Castration of Jeff Younger's 12-Year-Old Son About to Be Sanctioned in Illegal, Top-Secret "Star Chamber" Proceeding
An investigative report by REDACTED and Alexander Baker.
"I don't really care about my penis," little James Younger allegedly now says."I'm able to pee. I know I'm going to get bottom surgery in the future, so I don't really care.”
California family courts now function as facilitating enablers of child sterilization as a still-ongoing famous case and the fate of a 12-year-old boy now hangs in the balance.
Barring a down-to-the-wire miracle, as it stands, it appears that the child in question, James Younger, will begin chemical castration drugs to block puberty following a trial set to take place in early August. James Younger’s father, Jeff, has been trying to prevent his son’s medicalized gender transition and has argued that these experimental procedures are being forced upon his now 12-year-old son by his ex-wife, Dr. Anne Georgulas (GEORGE-uh-lis). Georgulas took him (and his twin brother Jude) to the Golden State following a drawn-out, highly contentious custody battle in Texas that made international headlines in 2018.
For those unfamiliar with the Jeff Younger case: For the last 8 years, Georgulas has relentlessly pursued her desire to impose “gender affirming care” on James. For that reason, the Texas Court in 2021 issued Further Temporary Orders finding that for the “safety and welfare” it was “in the best interest of the child” to impose a protective order stating that:
“neither parent may treat a child with hormonal suppression therapy, puberty blockers, and/or transgender reassignment surgery (if any) without the consent of the parents or court order.”
– 10/5/2021 Order of the Court, the No Hormones / No Surgery Injunction
I spoke with Alexander C. Baker, J.D., an independent legal expert who was retained to work in the case alongside Younger’s California attorney, Tracy L. Henderson. The California courts are facilitating medicalized gender transitions through two means: top-secret trial proceedings (which Baker likens to the medieval “Star Chamber”) and judges who accept a manifestly flawed framing of the issue to be decided.
Baker repeated one of his favorite quotations:
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.”
― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Gravity’s Rainbow is a fictional novel set in WWII Europe. The main protagonist – Lt. Slothtrop – sets out to discover the purpose of the mysterious “Black Device,” which is to be installed on v-2 rockets. Slothtrop is secretly being monitored and controlled by officials of a psychological warfare unit, who continually lead Slothtrop astray – with outright lies, yes, but even more so by distracting him from focusing on the real issues.
So too in the Younger case. “That ‘wrong question’ quote is very important to keep in mind,” Baker says. “Before any judge can make a proper ruling, we first need to make sure the right question is being asked.”
“In Younger,” Baker continues, “the right question to ask is whether puberty blockers and wrong-sex hormones are a safe and effective treatment for children with the psychological condition of gender dysphoria. The evidence is overwhelming that these interventions cause tremendous harm, while there is essentially zero high-quality evidence that they are effective.”
Georgulas, however, is presenting a very different question to the Court. Georgulas "is NOT asking the Court to determine what type of medical care the child should have” argues attorney Alana Chazan on behalf of Georgulas. “She's asking the Court to determine which parent would make the best decisions in the child's best interest.”
At a June 5, 2024 trial setting conference, Judge Mark Juhas made it clear that he has
accepted Georgulas’ idea that he merely needs to decide which is the better parent. “Judge Juhas has absolutely pre-judged the case,” opines Baker.
The actual issues at hand are being grossly mischaracterized in these court proceedings, all of which now are officially veiled from public scrutiny. “Judge Kazadi’s Star Chamber Order sealing the entire case means I’m not supposed to release these documents,” admits Baker, “but I’m doing it anyway. No part of that Star Chamber Order is constitutional. I have decided to do the right thing, and let the chips fall where they may.”
Further accentuating this case is the polarized political backdrop against which this is
occurring as conservative states like Texas have implemented legal restrictions against so-called “gender-affirming care” while California champions it and has further enshrined gender ideology into the law. Both culturally and legislatively speaking, the most populous state in the country has effectively become a “trans sanctuary.”
