October 24, 1994 - Part I

October 24, 1994

Orange County Superior Court

Case #93P4783

Part I

Yet another court transcript Riverside County refuses to acknowledge

(As a reference point, Jack pled guilty to felony Child Abduction on June 7, 1994, but he was not sentenced to six months in Orange County Jail until December 16, 1994).

In which Jack Ray continues lying about his criminal culpability and blames his victim for the hardships he and his disgraced mother Sherry incurred as a consequence of their misconduct.

It is important to note from the cover page that Jack's victim (the mother of his child) was represented by the Legal Aid Society during these proceedings.  Jack Ray made this a relevant point on March 17, 2004, when he was literally crying to Riverside County social worker Teresa Solomon-Billings and claimed that he was a great parent who had merely been victimized by the 'high powered attorneys' his victim always used against him.

Page 1, Line 16:  "...but this case started in '93 as a domestic violence case."

Page 1, Line 19 thru 21:  "now, on 9/27/39 (sic) during that visitation Mr. Ray allegedly abducted the child and left the state with him for three months."

Page 2, Line 5 thru 9:  "And, I think, basically he has been convicted, or pled guilty to the abduction. And also has been found guilty of Assault and Battery arising out of the original domestic violence issue."

On March 17, 2004, Teresa Solomon-Billings proudly presented Jack Ray's lie to Riverside County Superior Court (Judge Becky Dugan) that these incidents didn't occur and this October 24, 1994, hearing didn't occur.  Jack Ray lied about the Child Abduction and lied about his conviction for violently assaulting his child's mother.  In the weeks, months and years that followed that initial falsification of Jack Ray's well-documented violent criminal history NO ONE from Riverside County has had the courage necessary to admit they had been deceived by Jack Ray and his childish tears.

At what point will Riverside County admit Jack Ray was lying to them when they helped him once again abduct the same victim's child (and then made her pay Child Support to the man who had violently assaulted her?

Page 4, Line 12 thru 20:  "(The Court speaking)  Mr. Ray, You heard the thing that's counsel said concerning your abduction of the child and your subsequent charging -- and you have pled to something?

Mr. Ray:  Yes, I did plead to the abduction.

The Court:  Okay, was that a felony or misdemeanor?

Mr. Ray:  It's a wobbler.  It will go off my record next year."

There can be no further question about whether or not Jack Ray not only abducted a child, but also that he recognized there was such a compelling criminal case against him that he chose to plead guilty in exchange for reduced sentencing.  Also, any psychological analysis of Jack's discussion of the events can only conclude that he has ALWAYS been attempting to minimize any criminal misconduct or responsibility for his actions ("it's just a wobbler, Your Honor...  "Off my record...," because the damage that was inflicted on the victim should be just as easily forgotten, apparently.  This is a sick, twisted mind revealing itself to anyone actually paying attention.

It is outrageous and indefensible that Teresa Solomon-Billings, Donah Freeman, Ben Slagter and others within Riverside County DPSS allowed themselves to be used by Jack Ray by suppressing this from the Court in 2004.

"...At Variance With The Truth."

"The Board believes that your testimony was at variance with the truth."

What a wonderfully tactful way of calling out Sherry Ray for her dishonesty.

And the second Riverside County officials are forced to admit this transcript exists -- documenting the maliciousness and dishonest hate with which Sherry Ray and Jack Ray conspired to deprive a woman of her son -- is the second when all of the rest of their lies regarding their March, 2004, kidnapping of the same child at the request of Jack Ray will become exposed.

Simply stated:  Jack and Sherry were morally bankrupt criminals completely lacking in any integrity or credibility.  Riverside County DPSS chose not to exercise any due diligence in their haste to reward Jack for crying on their shoulders.

