Allison v. Shabazz Et Al. Case No. CV 14-04813 JSW

Case4:14-cv-04813-JSW Document49 Filed07/13/15 Page1 of 54
1 PATRICIA J. BARRY (SBN 59116)

634 S. Spring St., Ste 823
2 Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 995-0734
3 Facsimile: (213) 995-0735
pbarrylegal@gmail.com
4 Attorney for Plaintiff SHELLEY ALLISON, on behalf of herself
and as guardian ad litem on behalf of her two minor daughters, A.A. and S.A.
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SHELLEY ALLISON, on behalf of herself and ) Case No. CV 14-04813 JSW
as guardian ad litem on behalf of her two )
12 minor daughters, A.A. and S.A., ) PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED AND
) SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR
13 Plaintiff, ) DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY
) RELIEF, AND ATTORNEY FEES FOR
14 vs. ) VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS
) AND RELATED STATE CLAIM
15 XAVIER SHABAZZ (in his individual )
capacity), BRUCE ADAIR, ) 1. Conspiracy to deny access to court,
16 EMILY AMMOT (in her individual capacity) ) to family rights, to bodily and
DONALD PATCHIN (in his individual ) emotional integrity, to equal
17 capacity), DOE 1 - UNNAMED UNKNOWN ) protection - based on status of
CONTRA COSTA CHILD PROTECTIVE ) female protective parent and abused
18 SERVICES WORKER (in her individual ) children; - 42 U.S. C. Sec. 1983 -
capacity),CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL ) First Amendment and Fourteenth
19 COUNCIL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) Amendment - Due Process and
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CONTRA ) Equal Protection Clauses
20 COSTA SUPERIOR COURT, DOES 2 - 10, )
) 2. Conspiracy to Injure Rights of Party in
21 Defendants. ) State Court, 42 U.S.C. Sec.1985(2)-
) state clause - denial of equal
22 ) protection
23 3. Conspiracy to deprive plaintiff and
her children of equal protection of
24 the law and to hinder authorities
from providing equal protection of
25 the laws, 42 U.S.C. Sec.1985(3)
26 4. Monell violation
27 5. Negligence per se: Failure to Carry Out
Mandatory Statutory Duties
28
Allison v. Lawrence, et. al, Case No. CV 14-04813 JSW: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 6. Gender Discrimination by Recipients and

