RESPONSE TO FALSE ALLEGATIONS AND DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS BY SUSAN STEINHAUER
1. Allegation: That I harassed or stalked Judge Steinhauer at a political event.
FACT: According to official correspondence from GVCA Manager Scott Klement, there were no incident reports or disturbances filed during the Candidate’s Night on October 3, 2024. “There was no report filed for any incident or disturbance at this event” .
Additionally, Elliot Kolkovich, the county prosecutor, through his office, stated:
“He does not particularly recall the evening and nothing stands out about it from the other various campaign events that he attended this Fall” (Messenger screenshot, Jan 6, 2025).
This confirms that no incident occurred at this event and no threat or disruption was perceived by law enforcement, attendees, or the facility .
2. Allegation: That I’m dangerous or on drugs.
FACT: My toxicology results dated August 11, 2022, from United States Drug Testing Laboratories show I tested negative for all drugs, including amphetamines, opiates, methadone, cocaine, barbiturates, PCP, and THC .
This defamatory claim made by Steinhauer is not only false—it constitutes defamation per se, as it directly accuses me of criminal behavior and mental instability without any factual basis or medical evidence.
3. Allegation: That I physically confronted her or made threats.
FACT: Multiple witnesses, including Joe Gallo, Caleb Thurman, and Sheriff Shane Barker, provided sworn statements or verbal confirmations that I remained peaceful, calm, and respectful during the entire event .
I shook her hand and spoke calmly about my intent to file grievances related to her conduct as a judge. No threat was made, no aggression occurred, and all actions were well within my First Amendment rights to free expression and lawful petitioning of grievances .
4. Allegation: That my public posts were threatening.
FACT: My social media posts were constitutionally protected speech—critical of a former judge’s public conduct and decisions. They did not threaten violence, nor did they direct others to cause harm.
Under Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), criticism of public officials is protected unless proven false and malicious—which this is not. I stand by my right to call out judicial misconduct and advocate for legal reform .
5. Allegation: That she fears for her safety due to my advocacy.
FACT: Steinhauer filed this false protection order almost immediately after I initiated legal and public accountability measures, including filing grievances and seeking her bar number. The retaliatory nature of this filing is evidenced by the timeline:
• 10/28/2024: I contacted her office for bar credentials to file a grievance.
• Shortly after: She filed for a Civil Stalking Protection Order with fabricated claims .
This aligns with her previous unethical behavior on the bench—granting custody to a father with a history of abuse, ignoring sworn evidence, and then accepting employment at the same firm representing him afterward, a direct conflict of interest .
SUMMARY
All of Steinhauer’s accusations are demonstrably false, retaliatory, and strategically timed to silence my public advocacy, smear my character, and interfere with my lawful pursuit of justice. The supporting evidence is clear:
• No incident occurred at the event.
• No drug use is present.
• No threats were made.
• My witnesses corroborate my peaceful conduct.
• Her actions violate constitutional, ethical, and professional standards.
This is character assassination wrapped in judicial paper. It’s an abuse of the justice system by someone who once wore the robe and now uses false filings to suppress a whistleblower.
I remain committed to truth, justice, and the exposure of this abuse—not just for myself, but for every parent and advocate who refuses to be silenced.
What she filed:
1. ALLEGED FACEBOOK POSTS (August–November 2024)
AUGUST 11–12, 2024 Posts
“One of the biggest child abusers is wearing a black robe and holding a gavel.”
“Hell has a special corner for you.”
“When a judge ignores evidence, facts and law… justice is almost impossible.”
“This is the man Judge Susie Steinhauer gave custody of my sons to before she recused herself…”
My Response:
These are paraphrased or partial captions taken out of context from advocacy posts about my documented legal case and public court records involving Judicial Susan Steinhauer’s rulings that led to the unjust removal of my children and awarding custody to a father with a known abuse history, which she later recused herself from due to conflict of interest.
These posts are:
• Protected speech under Garrison v. Louisiana and Pickering v. Board of Ed.
• Not direct threats but legally protected criticism of a public official’s professional conduct
• Time-stamped and preserved, with screenshots and witnesses verifying the tone was critical, not violent or menacing
The First Amendment allows citizens to speak out on public matters—including judicial ethics.
2. CANDIDATE NIGHT CLAIMS – OCTOBER 3, 2024
Claims:
That I:
• Walked up “aggressively glaring”
• Gave “double thumbs down”
• “Wouldn’t let go” of her hand
• Made her feel “threatened,” “pacing,” “erratic,” and “frightening”
My Response:
• I approached Steinhauer once since my original hearing in a public, political space, calmly shook her hand, and stated:
“I will ensure you never sit on another bench again so that no more children or parents are ever harmed by your negligence.”
• I walked away immediately after and did not return to her.
• I did not follow, pace, gesture, or behave erratically. Several witnesses who were present at the event (including Joe Gallo, Caleb Thurman, and Sheriff Shane Barker) confirm that I remained composed the entire evening .
• There was no report filed about any disturbance. In fact, GVCA Manager Scott Klement wrote on 1/6/25:
“There was no report filed for any incident or disturbance at this event.”
• Even Elliot Kolkovich, the county prosecutor, when asked about the event, his office replied:
“He does not particularly recall the evening and nothing stands out.” (Messenger screenshot from Jan 6, 2025)
These allegations are fabricated, contradicted by multiple parties, and were never reported by anyone present at the event—until weeks later, when retaliation began.
3. 10/4/24 POLICE REPORT
Claim:
That she filed a police report the next day because of “fear for her safety” due to my behavior on October 3, 2024.
My Response:
• As of this filing, no criminal charges have been brought, no arrest occurred, and no protective action was taken until Steinhauer filed this retaliatory civil stalking petition on November 27, 2024, after I requested her bar number to file a grievance .
• Her claim of fear is undermined by her complete lack of immediate action at the event itself, and the fact that she made public comments to others about how “common” this type of criticism is, per her own witnesses.
This is clearly retaliatory conduct, not grounded in credible threat.
4. THREAT CLAIMS – NOVEMBER 26–27, 2024
Alleged Posts:
• “I’m coming for you”
• “I’m taking all the time I used to spend raising my sons to end any chance you ever have to step into another courtroom”
My Response:
• I made no physical threats, no incitement to violence, and no illegal threats of harm.
• These phrases, taken out of context, were used metaphorically to describe legal advocacy efforts, including:
• Filing grievances
• Requesting judicial discipline
• Speaking out publicly about my experience
• “Coming for you” in this context is about exposure and reform, not physical harm. That is objectively clear to any neutral observer and is fully protected speech.
• I never made contact, never attempted to locate her residence, and have no interest in her personally outside of holding her accountable for her abuse of power as a public official.
Final Summary
Every claim Steinhauer makes—whether verbal, digital, or legal—is:
• Contradicted by event documentation
• Disproven by neutral witnesses
• Unsupported by evidence
• Clearly retaliatory in timing (immediately following my grievance notice)
• An abuse of civil protection laws, used to shield herself from public accountability
