Michael Volpe Investigates
Michael Volpe Investigates
Michael Volpe Investigates Update: Interview with Marieke (Marika) Randoy

Michael Volpe Investigates Update: Interview with Marieke (Marika) Randoy

She recently faced off with with three judges on a California Appeals Court and she shares her thoughts on the experience.
Judge Tamara Hall

Marieke (Marika) Randoy joins me again for an update on her case.

Marika first joined me in December of 2021.

Her child custody case should shock everyone’s conscience.

She was living in Canada with her son; her ex-husband was also living in Canada, all in the same residence.


Despite this, Marika’s ex-husband went into the chambers of a California Judge, Tamara Hall, who issued an ex-parte order for Marika to produce her son; the order also barred Marika from seeing her son at all.

Judge Hall is also featured in Bill Sardi’s case.

Judge Hall, and several subsequent judges, then issued temporary orders which couldn’t be appealed. A final order was not issued until 2020.

Marika had not seen her son since 2015. Her initial interview is below.

Finally, earlier this month, Marika had her chance in front of a California Appeals Court.

Her argument was a simple one: Judge Hall had no jurisdiction to issue the order, and as such, it is null and void.

I noted that at the beginning of the oral argument, one of the judges, Judge Brian Currey, told her that they had read her appeal and numerous other things related to the case.

Judge Brian Currey

As such, there was no reason to rehash anything in the appeal.

Marika proceeded to describe what happened to her in the last year. Her ex-husband finally allowed her to have some time with her son, virtually. There was one condition: she had to drop the appeal.

After a couple minutes, Judge Currey interjected and told Marika that it was inappropriate for her to say anything beyond what was in the appeal.

As I noted, if she’s not allowed to mention anything in the appeal or anything not in the appeal, what is the point of having this hearing?

Marika also cited a landmark case: Hardwick Vs Vreeken. It is referred to as the so-called “right to lie” case. In this case, several California Child Protective Services (CPS) caseworkers liked under oath, those lies led to children being taken unlawfully, but the state was arguing that the caseworkers should still be immune from civil damages.

Marika told me she cited this case because the deception in both cases is similar and the law should treat both similarly.

Marika’s ex-husband was not at the hearing and did not file a response.

Check out the interview I did with his lawyer, when we went over these issues.

Post Script

Check out the previous articles in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8. Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16, Part 17, Part 18, Part 19, Part 20, Part 21, and Part 22.

To support more stories like this please consider contributing to the Orange County fundraiser.


As Marika noted in the comments section, she and her ex-husband were living in the same house when the initial order was signed. I’v updated and I won’t stealth edit like the Washington Post and Taylor Lorenz.

Read Michael Volpe Investigates in the Substack app
Available for iOS and Android

1 Comment
Michael Volpe Investigates
Michael Volpe Investigates
I give voice to the voiceless with true original reporting on topics the rest of the media is too afraid or lazy to cover.