Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
14
15
16 CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al.,
17
Plaintiffs,
18
v.
19
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR
20 ASSOCIATION, et al.,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Coalition for Families and Children, PBC. I have personal knowledge of the facts
2 stated herein and if called to testify would competently testify as follows:
3 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and correct copies of cited portions of the
4
Judge outlines reasons for domestic violence increase by Ms. Elizabeth Marie
8 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are true and correct copies of forms and
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Orders);
17
18
19
Court Paper);
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true and correct copies of pages from internet
6
websites operated and containing information by and about San Diego County
public agencies including the Superior Courts, Family Law Facilitators Offices,
agencies such as the Legal Aid Society, Volunteer Lawyers Program, restraining
10
11 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit E are true and correct copies of pages from private or
12
13
Justice Center and entities such as domestic violence shelters, the YWCA, and
14
15 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit F are true and correct copies of pages from
16
cooperating public law enforcement entities such as the City of San Diego Police
17
18 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit G are true and correct copies of pages from the San
19
Diego City Attorneys Office Domestic Violence Unit and the County of San
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit H are true and correct copies of pages from
Defendants SDCBA, BIERER, and the law offices of Thomas Huguenor
3
3 9. Online videos detailing these forms and restraining orders are available at the
4
law/domestic-violence-restraining-orders/, and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtYrNHRdJ44, and
10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpkB6mX-_Nk.
11 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit I are true and correct copies of relevant portions of
12
13 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit J are true and correct copies of publications of
14
15
16
17 12. The term batter is associated with meanings in the Domestic Dispute Industry
18
that are distinct from the definition of the term battery in California Penal Code
19
section 243(e)(1). Attached hereto as Exhibit K are true and correct copies of
20
21
22
23 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true an-d correct copy of an article by Herma
24
25
291 (1987) discussing Californias pre-1970 fault divorce law and the post-no
26
27 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of a 1991 article by
28
Lynn D. Wardle entitled No-Fault Divorce and the Divorce Conundrum, 1991
BYU L. Rev.79 (1991) available at
4
http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1725&context=la
wreview.
3 15. I have personal knowledge of the policies, customs, and practices of several
4
by thirteen years practicing law and in litigating dozens of matters in state and
No. 90, paragraphs 946-977 describing The Pita tool empowered in part by
12
the Domestic Violence Restraining Orders this Motion seeks to enjoin. The Pit is
13
one pillar for the extortion, fraud, and abuse of process exploited by the Domestic
14
15
16 17. To illustrate how domestic violence restraining orders are exploited by the
17
DDICE as part of The Pit to defraud and extort Domestic Dispute Industry
18
Litigants, I attach hereto as Exhibit N a true and correct copy of a 1999 article
19
written by Leonard Karp and published in The Journal of the American Academy
20
23
24
25
26
27
http://www.aaml.org/divorce-lawyer-san-diego-california-sharon-blanchet.
Almost every divorce case carries with it some form of domestic tort, and thus,
the filing of such a claim must be considered in all divorce cases. When a
violent behavior towards each other, and many times towards their children.
Thus, the filing of the tort usually, as in any other tort case, is weighted by
10
alone. Damages may be sought from third parties who may share in the
11
12
13
In other cases, when the damages are not as significant, or when a "deep
14
pocket" defendant cannot be found, the threat of a domestic tort, along with a
15
well prepared strategy to proceed, can be a bargaining chip for a larger share of
16
17
table.
18
19
20
imagination. As a starting point, common legal theories that have been used as
21
22
23
24
emotional distress, wrongful death, assault and battery, and implied cause of
25
action for the violation of a criminal statute, including sexual assault. Thus, the
26
causes of action available, coupled with the lesser burden of proof in a civil
27
case for a victim, plus the absence of the constitutionally protected rights of the
28
1
2 Leonard Karp, Federal Law and Domestic Violence: The Legacy of the Violence
3 Against Women Act 16 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
4 174 (1999) available at
5 http://aaml.org/sites/default/files/federal%20law%20and%20domestic%20violence6 16-1.pdf. (Ex. N hereto).