Court documents Baker shared with REDACTED (and now to the world) reveal the troubling, hidden-from-view family court machinations. A prior Court Order gives Georgulas full legal custody (medical decision-making authority), but contains a specific order prohibiting the use of both transgender Hormones and transgender Surgery, without either Younger's consent, or a court order.
In February, Georgulas filed a Request for Orders (RFO) seeking permission to begin “gender affirming care” on James, which she considers an emergency “medical necessity,” now that James has begun puberty. She claims that James, whom she calls “Luna,” has been formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria and that “her” treating physician had recommended putting him on hormone blockers to suppress natural puberty and cross-sex hormones.
In January, James was seen by a psychologist Bridgid Mariko Conn, PhD. According to Dr.
Conn’s Letter, James, then age 11, “is interested” in puberty blockers, estrogen and “bottom surgery,” a euphemism for a vaginoplasty, i.e. removing the testicles, splitting the penis, scraping out the erectile tissue, harvesting stomach lining, and surgically attempting to create a faux-vagina from what remains.
However, Younger’s team learned on June 29 that James does not have a treating physician
(unless it is secretly Georgulas, herself a pediatrician), and that it was social worker Danielle Hurwitz, LCSW (identifies "LGBTQIAS2+" whatever that means) who diagnosed the boy with “gender dysphoria” on April 23, 2024 through a “Gender Assessment” two months after Georgulas filed the RFO and only after Younger had served written discovery. In other words, Georgulas and Chazan should be held responsible for perjury and dishonesty to the Court.
According to Hurwitz, James says:
“I don’t really care about my penis. I'm able to pee. I know I'm going to get bottom surgery in the future, so I don't really care.”
James reportedly desires female body parts instead. Younger believes James has been psychologically coaxed into saying such things and that Georgulas and Hurwitz have convinced him that he can preserve his fertility via a “wedge resection” – the cutting open one or both of his testicles and harvesting sperm cells.
Twelve-year-old James, who is currently going through puberty, has also indicated that "Yes," he does “want children” of his own, according to Hurwitz's "Gender Assessment." It should be noted that an NIH-published study from 2019 found that Wedge Resections have never once successfully preserved a child’s fertility.
The Court’s violation of California's Civil Discovery Act
State law, specifically California's Civil Discovery Act, gives Younger the right to a complete, pre-trial discovery. Through his attorney, Tracy Henderson, Younger formally requested information, such as James’ medical records and the name of the supposed “treating physician.” According to Baker, however, Georgulas lodged frivolous legal objections to absolutely everything, and refused to even sign her responses under oath, which signature is required under the law.
Younger’s remedy for such stonewalling of discovery is to file what’s called a “Motion to Compel,” which his legal team did on June 28, 2024. The Court is authorized to compel Georgulas to produce the evidence necessary for a fair trial, and to impose monetary sanctions as punishment for having abused the discovery process. Georgulas’ lawyer Alana Chazan did not even bother to file any opposition papers.
On July 12, 2024, at a top-secret hearing, trial judge Mark Juhas denied Younger’s Motion to Compel. With trial set to begin on August 2, and with no witness depositions having taken place, Younger’s effort to obtain any semblance of a fair trial appears destroyed.
The authors have reviewed the Court documents on file in this case, as provided by Baker. In her original Memorandum and Declaration, Georgulas asked the Court to allow her to go forward with “gender-affirming care” without any sort of trial at all. Georgulas’ legal strategy is to characterize this case as simply a “modification” of “legal custody,” where puberty blockers, wrong-sex hormones and genital surgeries comprise the “standard of care,” and where Georgulas is entitled to make medical decisions for the child, answerable to nobody.
Younger filed Opposition Papers in mid-May, arguing that the matter must be set for a trial, as the best interest of the child cannot be determined without considering expert testimony regarding whether these medical interventions are shown to be safe and effective. Younger's legal team may have ruffled some feathers by using the title OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO MEDICALLY EXPERIMENT ON THE PARTIES’ 11-YEAR-OLD SON.
