Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 22

1

RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


Marriage of
Sacr ament o C se No.
Declaration of and Exhibits i ion to
Petitioners Ma , Motion for Seven Orders.


I , decl ar e as f ol l ows:
1. I amt he r espondent i n t he above- r ef er enced mat t er , and t he
r espondi ng par t y t o pet i t i oner r equest f or seven
assor t ed or der s. I have per sonal knowl edge of t he f act s set f or t h
her ei n. I f cal l ed as a wi t ness i n t hi s mat t er , I coul d t est i f y
compet ent l y t o t he f act s st at ed bel ow.
2. Fi l ed concur r ent l y wi t h t hi s decl ar at i on i s a suppor t i ng
memor andumand a r equest f or j udi ci al not i ce. My r esponse t o
Pet i t i oner s mot i on, i ncl udi ng t he memor andumand r equest f or
j udi ci al not i ce ar e based on t he aut hor i t y, f or ms and i nst r uct i ons i n
t he California Practice Guide ser i es publ i shed by The Rut t er Gr oup,
i ncl udi ng Family Law ( Hogoboom& Ki ng) , Civil Procedure Before Trial
( Wei l & Br own) , Civil Trials and Evidence ( Wegner et al. ) and
Professional Responsibility ( Vapnek et al. ) .
3. Pet i t i oner s at t or ney has wor ked as a f ami l y l aw par al egal
or at t or ney si nce 1992. I at t ach her et o as Exhi bi t A, as f oundat i on
f or my st at ement , a t r ue and cor r ect copy of a page f r omt he
J anuar y/ Febr uar y 2007 i ssue of Sacramento Lawyer magazi ne cont ai ni ng
t he curriculum vitae of Pet i t i oner s at t or ney, Paul a D. Sal i nger .
4. Pet i t i oner s at t or ney was appoi nt ed as a t empor ar y j udge i n
Apr i l , 2011. To become a j udge pr o t em, t he at t or ney r equest ed and



3
RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

st at ut es. Al t er nat i vel y, Pet i t i oner s mot i on shoul d be di smi ssed
unt i l i t compl i es wi t h t he cour t r ul es and st at ut es ci t ed her ei n, and
i n t he suppor t i ng memor andum.
9. To ef f ect i vel y r espond t o Pet i t i oner s mot i on, t o pr eser ve
my r i ght s of t r i al and appel l at e cour t r evi ew of t he adj udi cat i on of
Pet i t i oner s mot i on, and t o pr ovi de t he basi s f or my sanct i ons
r equest , I must f i l e wi t h my r esponse wr i t t en evi dent i ar y obj ect i ons
under Code of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 436 and 431. 10.
10. By l aw, my wr i t t en evi dent i ar y obj ect i ons must ci t e t o t he
l i ne number i n Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on cont ai ni ng t he mat er i al
obj ect ed t o. Cal . Rul es of Cour t Rul e 3. 1354( b) ( 2) r equi r es f or each
obj ect i on r ef er ence t o t he l i ne number of t he mat er i al obj ect ed t o.
Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on was f i l ed by her at t or ney wi t hout l i ne
number s i n vi ol at i on of Cal . Rul es of Cour t Rul e 2. 108( 4) .
11. Wi t hout l i ne number s I cannot compl y wi t h Rul e 3. 1354( b) ( 2)
and cannot ef f ect i vel y i dent i f y f or t he Cour t t he obj ect i onabl e
mat er i al i n Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on.
12. I f and when t he decl ar at i on compl i es wi t h Rul e 2. 108( 4) , I
wi l l make l i ne- by- l i ne evi dent i ar y obj ect i ons under t he appl i cabl e
Evi dence Code sect i ons i ncl udi ng 210, 350 ( r el evancy) , 352
( pr ej udi ci al , conf usi ng i ssues, t i me- wast i ng) , 403 ( f oundat i on) ,
702 ( per sonal knowl edge) , 801, 803 ( opi ni on) , 1200 ( hear say) and
especi al l y 780 ( cr edi bi l i t y, t r ut hf ul ness) .