7 20. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers thus conveys the logic of
8
10
11
12
13
Family Court.
14 21. Mr. Karp counsels that this absence of constitutional and procedural protections
15
16
17
18
19
the pool of recovery to include not only the community property over which the
20
dissolution court has jurisdiction, but also a spouses separate property assets.
21 22. Mr. Karps article counsels, commands, induces or procures (18 U.S.C. 2)
22
23
criminal statute against not only the other party to the dissolution proceedings,
24
but also to pursue other deep pockets such as the dissolving couples
25
26
spouses relatives to leverage a bargaining chip for a larger share of the marital
27
28 23. Mr. Karps counsel to use the threat of an implied cause of action for the
violation of a criminal statute is quite ingenious. Its also quite illegal.
7
(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the
violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
9
10
11
(1) The term robbery means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal
12
property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by
13
14
15
16
17
18
(2) The term extortion means the obtaining of property from another, with
19
20
21
22 Cal. Pen.C. 518 provides:
23
24
Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the
25
26
27
28 Cal. Pen.C. 519 provides:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 25. This obscene exploitation of The Pit counseled, commanded, induced and
11
12
13
14 26. For example, counsel for Defendant Dr. Stephen Doyne, Mr. Christopher Zopatti,
15
has deployed such a perpetration before this Court at Doc. No. 67-1, pp. 16-17.
16
Mr. Zopatti argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs
17
federal law claims because the parties or events have a relationship to prior
18
19 27. This proposition is clearly false. This matter is brought under the constitution and
20
laws of the United States, and no Plaintiff asserts state domestic law. To the
21
extent that any Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of state policies, practices,
22
regulations, or laws under Title 42 of the United States Code, such matters are
23
expressly within the public health and welfare jurisdiction of United States courts
24
25 28. In Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 693 (1992) the United States Supreme
26
Court defined the Domestic Relations Exception to exist only within federal
27
28
question jurisdiction has been recently confirmed in a case originating out of our
neighboring Central District of California, Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293,
9
Exhibit O is a true and correct copy an article by Emily J. Sack entitled The
5 29. Dr. Doynes attempt to deceive this Court is foolishly ambitious, yet not entirely
6
surprising given the success with which he has been able to deceive or collude
with state courts to perpetrate the deception on family court litigants. Unlike the
Court and at least some present counsel, the citizens who entrust their familys
welfare to Dr. Doyne and thousands of his ilk are rarely so sophisticated. Indeed,
10
when aware litigants assert federal rights in state family court procedure, the
11
Domestic Dispute Industry has been less than welcoming. See, e.g., STUART
12
13
14
Complaint.
15 30. Yet thousands of county superior court judges throughout the state of California
16
oversee perpetration of the fraud daily in their courtrooms, and even extend the
17
18
19
Exhibit T
20 31. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of the Report of United
21
22
23 32. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of the transcript of oral
24
argument before the United States Supreme Court in the proceedings for the
25
26
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_608.
27 33. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of the transcript of oral
28
argument before the United States Supreme Court in the proceedings for the
10
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1371.
3 34. Notwithstanding the abundant attention devoted to the issue of domestic violence,
4
publication entitled The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project. This article
states Over the years, research on partner abuse has become unnecessarily
9 35. It is my professional opinion as a lawyer of fifteen years, father, and family court
10
reform advocate that much of this confusion and fragmentation has been caused
11
12
13
14
violence and the like for inappropriate ends. Such laws enable not merely
15
confusion, but coercion, fraud, and extortion of domestic dispute industry litigants
16
en masse, leading to the racketeering, civil rights abuse, obstruction of justice and
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
issued in about May, 2010 by un-named judicial official Edward Allard, which is
7
8
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
By: /s/
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
3
4 The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
5 consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the
6 court's CM-ECF system per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b )(2)(E). Any other
7 counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail this
8 26th day of February, 2014.
9
10
11
12
13
By: /s/
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1STUART DEC. ISO MTN FOR PRELIM INJ
3:13-cv-1944 CAB BLM
Exhibit A
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM
Cal. Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Ass'n
13 cv 1944 CAB BLM