Georgulas Requests and Judge Kazadi Issues "Star Chamber Order"
On May 29, Georgulas brought an Ex Parte (emergency) Request for Orders to deem the case confidential and seal all past and future court records; close the hearings to the public and only admit parties, witnesses, counsel as needed; and to sanction Younger $7,600 for having allegedly violated a pending Gag Order that prohibits him from publicly discussing the entire issue of transgender medicine.
Although the sanction request was denied, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michele Kazadi did grant an Emergency Order that the case be deemed confidential and had the court records sealed and the hearings closed, admitting only those involved in the case as necessary. As a result of this move, the whole case was deleted from the public record. Younger’s and his attorney’s ability to access court documents was terminated, and the media also lost access to the case record.
Baker refers to this as a “Star Chamber Order,” likening what’s happening to Younger to the “tyrannical secret tribunals in medieval England which often are referred to by that name.” Judge Kazadi “simply signed the proposed Order form prepared by attorney Chazan, giving no indication of her legal authority, if any, for granting it,” he explained.
On May 30, 2024, according to the request in Younger’s Opposition papers, Kazadi also ordered that the hearing on Georgulas’ RFO be continued and deemed a long-cause trial matter. Parties were ordered back to court on June 5, 2024 for trial setting.
Independent Medical Exams Are Standard in Medical Cases, Right?
On June 2, Younger filed an Ex Parte Request to Compel an Independent Medical Exam (IME) in light of the medical claims Georgulas had advanced. IME are standard procedure in California medical cases. Kazadi denied the ex parte IME, stating that there were no “exigent circumstances,” even as Georgulas claims that James needs puberty blockers immediately, otherwise "irreparable harm" (i.e. normal puberty) is certain to result.
Since Kazadi had granted that the case be sealed and the public record deleted, Younger was unable to obtain a copy of the Court’s denial of the ex parte IME. Baker spoke with a court clerk named Christina Fuentes who informed him that the document had been mailed to attorney Tracy Henderson at the wrong address, that of her previous law office in Monterey, California, where she practiced many years ago. Yet her current address where the document should have been sent is listed on California Bar’s website and it is the same address that appears in the upper-left corner of all of the court papers that have been filed in this case.
Baker and Younger believe it is a shady tactic reminiscent of what was done to Ted Hudacko, a California dad in a similar battle as Younger. After multiple unexplainable and suspicious delays and continuances in his own case, he had to pay someone to obtain documents the court was legally bound to provide to him. Hudacko was also denied the opportunity to present expert testimony about the risks of puberty blockers.
An Already Decided Case?
When the parties were present for the trial setting conference before Judge Mark Juhas on June 5, it became clear to Younger that the fix was in from the start – that his chance at a fair trial is nearly non-existent.
Court transcripts show contentious exchanges between Henderson and Juhas and Georgulas’ attorney Chazan about the legality of gender-affirming care and whether or not Georgulas should have “tie-breaking authority” to make medical decisions as part of sole custody, and other to other issues from the Texas case.
Chazan claimed during this conference that “because the child is now actively in puberty, time has become of the essence, because Mother is seeking to start the child on puberty blockers, which needs to be done within a certain time window." Confirming that Georgulas was attempting to avoid any trial at all, Chazan stated that they "have concerns that this request for a long-cause trial is merely a means to delay.”
Henderson brought up the risks and effects of puberty-blocking drugs and insisted that proper procedure be followed so that discovery could be done and so she could depose witnesses. At various points in the exchange, Juhas interrupted her, insisting she had to slow down for the court reporter – something they believed was a stall tactic and revealed the appearance of bias.
“I didn't go to medical school. I’m not going to order medical care one way or the other."
– Judge Mark Juhas, June 5, 2024
But this deliberately misleads and falsely frames the issue, Baker maintains. Judges take scientific testimony in all kinds of different cases. The Judge in the case against Big Tobacco didn't go to medical school either, but she was able to rule that that the tobacco companies were guilty of lying to the American public about the deadly effects of cigarettes and secondhand smoke.
In the Younger matter, Georgulas already has sole legal custody, so it is disingenuous for Judge Juhas to allow the case to be framed that way. As Younger’s attorney Tracy Henderson was attempting to explain, the issue is whether to allow “gender affirming care,” i.e. whether to lift the No Hormones / No Surgery Injunction. But Judge Juhas cut her off, and stated in no uncertain terms that he is not going to order medical care “one way or the other.”
