Slips of the tongue Commissioner Durant made while denying me a waiver of the fee to have the sheriff personally serve Kathy (i.e. "give notice"). It was so important that I not be granted the waiver Durant blatantly lied (twice) and then berated me as quoted above.

1. "The sheriff only serves DVRO's!" - The sheriff give notices for any legal proceeding requirring it and doesn't even charge a fee to serve papers for domestic violence restraining orders, so why would Durant even say that?

2. "The court can't waive the fees of a private company." - I was literally embarrassed for Durant when she made this statement inferring that I was requesting the fees of a private company be waived to serve Kathy. Of course the court can't force a private company to waive its fees. That fee isn't menitiioned on the form or in the instructions, but waiver of the fee for the sheriff to give notice sure is.

3. "I don't know why you are obsessed with personal service" - That was not only inappropriate to say, it was insulting and offense. With Kathy's already proven track record of bad faith, me living 500 miles from the court and my financial situation (all argued at the hearing), Durant knew very well that my request for a waiver of the sheriff notice fee was a valid, reasonable and based in fact.

Durant denied me a waiver of the fee for the sheriff to give notice in order to further two of Kathy and Durant's unethical litigation tactics that they tirelessly worked in collusion to implement from inception of our divorce proceedisng: (1) "Delay, delay, delay" in hopes I would lose my financial ability to continue litigation or just give up, and (2) "Litigation by numbers" making it difficult for me to have motions timely heard due to the time it takes to file and serve motions by mail with me living 500 miles from the court.

Examples of how denying me the waiver benefited Kathy are given in "Corruption Case Study #2" below. See the "Fee waiver declaration" immediately below for exactly how Durant's comical corruption transpired at the hearing.
Above is a Declaration and Memorandum of Points & Authority that I prepared requesting child support, discovery and a seek work order that were all but ignored by Nevada County Commissioner Yvette Durant who has blantantly, confidently and repeatedly ignored facts and evidence and abused her discretion in making her findings and orders to:
​Discovery, Discovery Not!
​​After almost two years of denying me discovery, Durant finally threw me a bone and granted my motion to compel Kathy respond to interrogatories. Interrogatories are a huge problem for Kathy because truthful responses would expose that she was hiding income and had a car. With trial only a month away, I was forced to file an ex parte application requesting a continuance and to reopen discovery so I could timely file, serve and have heard follow-up discovery motions (including a motion for contempt in order to put some teeth into the order to compel). It's worth noting that contempt filings require personal service, the fee waiver for which I was denied (see "Corruption & Collusion" > “Denied Fee Waiver").

There was no way Durant was going grant my continuance, especially to reopen discovery, but denying the continuance was also a problem. Durant granted me the order to compel interrogatory responses full well knowing I did not have the time to put some teeth in the order. Being granted the continuance would have given me that time, so if Durant denied the continuance she was back too square one . . .. denying me discovery again.

During the hearing Durant first misrepresented my motion as a request for an order to short time (OST) which, due to Durant’s previous cleverness (i.e. not granting me waiver of the fee for the sheriff to give notice and bunching up the pre-trial hearings and trail date all within a week) an OST would have made it all but impossible for me to serve Kathy in time for a hearing regardless of how short of a notice Durant granted me. Not to mention Durant would have denied the continence (which she ended up doing) anyway resulting in me serving Kathy and attending another hearing being a waste of my "time and money".

After I corrected Durant telling her that my motion was not for an OST, she danced around my motion some more while I patiently listened without responding until Durant finally gave up offered to have my motion heard that day. My ears perked up and I felt like saying "Why yes, I’ll take door number 3!".

Not wanting to directly deny me another continuance because doing so would have unwound Durant’s clever attempt to cover up 1-1/2 years of denying me discovery, Commissioner Durant then said she would grant me the continuance if I didn't want to reopen discovery to which I agreed. Apparently, that wasn't the answer Durant was hoping for because she just kept talking as if she never made the offer and I never agreed then gave up and just denied me the continuance which is what she was trying to but failed to avoid.

Discovery! Discovery not! Back to where we began. I was effectively granted no discovery in my divorce.