4
RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13. Under Fami l y Code 2335 I al so wi l l obj ect gener al l y and
t o speci f i c por t i ons of t he decl ar at i on t hat cont ai n f aul t evi dence
i n vi ol at i on of 2335.
14. Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on does not compl y wi t h Cal . Rul es of
Cour t Rul es 2. 108( 4) [ l i ne number s i n l ef t mar gi n] ; 2. 108( 1) [ l i nes
must be one and one hal f or doubl e- spaced] ; and 2. 110 [ bot t ommar gi n
f oot er ] . The decl ar at i on al so vi ol at es Local Rul e 3. 02 [ f ai l ur e t o
compl y wi t h Cal . Rul es of Cour t ] .
15. I al so cannot f i l e an ef f ect i ve and l awf ul suppor t i ng
memor andumunt i l Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on compl i es wi t h Cal . Rul es of
Cour t Rul e 2. 108( 4) . My memor andumwi l l r ef er ence speci f i c por t i ons
of Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on. Cal . Rul es of Cour t Rul e 3. 1113( k)
r equi r es such r ef er ences t o speci f y t he par agr aph or l i ne number i n
t he decl ar at i on.
16. Pet i t i oner s memor andumcont ai ns non- speci f i c, gener i c
r ef er ences t o pr i or pr oceedi ngs and evi dence, and no ci t at i ons t o t he
r ecor d or t o Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on i n vi ol at i on of Cal . Rul es of
Cour t , Rul e 3. 1113( b) [ memor andummust cont ai n st at ement of f act s and
conci se st at ement of t he evi dence r el i ed on] . The memor andumappear s
t o mi sst at e t he r ecor d and t o r el y on f al se, mi sl eadi ng or omi t t ed
mat er i al f act s. I cannot ef f ect i vel y r espond t o, r ebut or i mpeach t he
r ef er ences r ef er r ed t o i n Pet i t i oner s memor andumunt i l i t compl i es
wi t h Rul e 3. 113( b) .



5
RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

17. Pet i t i oner s suppor t i ng memor andumal so does not compl y
wi t h Cal . Rul es of Cour t Rul e 3. 1113( k) [ r ef er ences t o suppor t i ng
decl ar at i ons must r ef er ence page, par agr aph and l i ne number ] . The
memor andumappear s t o r ef er ence Pet i t i oner s decl ar at i on and exhi bi t
but does not pr ovi de t he i nf or mat i on r equi r ed by Rul e 3. 1113( k) .
18. As set f or t h i n my suppor t i ng memor andum, al l of
Pet i t i oner s pr i or pl eadi ngs t wo mot i ons and f i ve r esponsi ve
decl ar at i ons have had si gni f i cant and subst ant i ve er r or s whi ch
appear on t he f ace of t he pl eadi ngs. Each of t he f i l i ngs has vi ol at ed
st at e and l ocal cour t r ul es and st at ut or y l aw. The vi ol at i ons ar e
si gni f i cant , r el evant and not t r i vi al .
19. Al l of Pet i t i oner s pr evi ous decl ar at i ons and poi nt s and
aut hor i t i es have cont ai ned f al se, i mmat er i al or i r r el evant mat er i al
f act s, pr ohi bi t ed f aul t evi dence, and omi t t ed mat er i al f act s, as
f ur t her set f or t h i n t he at t ached suppor t i ng memor andum.
20. The f act s and ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng Pet i t i oner s
def ect i ve f i l i ngs suggest t hat t he er r or s ar e del i ber at e and
cal cul at ed t o gai n a l i t i gat i on advant age. The er r or s consi st ent l y
wor k t o Pet i t i oner s advant age and my di sadvant age. Based on t he
t r ai ni ng and exper i ence of Pet i t i oner s at t or ney, i t i s i mpr obabl e
t hat t he er r or s ar e i nadver t ent .
21. I t woul d be f ut i l e f or me t o ask Pet i t i oner s at t or ney t o
conf or mt he mot i on, decl ar at i on, and memor andumt o Cal . Rul es of
Cour t . The at t or ney has deni ed al l past si mi l ar r equest s.