By saying that he is not going to order medical care, but only going to award legal custody, it allows the Court to skirt the issue. The Judge will only choose which parent is allowed to decide, enabling the custodial parent to make all medical decisions (as if the decision of whether to castrate James has not already been made, long ago).
The real issue is that the Court is being asked whether to lift the protective order that currently enjoins Georgulas from doing these “transgender” procedures on the child. How the issue is legally framed completely changes the legal standard.
When it comes to safeguarding James from irreversible medical harm and the legal weeds around it, nothing in the case has materially changed.
“Georgulas is trying to dissolve the protective order that was made in the best interest of the child,” Baker explains, “whether it was called a protective order or not.” California has a long-standing public policy that pleadings and orders are construed according to substance, not name. [1]
Lifting an injunction does have one thing in common with a modification to custody - both can be ordered on the basis of “changed circumstances.” According to Georgulas, the “change of circumstance” is that James is now in puberty – as if the onset of puberty was anything besides predictable. Left “untreated,” Georgulas and Hurwitz fear that James will get facial hair, have a deeper voice, and grow taller.
In Younger’s view, however, there is no “change of circumstance.” Georgulas wanted to transition James in 2021 when the protective order was issued and she persists in that desire today.
During the June 5 hearing before Judge Juhas, Chazan stated that Younger is asking Judge Juhas to decide whether “gender-affirming care” is legal, when that has never been asked.
What he did ask was that the Court take expert testimony, and then find that these procedures are harmful and ineffective, and therefore not in the child’s best interest and Juhas uphold the law, by acting in the child’s best interest.
Shouldn’t This be a Battle of the Experts?
In Younger’s view, the Court should decide “best interest of the child” only after considering expert testimony on whether “gender affirming care” is safe and effective. As Dr. James Cantor explained in the Boe v. Marshall federal case, “safe and effective” has a very specific meaning in a medico-legal context. It means that the proposed medical treatment has been proven beneficial at treating the condition, and that this benefit outweighs the known or suspected risk of harm.
As explained in the Expert Declaration and Report of Miriam Grossman, MD, April 2024 saw the publication of the 388-page Final Report of the Cass Review of England’s Gender Services for Children and Young People. Initiated 4 years ago, the report was accompanied by 9 studies (8 of which were systematic reviews of evidence) supporting its recommendations.
The preceding table was presented in the Cass Report. It summarizes the scores that various studies earned regarding the reliability of the methods, across six different aspects. The most important aspect is “applicability,” the second to last column. A score of greater than 70% is high quality evidence (color-coded green), from 31%-69% is poor quality evidence (color-coded yellow), and 30% or below is very poor-quality evidence (color-coded red).
Some quotations from the 2024 Cass Review Final Report:
• there continues to be a lack of high-quality evidence in [the area of transgender medicine]
• The evidence is weak and clinicians have told us they are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity. [¶ 10]
• The adoption of a treatment with uncertain benefits without further scrutiny is a significant departure from established practice. [¶ 23]
• The approach to treatment changed with the emergence of ‘the Dutch Protocol’ which involved the use of puberty blockers from early puberty. In 2011, the UK trialed the use of puberty blockers in the ‘early intervention study. [¶ 21]
• The results of the study were not formally published until 2020, at which time it showed there was a lack of any positive measurable outcomes. Despite this, from 2014 puberty blockers moved from a research-only protocol to being available in routine clinical practice. [¶ 22]
• The findings raise questions about the quality of currently available guidelines. Most guidelines have not followed the international standards for guideline development, and because of this the research team could only recommend two guidelines for practice - the Finnish guideline published in 2020 and the Swedish guideline published in 2022. [¶ 45]
• The World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare (WPATH) has been highly influential in directing international practice, although its guidelines were found by the University of York appraisal process to lack developmental rigour.