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT BOARD OF RIGHTS HEARING

(In re:  SHERRY M. RAY  #23572)

DECISION OF THE BOARD

(September 12, 1994)

Page 472, Line 7 through Line 10:

"The Board believes that your testimony was at variance with the truth.   The Board was, quite frankly, disappointed that you have not taken responsibility for your actions." (emphasis added)

It doesn't answer the question of how Sherry's bankruptcy and ensuing financial difficulties were the fault of the woman she and Jack victimized, but at least we know where Jackie gets his 'not taking responsibility for your actions'  from.

What Can Your Social Worker Do For You?

She Can Lie About Your Violent Criminal History

What's a girl to do?

What's a Riverside County social worker to do when she suddenly finds herself in the company of a man who seems to have nothing, yet she feels strangely drawn to him?

In March, 2004, Jack Ray was an unemployed violent felon who lived with his disgraced mother, was estranged from his own father and was thousands of dollars behind in court-ordered child support payments.

It turns out, if you live in Riverside County, CA, simply crying about your self-inflicted misery on the shoulder of one of the County's dangerously stupid social workers can change your fortunes seemingly over night.  Well, crying, and lying extensively to blame your victim for your totally foreseeable consequences.  Hell, if the social worker is particularly gullible she can get you on your way to having the victim of your crimes pay child support to you!

This is when Riverside County social worker Teresa Solomon-Billings fell in love with her darling Jack.

After years of harassing his son's mother and refusing to provide child support or health coverage Jack decided to 'man up' and 'do what was in his son's best interests.'  He did what he does best:  He lied and blamed others:

Cover Sheet of  Teresa Solomon-Billing's taxpayer-subsidized Re-Writing of History for Jack Ray

Solomon-Billings' Report - Page 21
Re-Writing History

Line 8:  "...exceedingly diligent..."  
I'm not sure Jack or Teresa Solomon-Billings actually know the meaning of the word, 'Diligent.'
Refusing to provide financial support and health coverage for one's child isn't consistent with "diligent" as used in this context.
Choosing to allow one's driver's license to be suspended due to non-payment of court-ordered Child Support -- and consequently choosing to forego visitation with one's child due to the inability to drive legally -- is not consistent with "diligent" as used in this context.

And since Riverside County Social Services never made any discernible effort to independently verify Jack's outrageous claims blaming their victim for Jack and Sherry's hardships, I don't think anyone at DPSS is familiar with the term.

_______________


Beginning at Line 23 of Page 22 Jack Ray adds another outrageous element to his ridiculous story that a competent investigator could have exposed with little effort.  While again Jack was not accepting responsibility for his criminal history, he went a step further and found a way to blame the victim for his mother's admitted participation int the 1993 abduction while on duty with the Los Angeles Police Department.  In September, 1993, Jack's mother Sherry M. Ray (#23572) was a police officer employed by the LAPD.  After it was suspected that Sherry had assisted her son Jack with the commission of felony Child Abduction the Department initiated internal review of the conduct of their officer.   This process is called a 'Board of Rights Hearing.'  The cover of the transcripts for Volume II of disgraced officer Sherry Ray's Board of Rights Hearing looks like this (more on the LAPD Board of Rights Hearing later):

Jack really outdid himself with that final paragraph on Page 24 (lines 19 - 27).  It merits closer review for its brilliance.  

First, Solomon-Billings notes that was Jack "was tearful throughout our interview with him."

This 'tearfulness' turns out to be pretty important in the Riverside County social worker world.

As in this case, when a violent criminal is 'tearful' while he is lying about his violent, hateful history and how he is a victim of his own 'mistakes,' then that apparently indicates sincerity and eliminates the need for any subsequent fact-checking.

However, once the criminal establishes his ground as the County's preferred cryer, no one else can show emotion without being subjected to Social Worker Wrath and criticism for unresolved issues relating to their deceased parents (refer to Ben Slagter's April 8, 2004, report for an example of the derision social workers are willing to spew at those who have inconvenienced Jack Ray).

