Part 5 of 5 · Making the most of their victims’ misfortune

The order that rewrote the minutes

One date sworn on a Wednesday, a different one signed into an order on Thursday — and the courts above.

October 6, 2026 — on the record

The Mendocino judge, on the record: “if it was not extended from September the second,” he extends “nunc pro tunc at least until tomorrow.” The same morning, the California Court of Appeal denied my first writ in one sentence.

October 14, 2026 — under penalty of perjury

Vincent Hyler’s lawyer, in a sworn declaration: the only extension ruling was the oral one on October 6; her client “does not request that the Court record an extension as having been made on a date when no such ruling occurred.” Her brief, the same day: a court “may not create a different judicial decision retroactively.”

October 15, 2026, 2:07 p.m. — the order

On no motion and without a hearing, over my filed objection, the Mendocino judge signed an order prepared by Vincent Hyler’s lawyer declaring that the August 12 orders had been extended on September 15 and “have remained in full force and effect without interruption.” The order itself says that extension “was not reflected in the minute order,” and directs that “the minute order for September 15, 2026 is corrected.” The order does not mention the child. It was signed on the day I had filed my own ex parte application for J.J.’s return. The lawyer’s $36,071.58 fee request against me was served the day after the civil suit reached her clients.

The petition that was never heard

My petition to enforce the custody order under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act — a statute that calls for a hearing the next judicial day — was docketed in Mendocino on September 28, 2026. It has not been ruled on. In Lee County, Florida, my enforcement case was assigned by the Lee County judge to herself on September 23 and, the next afternoon, ordered held in abeyance. On November 3, 2026, I served a verified statement of disqualification on the Mendocino judge; he announced he would make no substantive rulings and vacated every date.

The courts above

On September 23, 2026 the California Court of Appeal, First District, asked in writing which custody orders govern and when they expire. It then denied relief in one sentence (October 6), again (October 14), and again on a petition for habeas corpus for J.J. filed with a 385-page record and no opposition (November 2). The Supreme Court of California has had two petitions since mid-October. The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal denied on November 6. The question the First District asked has been answered on the record. No court has written the answer down.

Where it stands

Two civil cases are on file in Mendocino County Superior Court: Heller v. Hyler, No. 26CV04599, filed October 15, 2026 and served October 26 — damages for the taking and keeping of a child from the parent entitled to custody; the complaint pleads that the three defendants “agreed with each other to keep JJ from Plaintiff and acted together to do it” (¶ 25). And Heller v. Hyler, the second complaint, submitted to the Mendocino County Superior Court clerk November 8, 2026 (case number posted when the clerk issues it) — domestic violence against Vincent Michael Hyler; aiding and abetting against Judith and Michael Hyler. Sworn criminal referrals are with the Attorney General of California, the Mendocino County Probation Department, the ATF, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the FBI. The record is on this site, every document downloadable.

“It’s like Enron saying they were doing accounting properly because they had accountants.” — Carli Heller

The documents for this part

• The clerk’s minutes of September 2, 2026 (record p. 56)
• The October 14, 2026 declaration and brief of Vincent Hyler’s lawyer (record pp. 295, 300–302)
• The October 15, 2026 “Order Extending” (record pp. 303–304)
• The First District’s September 23 order and its three denials; the Sixth DCA’s November 6 denial
• The Lee County orders of September 23–24, 2026
• The complaint in No. 26CV04599 and the second complaint as submitted

Every statement about a court proceeding on this page is drawn from a filed court record, cited by case number; where a paper is quoted, the quotation is verbatim. J.J. is referred to by his initials. No photograph of him appears on this site.