6
RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

22. For exampl e, i n Oct ober and November 2010 t o t he at t or ney I
r equest ed t hat t he or der s pr epar ed af t er t he Oct . 27, 2010 hear i ng be
accur at e. On Oct ober 29, 2010, i n an emai l t he at t or ney conf i r med t he
mi nut e or der s i ssued by t he cour t wer e i ncompl et e. Accur at e or der s
wer e cr i t i cal t o pr ot ect t he r i ght s of bot h par t i es because t her e was
not a cour t r epor t er at t he hear i ng. The mi nut e or der s di d not
memor i al i ze t hat t he Cour t had deni ed t he at t or neys r equest t hat a
sanct i ons assessment agai nst me be assessed agai nst my shar e of
communi t y pr oper t y. The cour t deni ed t he r equest and or der ed t hat t he
sanct i on assessment be pai d i n mont hl y i nst al l ment s. The change was
r el evant and mat er i al because - knowi ng t hat I was i ndi gent and
wi t hout f unds t o make t he f i r st payment - t he Cour t appear ed t o
i nt ent i onal l y st r uct ur e t he due dat e of t he f i r st payment t o coi nci de
wi t h t he f i r st set t l ement conf er ence. The change l ogi cal l y i nf er r ed
an i nt ent t o use economi c coer ci on t o compel me t o accept what ever
set t l ement t er ms wer e of f er ed by Pet i t i oner or f ace t he t hr eat of an
enf or cement act i on, and pot ent i al addi t i onal penal t i es af t er mi ssi ng
t he f i r st payment . At t ached her et o as Exhi bi t C i s a t r ue and cor r ect
copy of t he Oct . 29, 2010 cor r espondence I r ecei ved f r omt he
at t or ney.
23. Af t er i n wr i t i ng conf i r mi ng t hat her sanct i on payment
r equest had been deni ed by t he cour t , i n a Nov. 18, 2010 l et t er t he
at t or ney nonet hel ess r ef used t o i ncl ude t he deni al i n t he or der af t er
hear i ng. I n t he l et t er , t he at t or ney f al sel y st at ed t hat her pr oposed



7
RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

or der af t er hear i ng accur at el y r ef l ect s t he cour t s or der s.
At t ached her et o as Exhi bi t D i s a t r ue and cor r ect copy of t he Nov.
18 l et t er .
24. Al so at t he Oct . 27, 2010 hear i ng wher e no cour t r epor t er
was pr esent , t he Cour t sua spont e i ssued const r uct i ve r ul i ngs on f our
mat t er s i n whi ch I was t he movi ng par t y but whi ch wer e cal endar ed f or
t he f ol l owi ng mont h. The r ul i ngs wer e i r r egul ar i n t hat t he mat t er s
wer e not on t he cal endar f or Oct . 27, and Pet i t i oner had yet t o f i l e
r esponsi ve pl eadi ngs i n any of t he pendi ng mat t er s. The Cour t di d not
r ecor d t he r ul i ngs i n ei t her of t he t wo mi nut e or der s i ssued on Oct .
27. Pet i t i oner s at t or ney conf i r med t he r ul i ngs wer e made i n
cor r espondence t o me t he next day. The cor r espondence i ncl uded a
demand based on t he sua spont e r ul i ngs - t hat I dr op al l pendi ng
mat t er s or she woul d f i l e r esponsi ve decl ar at i ons r equest i ng
sanct i ons i n each of t he f our pr oceedi ngs. At t ached her et o as Exhi bi t
E i s a t r ue and cor r ect copy of t he Oct . 28, 2010 l et t er I r ecei ved
f r omt he at t or ney.
25. The at t or ney al so memor i al i zed excer pt s of t he Oct . 27 sua
spont e or der s i n f our r esponsi ve decl ar at i ons - each wi t h a r equest
f or sanct i ons - whi ch she f i l ed on Oct ober 29, 2010.
26. Despi t e conf i r mi ng t hat t he sua spont e r ul i ngs wer e i ssued
i n bot h her Oct . 28 l et t er , and i n t he f our Oct . 29 r esponsi ve
decl ar at i ons, t he at t or ney r ef used my r equest t hat t he or der af t er
hear i ng accur at el y memor i al i ze t he r ul i ngs. The sua spont e r ul i ngs