Second, and quite importantly, Jack pretends to show remorse for committing a hateful act of child abduction while simultaneously minimizing his culpability and suggesting it was just a "vacation."  Solomon-Billings is an astute "investigator."  So when Jack lies about a hateful series of crimes that included a violent assault she dutifully told the Court exactly what Jack wanted the Court to hear...  uncluttered by any unpleasantries like corroboration as the product of due diligence.  Read line 20 again:  Beating a woman up, violating a court order, abducting a child and fleeing the state to avoid arrest for the assault was obligingly reduced to merely a "mistake" and a "vacation" by the obedient Teresa Solomon-Billings.  One has to wonder...  Was Jack really "tearful," or was he laughing that Solomon-Billings was stupid enough to believe his outrageous lies?  It would've taken a competent investigator only a phone call to run a "rap sheet" and reveal the conviction for the assault.

Thirdly, Line 21:  "He said since that time, he has done everything right."

Jack forgot to tell his bestie Teresa that in 1994 he refused to submit to a Evidence Code Section 730 Psychological Evaluation that had been ordered by the Orange County Superior Court.  And then there's the relatively minor matter that Jack had refused to provide minimal court-ordered child support for his son (as well as not provided health or dental coverage).  Or the fact that he didn't exercise visitation from March, 2001, through September, 2002, apparently because his California Driver's License had been suspended for failure to pay child support.

Fourth, Line Line 22 and Line 23:  "...and since 1997 and has worked as a handyman to support his son the best he can."

Records from Orange County Child Support Services would dispel this myth quickly, if only Solomon-Billings or any of the subsequent "investigators" from Riverside County DPSS had actually been interested in the child's "best interests" and protecting him from an unemployed violent felon.  Clearly, they were not interested in finding the truth.  Instead, they just had a narrative and looked for ways to embellish and support their preferred conclusions.

Page 24 concludes with this masterpiece:  "Mr. Ray said that whenever professionals get involved, such as Family Law Court, school personnel, law enforcement, or CPS, they appear to be very sympathetic to his cause until they talk to the stepfather.  So with this statement Jack informs Solomon-Billings that there are years' worth of prior investigations from several independent different agencies.  He then tells her that they actually engaged in responsible investigation and the outcome was not to Jack's liking.  Solomon-Billings knows a good conspiracy when a criminal describes one, so as outlandish as Jack's claim was he had a gullible audience in Teresa Solomon-Billings.  Anything is possible -- even this apparent conspiracy -- because, after all, Jack was crying when he said it.

The image above is Page 447 of Volume II of the transcripts from the Los Angeles Police Department Board of Rights Hearing investigating Sherry Ray's involvement in her son Jack Ray's 1993 commission of felony Child Abduction.

At Page 447, Line 9, the Department is summarizing their case against Sherry.  It reads:

"As to Count 4, the documentation provided via RID supports Sherry Ray's plea of guilty to the charge of improperly accessing the Department computer system for personal use."  Physical evidence in the form of documentation, as well as Sherry's plea of Guilty.

To refresh your memory:  In Teresa Solomon-Billings' report, Page 22, Line 26, through Page 23, Line 6, Jack blamed his child's mother for the unfortunate financial problems Sherry Ray experienced following her involvement in the 1993 Child Abduction.  It was the victim who supposedly implicated paternal grandmother Sherry Ray as an accomplice.  It was exclusively the fault of the victim that Sherry Ray was arrested.  It was exclusive the fault of the victim that Sherry Ray was placed on an extended unpaid administrative leave.  It was exclusively the fault of the victim that Sherry Ray could not pay her bills and went bankrupt.

I wonder if Teresa Solomon-Billings cares that disgraced LAPD officer Sherry Ray actually pled guilty to one of the four charges of misconduct that resulted in her 44-day unpaid administrative leave.  And was found guilty of two others?  Would that change her lofty opinion of Jack?