• Early versions of two international guidelines - the Endocrine Society 2009 and WPATH 7 - influenced nearly all the other guidelines, except for the recent Nordic guidelines. [¶ 48]
• Only two guidelines were recommended for practice by all three appraisers: the Swedish [citation] and Finnish [citation] guidelines [not WPATH and not Endocrine Society].
• The findings from this review, therefore, raise questions about the credibility of currently available guidance [e.g. WPATH and the Endocrine Society], despite the majority being published in the last 5 years. Most guidelines have not followed international standards for guideline development set out by the AGREE2 initiative,20 and/or provide insufficient information about their development.
(Cass, 2024) [2]
In addition to the psychologist Dr. Conn and social worker Ms. Hurwitz, Georgulas has retained the expert services of Johanna Olson-Kennedy, MD, ("JOK") the Medical Director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development. Located at Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles, Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s gender clinic is the nation’s largest.
To glimpse inside the mind of JOK, here are a few direct quotations taken from her 2019 Deposition in the Younger case:
Q: Can you explain to us the medical standard by which you would determine the medical necessity of surgical removal of healthy body parts?
Dr. Olson-Kennedy: I don't consider body parts that cause people extreme distress to be healthy body parts. I don't think it's healthy for people to feel unsafe in their bodies.
• • •
Q: If you remove the breasts from a young woman, she will never be able to lactate or to breastfeed an infant; is that correct?
Dr. Olson-Kennedy: Well, I, I don't advocate removal for breast tissue from young women. I advocate for chest reconstruction in young men.
Q: Well, haven't you referred girls to have the chest surgery from your clinic?
Dr. Olson-Kennedy: They're, they're, they're not girls. They're not girls. They don't identify as girls. So, I have referred people who identify as transmasculine or as boys or young men for surgery, yes.
• • •
Dr. Olson-Kennedy: I think that there are people who absolutely cannot function and move forward in their life until they have genital reconstruction surgeries. That's certainly not everyone with gender dysphoria but there are some people that that is true for.
Q: But that involves amputation of body parts; is that correct?
Dr. Olson-Kennedy: I suppose if you define the, the procedures that I just talked about with creating a neovagina and a neovulva, then, yes. They take the, the tissue that's inside of the skin of the penis and remove it.
Younger’s Pre-Trial Motions
All in all, Younger filed a total of five pre-trial motions in Los Angeles - including the Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion to Set Aside the Star Chamber Order mentioned before. Also important was Younger’s Motion for an award of attorney fees payable by Georgulas.
“When there is a great disparity in finances there is no discretion,” Baker continues. “California Family Code Section 2030 absolutely requires the Court to order the party with more money to help pay the litigation expenses of party with less.” In Baker’s expert opinion, Judge Juhas had no legal authority to deny Younger’s fee motion.
In the same way that the chemical castration and surgical mutilation of confused minors is now euphemistically referred to as “gender-affirming care” the same sleight of hand is happening in the courts, Baker reiterated. “By framing the issue as a mere change of custody, the Court bypasses the need to even consider scientific evidence or expert testimony” Baker laments.
Facts Fall on Deaf Ears
Younger’s expert Miriam Grossman, MD (psychiatrist and author of “Lost in Trans Nations”) filed a 30-page Declaration and Report, with numerous citations to scientific studies. At the June 5 trial setting conference, Younger’s attorney Tracy Henderson tried to bring Judge Juhas up to speed.
“What's at issue here is best interest of the child,” argued Henderson. “Is it in a 12-year-old boy's best interest to stop puberty, and create all of the things that go with that, like a micro-penis, like brain damage, like osteoporosis …”
But it was no use. Judge Juhas has already decided that the known and unknown long-term health consequences of puberty blockers, of opposite-sex hormones, and of vaginoplasty surgery are not questions he even needs to consider:
"I didn't go to medical school. At the end of the day I'm not going to order medical care one way or the other, I'm going to designate a sole legal custodian. I am not going to manage this child's medical care."
– Judge Mark Juhas, June 5, 2024
Baker publishes and records in defiance of rules
The California Rules of Court prohibit recording of court hearings without a judge’s permission. Baker doesn’t care. He tells REDACTED (and anyone who will listen) that he records hearings because “the people have a right to know what is going on in court, and that First Amendment right outweighs any other interest.”