8
RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

wer e mat er i al and r el evant i n t hat , among ot her t hi ngs, t hey
r ef l ect ed j udi ci al bi as, pr ej udgment , advocacy, ot her vi ol at i ons of
t he Code of J udi ci al Et hi cs, and l i kel y const i t ut i onal - l evel er r or by
t he Cour t . The at t or neys r ef usal t o memor i al i ze i n t he t r i al cour t
r ecor d t he sua spont e r ul i ngs conveyed t he appear ance t hat she was
act i ng i n concer t wi t h t he Cour t t o conceal t he r ul i ngs.
27. I n J anuar y, 2011 t he at t or ney not i f i ed me t hat Pet i t i oner
i nt ended t o move what t he at t or ney char act er i zed as my per sonal
bel ongi ngs f r omt he mar i t al r esi dence t o a st or age uni t . On J an. 7,
2011 i n wr i t i ng I not i f i ed t he at t or ney t hat I di d not consent t o t he
pr oper t y bei ng moved. A t r ue and cor r ect copy of my l et t er i s
at t ached her et o as Exhi bi t F. As r ef l ect ed on t he exhi bi t , t he
at t or ney r ecei ved a copy of t hi s cor r espondence vi a f acsi mi l e
t r ansmi ssi on on J an. 7, 2011.
28. At t ached her et o as Exhi bi t s G, H, I , J , & K ar e t r ue and
cor r ect copi es of a ser i es of l et t er s f r omFebr uar y, Mar ch and Apr i l ,
2011 r ef l ect i ng my r epeat ed obj ect i ons t o Pet i t i oner s unaut hor i zed
t r ansf er of pr oper t y t o a st or age uni t . As t he l et t er s r ef l ect , i t
was ul t i mat el y r eveal ed t hat t he pr oper t y t r ansf er r ed t o st or age was
i n f act not my per sonal bel ongi ngs. The t r ansf er r ed pr oper t y
consi st ed of what Pet i t i oner uni l at er al l y deci ded woul d be my shar e
of communi t y pr oper t y. The at t or ney r ecei ved copi es of my l et t er s vi a
f acsi mi l e on t he dat es r ecor ded on each of my l et t er s.



9
RESPONSIVE DECLARATION OF S IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012 MOTION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

29. Mor e r ecent l y, on Febr uar y 8, 2012, I wr ot e t o t he at t or ney
t o ver i f y i f Respondent was st i l l r ef usi ng t o pr ovi de me wi t h copi es
of t he househol d f i nanci al r ecor ds she cont r ol l ed and whi ch I r equi r e
t o compl et e my decl ar at i ons of di scl osur e. I n t he l et t er , I al so
asked t he at t or ney about ot her mat t er s, i ncl udi ng i f she expect ed t o
cont i nue her pol i cy of r equest i ng sanct i ons i n al l r esponsi ve
pl eadi ngs. A t r ue and cor r ect copy of my l et t er i s at t ached her et o as
Exhi bi t L. As r ef l ect ed on t he exhi bi t , t he at t or ney r ecei ved t he
l et t er vi a f acsi mi l e on Feb. 8, 2012.
30. I n a r esponse dat ed Feb. 9, 2012, t he at t or ney wr ot e t hat I
woul d have t o make a f or mal di scover y r equest f or t he f i nanci al
r ecor ds, and t hat she woul d cont i nue t o r equest sanct i ons i n
r esponsi ve pl eadi ngs when appr opr i at e. She pr ovi ded si mi l ar ,
adver sar i al and non- cooper at i ve r esponses t o my ot her i nqui r i es. A
t r ue and cor r ect copy of t he at t or ney s l et t er i s at t ached her et o as
Exhi bi t M.
31. I n l i ght of t he at t or neys past and r ecent uncooper at i ve and
adver sar i al conduct set f or t h above, i t i s r easonabl e f or me t o
assume, and I do assume, t hat any r equest by me t o have her cor r ect
t he def ect i ve Mar ch 28, 2012 mot i on woul d be f ut i l e.
32. Thi s decl ar at i on and r esponse t o Pet i t i oner s Mar ch 28,
2012 mot i on was f i l ed at t he ear l i est pr act i cabl e t i me. As I have
done wi t h al l past f i l i ngs, I emai l ed t hi s r esponsi ve pl eadi ng t o
Pet i t i oner s at t or ney ahead of f or mal ser vi ce by pr i or i t y U. S. Mai l