That paints a different picture of both Sherry and Jack, and a competent investigator would've quickly realized neither of them had any credibility.

Teresa Solomon-Billings' report, Page 23, Line 9:  "...vindictive..."

Jack told "investigator" Solomon-Billings that the victim and her husband were "vindictive."

Jack beat up a woman, violated a Court Order, abducted her child, refused to support the child, and harassed the woman's family incessantly for years in retaliation for being arrested and prosecuted.  His documented pattern of behavior from 1992 until 2004 is extraordinarily inconsistent with what a reasonable person would expect from someone claiming to be a concerned parent.

Does Teresa Solomon-Billings even know the meaning of the word vindictive?

One more significant element from Teresa Solomon-Billings' gushing celebration of the great parenting of which Jack Ray is the personification:

The child in question was 13 months old at the time of the September, 1993, abduction.  Therefore it stands to reason the child would have no independent recollection of the events over 10 years later.  But that didn't stop Solomon-Billings from obtaining a statement to corroborate Jack's revisionist history from the child Jack hadn't supported for years:

Solomon-Billings' report, Page 20, Line 17 through Line 24:

"(Child) said that his father was charged with kidnapping a long time ago, and that his mother always brings that up in Court.  I asked (child) if it was true that his father had kidnapped him, and he said that it was.  He said that his father thought his mother was a bad mother and took him away from her for three months  He said that his father was planning to return to California and turn himself in when he learned that he was wanted  by the police, but he got caught before he had a chance to do so.  He said that his father was pulled over for a routine traffic ticket, and they found out that he was wanted for kidnapping and he was arrested.

Start with Line 17:  "..his mother always brings that up..."

Since the child -- by law -- was never present in the court room when Jack was repeatedly harassing the child's mother, how could he know something like that?  He had to have been taught or coached to say something like that so demeaning to his mother.  Is it reasonable to assume the mother taught him this?  Or is it far more likely the child's father discussed the proceedings and presented the issues in such a self-serving vein?

Line 19:  "...his father thought his mother was a bad mother..."

This is prima facie evidence of Parental Alienation:

"What are they? They are parents that seek to damage, destroy, deconstruct or even completely end their child’s relationship with their (former) spouse. In a nutshell, PAS is a syndrome caused by a specific type of abuse whereby one parent seeks revenge upon another, and will stop at nothing, to get that revenge. They will manipulate and abuse their children and exploit and lie to their children, family members, police, lawyers and the court system to effect that revenge."

Not that Solomon-Billings was listening.

How Do You Measure a Father's Love?

Resume of a Deadbeat

Only God knows what is in someone's heart.

But as mere mortals we can evaluate how hard a man is willing to work to provide for the child he claims to love.  After all, in 2004, Riverside County social workers dutifully furnished Jack Ray's statement to the Court that he had always done what was in his son's "best interests," in addition to his unsubstantiated yet self-serving claim that he had done all he could to make amends with the victim of his hateful crimes.

Presented here are the records from Orange County Child Support Services, documenting Case #92P0865 in which Jack claimed his self-imposed perpetual unemployment limited his ability to provide necessities for his son.  Commencing in February, 1993, Jack was ordered to pay ONLY $152 per month.  As shown here he was paying NOTHING to provide for his son's living expenses (Food, Clothing, Shelter, Transportation, Recreation, etc.,...).

 

By February, 1997, able-bodied, responsible parent Jack's undying love for his son was in arrears $7,288.75.  In 2004, this little triviality did not stop Riverside County from reporting to Superior Court on Jack's behalf that he was always doing what was in his son's best interests.

By now Jack was willing to pay the bare minimum, but not a penny more toward the arrearage.  Wouldn't want the child to have 'too much' financial support.

This is Jack "Bare Minimum" Ray's resume as a responsible parent.  Nine years after assaulting his child's mother, violating a Court Order and abducting her child Riverside County role model Jack Ray was $10,918.20 in arrears.
Because he loved his child.  And because he did everything he could to make amends with victim of his violent crimes.
And apparently people like Donah Freeman, Ben Slagter and John Tavaglione think those luxuries (like food) must be free.