“If these woke judges and trans-activist lawyers want to try to put me in jail because I’m recording them and exposing them – go ahead. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.”
- Alexander C. Baker, J.D., 07/22/2024
By adopting Georgulas' framing of the issue, he's asking the wrong questions, so he doesn't have to worry about answers. Judge Juhas appears to have already pre-judged the case and washed his hands of responsibility, before trial even begins. On July 24, 2024, Younger filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Juhas for creating the appearance of bias. Although disqualification of a sitting judge is rare, it does happen.
Younger Loses Attorney and Expert for Lack of Money
There is already fallout from Judge Juhas improperly (according to Baker) denying Younger's fee motion. In addition to everything described above, in a July 19, 2024 writing, Miriam Grossman, MD announced that she has now quit, and will not testify at trial, for two reasons:
• Younger can no longer afford an attorney; and
• Younger can no longer afford to pay Grossman.
While Judge Juhas did not explicitly say that he finds expert testimony and medical studies irrelevant, he might as well have. He said he didn't go to medical school, he's not going to decide these medical issues "one way or the other," and he's not going to manage the child's medical care. He's just going to award legal custody, and allow the custodial parent – already determined to be Anne Georgulas – to do whatever she wants.
Younger Fights On
Younger is advised that no part of the trial about to unfold is constitutional. Now forced to represent himself, Younger filed an Ex Parte Motion to Continue (postpone) the Trial, and to Re-Open Discovery.
On July 24, 2024, Judge Juhas' assistant Mary Arnold said in an email that the hearing on this Motion to Continue Trial will take place on July 26, 2024, in-person only. Judge Juhas announced on July 12, 2024 – before Baker revealed that he has been recording – that no more remote appearances would be allowed.
Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson Weigh In
The stakes in Georgulas v. Younger could not be higher. Like so many other children nowadays, 12-year-old James Younger has been told that he was born in the wrong body, and is going through the “wrong puberty.” He has been conditioned to want to block his normal human development with powerful drugs, and to want his testicles and penis amputated. “This kid could not possibly understand the consequences.” Baker wonders, “How would any rational person think he could?”
Younger vows to continue the legal fight to save his son. But given Anne Georgulas’ determination, and Judge Juhas saying he’s not going to decide “one way or the other,” absent a miracle, it seems little James Younger is destined to join the growing ranks of sterilized and mutilated youth, including the son of Elon Musk.
“My son Xavier is ‘dead,’ killed by the woke mind-virus,” said Elon Musk in a recent conversation with Jordan Peterson. “I lost my son. I was tricked. It wasn’t explained to me that puberty blockers are just sterilization drugs.” Musk's statement is appreciated, but puberty blockers aren't "just" sterilization drugs - they are that plus worse, as neuroscientist Sallie Baxendale PhD explains.
Now coming to terms with the profound and relentless dishonesty that defines the transgender movement, Musk warned, “I agree with you [Jordan Peterson] that the people promoting this should go to prison.”
Baker agrees with both Peterson and Musk. “Misrepresenting or concealing crucial information to obtain any kind of consent equals fraud,” Baker explains. “In the context of a medical procedure, it’s also the crime of battery.”
“Now,” opines Baker, “if criminals are operating an enterprise which engages in an ongoing pattern of crime, while making lots of money – that is RICO racketeering.”
“From a legal perspective,” Baker concludes, “I see little difference between the non-consensual sterilization of children taking place today in the name of ‘gender-affirming care’ versus the non-consensual sterilization experiments carried out by Nazi Doctors during WWII. Let us not forget: Those Nazi doctors were tried, convicted, and in some cases … executed.”
• • •
(Note: This investigative report was originally written by REDACTED for publication by REDACTED under the title "REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED" However, after Baker made extensive additions, corrections, citations and revisions, per REDACTED's requests, editors at REDACTED suddenly decided not to run the piece at all.)
[1] See Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790.)
[2] Dr. Hillary Cass, "Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people - Final Report" National Health Service, April 2024, ¶ 54, “Recommendation 2”
Comments