case, I may need to call the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg as a witness regarding her statement 5 about me to other jurists a, lay people, and attorneys in San Mateo County. Id. 6 36. Obviously, the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg could not and cannot be a judge in a matter in which she herself 7 will be a witness. Id. 8 37. This reason constitutes an independent reason for the disqualification of the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg, 9 separate and apart from the reasons stated above. Id. 10 38. I believe that a person aware of the facts set forth herein might reasonably entertain a doubt that the Honorable 11 Susan L. Greenberg would be able to be impartial in the matter pending before the Court. Id., Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §170.1, supra. 12 39. This challenge is being brought at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the 13 grounds for disqualification. Id., Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §170.3 (2007). 14 40. Based upon these grounds any other relevant grounds, I believe Judge Greenberg should voluntarily recuse 15 herself from hearing any and all matters concerning me. Id. 16 41. I hereby object to the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg hearing or deciding any and all issues in this case and each 17 and every case where I am involved for cause. Id. 42. A person aware of these facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg would 18 be able to be impartial. Id. 19 43. A judge should recuse himself or herself if: 20 (i) The judge believes their recusal would further the interests of justice. 21 (ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to their capacity to be impartial. 22 (iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. Id. 23 44. Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer and/or party in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. Id. 45. Consequently, this matter should not be assigned to the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg. Id. 24 46. I am currently recovering from a very serious infection, am disabled, and am very ill. 25 47. A confidential Request for Accommodations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and its California 26 counterparts is being submitted to the Court with this ex parte request., with true and correct copies of Karnazes’s 27 medical records and physicians’ off work orders thru July 31, 2024, accompanying it and incorporated therein by 28 reference. Defendant is too ill, and the is no time, to write a formal noticed motion for a continuance, and the Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 6 Case No. CIV458258 Americans with Disabilities Act and its California counterparts and the California Rules of Court allow for the relief she is requesting. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et al. (2018), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, et al. (2018), Cal. Rules Ct., R. 1 1.100, 3.1113 (2024). 2 48. Consequently, I apologize if this document is somewhat disorganized and nowhere near my usual standards. 3 49. I have notified opposing counsel and the clerk for the presiding judge of this situation. 4 50. Verification: I am the Plaintiff herein, and I am thoroughly familiar with the facts of this case. I have read the foregoing statements objecting to the qualification of the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg and verify that the 5 matters stated therein are supported by citations to the record. All facts alleged in this statement, not otherwise 6 supported by citation to the record and exhibits, are true of my own personal knowledge, except those stated upon 7 my information and/or belief, and as to those statements, I believe them to be true. 8 51. There is good cause to grant my request for recusal and/or transfer. 9 52. There is good cause to grant me the relief requested herein. 10 53. The foregoing constitutes good cause for granting me the relief requested. 11 54. The foregoing statements are within my personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, I can testify competently thereto. 12 55. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, 13 except as to those matters, which are herein stated upon my information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe 14 them to be true. 15 16 Signed and respectfully submitted this 16th day of February 2024, at Foster City, California, 17 18 19 ELIZABETH KARNAZES, Declarant, Defendant in pro per, signature by facsimile 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 7 Case No. CIV458258 PROOF OF SERVICE I declare that I am a resident of the State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and I am not a 1 party to this action. My business address for this matter is P.O. Box 4747, Foster City, California 94404, telephone 2 650-345-9200. On February 16, 2024, I served the following: 3 [ ] I am familiar with the office’s mail collection and processing practices, know that said mail is collected and deposited with the appropriate overnight delivery service or with the United States Postal 4 Service on the same day it is deposited in interoffice mail, in Foster City, California, and know that postage thereon is fully prepaid. Following said practice, on February 16, 2024, I served by United 5 States Mail scheduled for delivery the following business day, by placing in an addressed, sealed 6 envelope and depositing in regularly maintained interoffice mail the following documents: 7 DEFENDANT ELIZABETH KARNAZES’S OBJECTION TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN L. 8 GREENBERG FOR CAUSE, PROOF OF SERVICE 9 On the parties and judges listed below: 10 Albert Lee P.O. Box 330222 11 San Francisco, CA 94133 12 The Honorable Susan L. Greenberg 13 San Mateo County California Superior Court Department 3, 400 County Center 14 Redwood City, CA 94063 15 The Honorable Presiding Judge Elizabeth Lee 16 San Mateo County California Superior Court Department 17, 400 County Center 17 Redwood City, CA 94063 18 Said documents were also served electronically, in compliance with California Code of Civil 19 Procedure Sections 1010, 1010.6 on February 16, 2024, by agreement of Cross-Defendant Hartford’s attorney to AL161237@aol.com and to the Honorable Elizabeth Lee to dept17@sanmateocourt.org, 20 and to the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg to dept3@sanmateocourt.org, from trevorjohnsonsf@gmail.com. The Internet service provider indicated the transmission was successful. 21 Elizabeth Karnazes does not consent to service by e-mail upon her. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1010, 1010.6 (2024). 22 23 [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 24 Signed: On February 16, 2024, at Foster City, California. 25 26 27 T. Johnson (signature by facsimile) 28 Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 8 Case No. CIV458258 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 I declare that I am a resident of the State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and I am not a party to this action. My business address for this matter is P.O. Box 4747, Foster City, California 94404, telephone 3 650-345-9200. On February 16, 2024, I served the following: 4 DEFENDANT ELIZABETH KARNAZES’S OBJECTION TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN L. 5 GREENBERG FOR CAUSE, PROOF OF SERVICE 6 On the parties listed below by personal delivery on February 16, 2024, at the following addresses and for the 7 following: 8 The Susan L. Greenberg, by her clerk Rosa Vega, at approximately 1:30 p.m.________________ 9 San Mateo County California Superior Court Department 3 10 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 11 The Honorable Presiding Judge Elizabeth Lee at approximately 1:30 p.m. 12 San Mateo County California Superior Court 13 Department 17 400 County Center 14 Redwood City, CA 94063 15 [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 16 true and correct. 17 18 Signed February 16, 2024, at Redwood City, California. 19 20 R. Quiaspe 21 (signature by facsimile) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Recusal J. Greenberg Melchner v. Karnazes 9 Case No. CIV458258