- 2 -
RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012
MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

a veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem. (Declaration of in
Opposition to Petitioners March 28, 2012 Motion for Seven Orders (
Dec.), 3, 4 and Exhs. A, B (filed herewith).)
Respondent is indigent and involuntarily pro per because Petitioner is the
managing spouse, controls all community assets and income, and refuses to
release community funds to enable Respondent to retain counsel. (See RJN #6 p.
11 29; RJN #1 p. 8 27; RJN #2 p. 1 1; RJN #7 Exh. L.) Petitioner also refuses
to provide Respondent with copies of household financial records she controls and
that he requires to complete his declarations of disclosure. (See, e.g.,
Dec. 29, 30 and Exhs. L, M.) The record reflects that, since before the case was
filed in May 2010, Petitioner has carried out a scheme to misappropriate
community assets and dispossess Respondent of his property and possessory
rights. (See, e.g., Dec. 27-30 and Exhs. F-M.)
In the present proceeding, Petitioner seeks harsh and significant evidentiary
and monetary sanctions, and other relief. Petitioner also effectively requests the
Courts ex post facto acquiescence to her January 2011 unilateral division and
transfer of community property - her third and fourth unpunished violations of the
automatic temporary restraining orders since the case began. (See RJN #1) On its
face, Petitioners pleading is void. It does not comply with state and local rules of
court and other procedural statutes. The errors are substantive, non-trivial, and
unreasonably obstruct Respondents ability to respond to the motion.
It also is reasonable to infer that the errors are deliberate. The court rule and
statute violations work to Petitioners advantage and disadvantage Respondent.

- 3 -
RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012
MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The pleading was drafted by a veteran family law attorney and judge pro tem. ( .
Dec. 3, 4 and Exhs. A, B.) The attorney has made virtually identical
errors in all prior court filings. The errors are calculated to gain a litigation
advantage by, inter alia, precluding Respondents ability to rebut, impeach or
challenge inadmissible evidence under Code of Civil Procedure 436 and 431.10,
and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1354(b)(2)(written objections must state line
number of material objected to).
As set forth below, the strategy sets a trap where Respondent cannot lawfully
make written evidentiary objections - and the objections are therefore waived, and
the inadmissible evidence admitted. By law, under Code of Civil Procedure
437c(b)(5) and 437c(d) objections not made are waived. (See also Weil & Brown,
Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG-2011) 10:210 [failure to make
evidentiary objections waives right to challenge ruling based on inadmissible
evidence].)
Taken together with Petitioners prior defective court submissions, the
motion constitutes repeated and deliberate violations of court rules and is
therefore sanctionable conduct under Code of Civil Procedure 583.150 and
575.1. For the reasons set forth herein, Respondent respectfully requests that the
motion be dismissed with prejudice, denied or stricken as a sanction for
Petitioners serial violations of court rules and statutory pleading requirements.
Alternatively, the motion should be dismissed, denied or stricken until it complies
with the law.


- 4 -
RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012
MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