In spite of this incontrovertible record of Jack Ray's clearly demonstrated unwillingness to provide for the child he claimed to love, on April 8, 2004, Riverside County's Ben Slagter tendered a factually-challenged report to Superior Court claiming, "At this time, it appears that Mr. Ray has the motivation, the ability, and the willingness to care for (child's name redacted) in safe (sic), appropriate manner (Riverside County Case #RIJ107551, April 8, 2004, Page 24, Lines 11 and 12)."  

Oops.

I  misspoke earlier.

Apparently God AND Ben Slagter have the unquestionable ability to know the heart of an unemployed violent deadbeat parent like Jack Ray.

How else could one arrive at such a favorable conclusion in the face of 11 years of evidence to the contrary?

This report also includes the following inconsistent admission:  "Mr. Ray stated that he is not employed at this time (March, 2004) but he has the construction skills to find employment with ease.  Mr. Ray stated that his last record of employment is at a casino as a security guard in Las Vegas  (#RIJ107551, Page 24, lines 4 and 5)."

I wonder why Jack 'forgot' to report that casino security guard job to Orange County Child Support Services so that his son could enjoy the benefits of Jack's industriousness.  Isn't 'Fraud' the word intelligent people use to describe that? 

Quick record check here.

Since Jack identified himself as having "construction skills" let's review what the construction job market looked like when Jack was boasting of his new-found desire to work:

Single-family new house construction building permits:

• 2000: 13323 buildings, average cost: $185,000
• 2001: 16778 buildings, average cost: $179,800
• 2002: 20912 buildings, average cost: $174,000
• 2003: 25424 buildings, average cost: $177,300
• 2004: 29182 buildings, average cost: $186,500
• 2005: 30350 buildings, average cost: $197,700
• 2006: 20882 buildings, average cost: $210,200
• 2007: 9717 buildings, average cost: $224,400
• 2008: 3820 buildings, average cost: $317,100
• 2009: 3406 buildings, average cost: $259,800

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/county/Riverside_County-CA.html#ixzz2Jxuxp900

Wow.

Now I'm not a 'social worker,' but this information sure seems to indicate there were plenty of job opportunities for a person with 'construction skills,' what with a housing boom in Riverside County and all.

All those job opportunities, yet poor ambitious Jack couldn't find one in his chosen career field to help support the child he claimed to love.

Mr. Ray... Since you're not working, how DO you spend your time?

Do you find yourself with lots of idle time on your hands because you've chosen not to work like responsible parents tend to?

In January, 2000, Jack Ray was 30 years old and was living with his mother Sherry Ray (who was a disgraced officer with the Los Angeles Police Department after she admitted her involvement in the 1993 Child Abduction).

Jack realized early in his son's life that if he refused to work for a living the Court couldn't force him to support the child he claimed he loved unconditionally.

Since he presented himself as being unemployed Orange County Child Support Services set Jack's Court-ordered Child Support obligations at the California minimum of $152 per month.  Shouldn't be too hard to pony up that amount, right?  Assuming you really do love a child and want what is in his best interests?  Certainly McDonald's HAD to be hiring at some point, right?

Why bother with inconvenient personal responsibilities when you can instead engage in perpetual harassment of the victim and her family.  That's what the Family Court system is there for, isn't it Jack?  Spend the days when you don't have visitation crying about losing visitation due to your violent criminal history.

January 21, 2000:

January 21, 2000 - Jack Ray in court once again to harass the woman he assaulted and whose child he abducted.  The transcripts make it clear Jack was returning the matter frequently without cause.

January 21, 2000 - Page 2

January 21, 2000 - The Court's disapproval for Jack Ray is unmistakably clear in lines 8 through 10.