II. PETITIONERS CURRENT AND PRIOR VIOLATIONS OF COURT RULES
STATUTES, and DECISIONAL LAW

A. Violations of Court Rules and Family Code 2335
1. Court Rule and Family Code Violations in the Present Proceeding
Petitioners pending motion for seven orders relies in large part on her six-
page declaration. The declaration was filed without line numbers in the left margin
in violation of Cal. Rules of Court (CRC) Rule 2.108(4) , is single-spaced in violation
of CRC Rule 2.108(1) and does not contain a footer, violating Rule 2.110. The
violations constitute a violation of Local Rule 3.02 [failure to comply with CRC].
The two declarations included with Petitioners motion contain false,
immaterial, or irrelevant material facts, and omit important material facts. ( .
Dec., 5.) The false, immaterial, irrelevant and omitted material facts are
dispositive to the orders requested by Petitioner. (Id. 6.) Removal of the
improper, inadmissible material and inclusion of the omitted material will render
both declarations insufficient to support the relief requested in the motion. (Id.).
The declaration submitted by Petitioner also contains fabricated, or
otherwise inadmissible misconduct, or fault evidence. (Id., 7.) Subject to
statutorily proscribed exceptions, the use of fault evidence is prohibited by Family
Code 2335. The impropriety and consequences of attempting to use fault
evidence is emphasized throughout the leading family law treatise. (See Hogoboom
& King, Cal. Prac. Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2011) 2:34, 3:239-40;
6:823; 13:90; 13:121; 14:265.1.) Any attempt to sneak in fault evidence in
violation of 2335 is likely to result in strong reprimand and may even draw
monetary sanctions (Fam. C. 271). (Id., at 13:122, emphasis in original). The

- 5 -
RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012
MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

fault evidence recited by Petitioner does not fall within the statutorily proscribed
exceptions, which arise in domestic violence, child custody and specified support
matters. Family Code 3011(b)&(d), 3041, 4320(i),(m), 4325 and 6300. (See also
Hogoboom & King, 6:823.1-824.6; 11:195).
If the Court does not strike the motion with prejudice, to effectively respond
to Petitioners motion, to preserve his rights of trial and appellate review, and to
provide the basis for a sanctions request based on the use of prohibited fault
evidence and other grounds, Respondent will concurrently file with his response
written evidentiary objections under Code of Civil Procedure 436 and 431.10.
Dec., 9, 12.) In addition to general and specific Family Code fault
evidence objections, Respondent will make written Evidence Code-based
objections. (Id.). Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1354(b)(2) requires for each objection
reference to the line number of the objectionable material. (See also Weil & Brown,
Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG-2011) 9:102.5 [reference to page and
line number required for evidentiary objections].) It is self-evident that until
Petitioners declaration is drafted in compliance with CRC Rule 2.108(4),
Respondent cannot make lawful and effective evidentiary objections.
In responding to Petitioners motion, Respondent also cannot file a
supporting memorandum which complies with Cal. Rules of Court until
Petitioners declaration complies with Cal. Rules of Court Rule 2.108(4).
Respondents memorandum will reference specific portions of Petitioners
declaration. ( . Dec., 15.) Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(k) requires
such references to specify the paragraph or line number in the declaration.

- 6 -
RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012
MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In addition, the points and authorities filed with Petitioners motion do not
comply with Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(b) [memorandum must contain
statement of facts and concise statement of the evidence relied on]. The
memorandum appears to misstate the record and to rely on false, misleading or
omitted material facts, and makes no specific, identifiable references to the record.
Respondent cannot effectively respond to, and rebut or impeach the references
referred to in Petitioners memorandum until it complies with Rule 3.113(b) .
Petitioners memorandum also violates Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.113(k)
[reference to supporting declarations must reference page, paragraph and line
number]. The memorandum appears to reference Petitioners declaration and
exhibit, but does not provide the information required by Rule 3.1113(k).
2. Court Rule and Family Code Violations in Prior Proceedings
a. The Defective September 2010 Motion to Compel
On September 24, 2010 Petitioner filed a motion to compel which relied on a
declaration with the same defects and violations of Cal. Rules of Court and the
Family Code as the current declaration. (See RJN #3, Dec. of p. 1-2.)
The motion to compel requested attorney fee sanctions. Petitioner did not file
an income and expense declaration as required by CRC Rules 5.118(b) and
5.128(b), and Local Rule 14.11(9).
1
(RJN #3.) The circumstances - including the
training, experience and related conduct by Petitioners attorney - logically infer

1
The only arguable exception to the mandatory income and expense declaration requirement is where
the declaration is already on file with the court from prior proceedings. See Burkle v. Burkle (2006)
144 Cal.App.4
th
387; Marriage of Corona (2009) 172 Cal.App.4
th
1205, 1227 [failure to file income
and expense declaration excused where court had several years of income and expense declarations