So...  What is this 'Vexatious Litigant' term, and is it a good thing that Jack was "perilously close" to the Court declaring him to be one?

To answer this question I direct the reader's attention to the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 391(b)(3) a vexatious litigant is defined as:

"In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly

files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts
unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous 

or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay."

Nothing in there about it implying Jack was a good parent.

Follow up letter to Jack Ray from the victim's attorney pointing out that not only does Jack not provide necessary financial support for his son, but he also doesn't pay court-ordered penalties for his ongoing harassment.  It becomes more and more unclear why Donah Freeman and others in Riverside County thought so highly of Mr. Ray. 

Dedication

This blog is not dedicated to Jack Ray's well-documented history of violent family crimes and his continued harassment of his victim and her new family.

Nor is this blog is dedicated to Riverside County Supervisor John Tavaglione and the numerous corrupt Riverside County officials that have chosen to lie on behalf of Jack Ray and reward him for over 11 years of hate.

Instead, this blog is dedicated to the Riverside County children, families and victims of domestic violence that are still being subjected to perjury, libel, insults, negligent disregard for the truth and gross misconduct by Donah Freeman, Ben Slagter, Libertie Miller, Geovanna Asturias, Teresa Solomon-Billings and other dishonest employees that continue to be employed by DPSS and a county that values job security over its constituents' rights.

The women, children and families of California and Riverside County deserve better than what Department of Public Social Services Director Susan Loew is willing to provide.

Just a Little Off the Top...

...because Donah Freeman, Ben Slagter and all Riverside County social workers apparently know every good "vacation" begins by violently assaulting your child's mother.

These are transcripts from September 9, 1993 (Orange County Superior Court Case #93V2342).
Following the August 24, 1993, assault by Jack Ray (Orange County Court Case #NM9307973), the victim of that assault petitioned the Court for a protective order.
The protective and custodial order was granted (see Page 6, Line 9).

September 9, 1993 Hearing - Transcript Cover Page

September 9, 1993 Hearing - Page 4

September 9, 1993 Hearing - Page 5

September 9, 1993 Hearing - Page 6

In 1994, after Jack Ray fled the state of California, he was arrested and extradited back to Orange County.  A jury subsequently convicted Jack of the August 24, 1993, assault.
The assault that Riverside County still claims never occurred.


Since Donah Freeman and Ben Slagter knowingly and deliberately withheld and suppressed the facts of this case from Riverside County's corrupt proceedings, they didn't have to worry about reconciling their portrayal of Jack Ray as a mature and responsible parent with the reality of an emotionally and psychologically unbalanced person indicated by Jack's actual actions and statements.

"She had shaved my one-year-old son's head.  And I went over there to threaten to shave her head."     -  Jack Ray,  September 9, 1993

If he had gone to the victim's home with the intention of assaulting her that would be indicative of a disturbed and immature man.  But as we see from his admission on Page 5, Line 12, Jack merely intended to shave the woman's head in retaliation for a child's haircut he didn't like.

And earlier in the same conversation with the Court (Lines 2 through 8) Jack admitted he used force, threats of force and violence against his child's mother on August 24, 1993.



On June 7, 1994, Jack Ray acknowledged this order when he pled guilty to felony Child Abduction.

On March 13, 2004, Donah Freeman was in the process of helping Jack Ray kidnap the victim's child once again, and she made it absolutely clear she wouldn't allow any of the facts of Jack Ray's well-documented history of violent family crimes and refusal to pay child support for 11 years get in her way.

Since March 13, 2004, Supervisor John Tavaglione and the County of Riverside have defended Donah Freeman's lies that the assault never occurred, this hearing never took place, these transcripts don't exist and Jack never violated it.  Worse yet, even after learning of Freeman's complete disregard for the case history and contempt for the victims of Jack Ray's crimes, the County still allowed Freeman and Ben Slagter to continue their employment and risk additional harm other Riverside County families.