- 7 -
RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012
MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

that the income and expense declaration omission was deliberate and calculated to
gain a litigation advantage by, inter alia, concealing from the Court the stark
economic disparity between the parties.
b. The October 2010 Defective Responsive Declaration
On October 14, 2010 Petitioner filed a responsive declaration with the same defects
and violations of court rules and the Family Code as the current declaration. (RJN
#4 Dec. of pp. 1-5.) The Family Code 2335 fault evidence
violations were particularly egregious in the Oct. 14 responsive declaration, and
Respondent attempted written evidentiary objections to the declaration. (RJN #5.)
The Court failed or refused to rule on the objections.
Taken together with Petitioners declaration in the current matter, where,
among other improbable claims, Petitioner claims to have discovered items which
are used to create explosivesamong Respondents personal property, the
content of the declarations show by Petitioner an unusual preoccupation with
bringing misconduct evidence before the court. The preoccupation should call
Petitioners credibility into question. (See, generally, Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac.
Guide: Family Law (TRG 2011) 7:296.15 and 7:493 [in child custody context,
court may question credibility of party with general recalcitrance and
preoccupation to submit irrelevant fault evidence].)
B. Violations of Decisional Law
1. The Present Proceedings

prior to hearing at issue]. Until the present proceeding, Petitioner did not have an income and expense
declaration on file with the court.

- 8 -
RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012
MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Petitioners motion includes a request for $7,290 in attorney fee sanctions
and costs. The attorney fees accounting submitted by Petitioners trial court
attorney is unsworn. An unsworn attorney fee request is invalid. In re Marriage of
Duris and Urbany (2011) 193 Cal.App.4
th
510, 515; In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4
th

396, 413-414, fn. 11. [It is axiomatic that the unsworn statements of counsel are
not evidence].
2. Prior Proceedings
a. The September 2010 Defective Motion to Compel
On September 24, 2010 Petitioner filed a motion to compel which included a
request for attorney fee sanctions which was unsworn (RJN #3.), and did not
include an income and expense declaration.
b. The Four October 2010 Defective Responsive Declarations
On Oct. 29, 2010 Petitioner filed four responsive declarations. Each
declaration requested attorney fee sanctions. None of the declarations included an
accounting of the attorney fees requested. None of the declarations included a
sworn accounting of the attorney fees requested (RJN #9, 10, 11, 12.), nor an
income and expense declaration.
III. PETITIONERS REPEATED AND DELIBERATE VIOLATIONS OF COURT
RULES, STATUTES AND DECISIONAL LAW WARRANT SANCTIONS OR
OTHER RELIEF

Petitioners violation of court rules and statutory law are significant, relevant
and not trivial. Petitioners history of consistent, repeated violations strongly infers
that the violations are deliberate and calculated to gain a litigation advantage. The

- 9 -
RESPONDENTS SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MARCH 28, 2012
MOTION FOR SEVEN ORDERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

natural and expected consequence of the violations includes impeding and
obstructing Respondents due process and appeal rights.
Code of Civil Procedure, section 583.150 permits the court to dismiss an
action or impose other sanctions under local rules adopted by the court pursuant
to Section 575.1 or by the Judicial Council pursuant to statute, or otherwise under
the inherent authority of the court. Code of Civil Procedure, section 575.1 provides
for the presiding judge of each superior court to promulgate local rules designed to
expedite and facilitate the business of the court. Sacramento County Superior
Court Local Rule 3.02 states:
Failure to comply with any Local Rule or California Rules of Court may
subject the party to sanctions pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule
2.30; Code of Civil Procedure sections 177.5, 575.2.

Petitioners clear violations of Cal. Rules of Court violate Local Rule 3.02. Rule 3.02
and Code of Civil Procedure 575.2 authorize the court to strike out all or part of
any pleading, or dismiss an action or proceeding or any part thereof for non-
compliance with local rules. CCP 583.150 permits a court to dismiss an action or
impose other sanctions for local and state court rule violations under the inherent
power of the court. CCP 436(b) permits a court to - at any time in its discretion
and upon terms it deems proper strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn
or filed in conformity with the laws of the state or a court rule. (See Weil & Brown,
Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG-2011) 9:1275-1282; 11:280.7a-
11:280.10a.) Violation or disregard of local rules is ground by itself for denial of a
motion. (Id. 9.9.1.)