Disbursers of Federal Funds
2
3 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
4 DEPT: 5, OAKLAND
5 Assigned for all purposes to Honorable
Jeffrey S. White
6
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: OCT. 29, 2014
7
8
9
PLAINTIFF SHELLEY ALLISON (Allison) on behalf of herself and her two minor
10
daughters, A.A. and S.A. alleges for her Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint as
11
follows:
12
INTRODUCTION
13
1. This is an action for damages and declaratory relief to redress the violation of
14
repeated and ongoing federal statutory and constitutional violations, and for fraud and other
15
misconduct committed by JUDITH LAWRENCE (Lawrence) (dismissed from this lawsuit
16
solely on immunity) and DEFENDANT XAVIER SHABAZZ (Shabazz) leading up to, and
17
during, the custody trial in IRMO Adair, Case No. D10-01280, Contra Costa Superior Court in
18
July/August 2011 involving Allison and her former spouse DEFENDANT BRUCE ADAIR
19
(Adair) affecting the custody of A.A. whose birthdate is September 14, 2006, and S.A. whose
20
birthdate is October 23, 2008.
21
3. Allison also seeks damages for the continuation of the defendants covering up of
22
DEFENDANT BRUCE ADAIR (Adair) sexual abuse of the two daughters A.A. and S.A. both
23
to hid their own misconduct and to punish Allison for alleging sexual abuse initially.
24
4. Defendants CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL (Council), STATE OF
25
CALIFORNIA, (California) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (County), AND CONTRA
26
COSTA SUPERIOR COURT (Court) perpetuate the practice of handing children over to the
27
abusive parent because of the history of the legal system in which misogyny was written into the
28
law, such that men and male heads of households had full control and authority over both wife
2
1 and mistress and their children. They could, both adult women and children, be beaten, often
2 murdered. Such beatings and even at times, murders, were treated as private matters and the
3 male perpetrator rarely punished.
4 5. It was not until the 70's in the 20th century that laws in California went on the
5 books concerning domestic violence. Californias Response to Domestic Violence, California
6 Senate Office of Research June 2003, A History of Policy Issues and Legislative Actions To
7 Combat Domestic Violence in California, prepared by Kate Sproul.
8 6. As late as the 70's (20th century) California Judges Association (CJA) consisted
9 almost exclusively of white males. CJA fought the enactment of domestic violence laws. The
10 Legislature foolishly made domestic violence laws a part of the Family Code (although also
11 criminalizing domestic violence by enacting Penal Code statutes addressing domestic violence),
12 entrusting family law judges to make rulings in domestic violence cases. The family law judges
13 promptly nullified the statutes by repeatedly finding against women and their children who often
14 witnessed and/or experienced the violence themselves.
15 7. Young girls were routinely sexually abused by adult men and the men were not
16 prosecuted or punished. They are still not protected as evidenced by this case.
17 A 1576 law making it a felony to "unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any
woman child under the age of 10 years" was generally interpreted as creating more
18 severe punishments when girls were under 10 years old while retaining the lesser
punishment for acts with 10- and 11-year-old girls. Jurist Sir Matthew Hale
19 argued that the age of consent applied to 10- and 11-year-old girls, but most of
England's North American colonies adopted the younger age. A small group of
20 Italian and German states that introduced an age of consent in the 16th century
also employed 12 years....
21
In trials, juries [all men] were often unwilling to simply enforce the law. Rather
22 than focusing strictly on age, they made judgments about whether the appearance
and behavior of a girl fit their notions of a child and a victim. It was not only that
23 relying solely on age seemed arbitrary to them; at least until the end of the 19th
century, age had limited salience in other aspects of daily life. Laws and
24 regulations based on age were uncommon until the 19th century, and consequently
so was possession of proof of age or even knowledge of a precise date of birth.
25 Children and Youth in History, found at
http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230
26
8. Judge Deeann Salcido is a former superior court judge of San Diego.
27
Salcido was appointed to the bench in 2002 and worked first in family court, then
28 drug court in East County. She describes her experience as a constant battle, with
her supervisors telling her that she needed to go along to get along. Salcido says
3
1 she was accumulating enemies in both prosecutorial and defense circles as she
refused to rubberstamp plea deals. In 2010, she filed a lawsuit against her
2 supervising judge, Peter Deddeh, alleging he pressured her to provide Chevy
justice to minor cases and Cadillac justice to higher-profile ones. The case was
3 eventually thrown out by the California Court of Appeals.
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-10036-deann-salcido-retains-her-hon
4 or.html
5 9. What the writer did not state is that Judge Salcido refused to sign plea deals in
6 domestic violence cases because the D.A.s office, the Public Defenders Office, and the judges
7 did not follow the law in these cases, such as insuring that a criminal restraining order was issued
8 against the defendant and that he be ordered to take the 52 week batterer class rather than the
9 shorter anger management class. Judges, the D.A.s, and the public defenders, give domestic
10 violence cases short shrift just as police and sheriff departments give short shrift to domestic
11 violence calls.
12 10. J. Salcido gave an interview to Fox News which is still on You Tube. In the
13 interview, Salcido informed the Fox journalist that at the Monterey Judicial Education College
14 she and the other first year judges were trained to engage in invidious gender discrimination, i.e.,
15 to be immediately suspicious of women when they made charges of abuse. That is, the judges
16 were taught to dispense with equal protection and due process protections guaranteed by the
17 federal and state constitutions to all individuals including mothers when considering mothers
18 allegations of child abuse.
19 11. The new judges were taught that, just like in a Hollywood movie script, relying on
20 stereotypes of women, the women were probably bitter because their husband or boy friend
21 found a new woman and was moving on, because all women live to compete for, and win, a man.
22 Never you mind that it is overwhelmingly men who murder women when they leave the
23 relationship, not the reverse.
24 12. But then, maybe, the woman was bitter, because the man promised, and
25 succeeded, in taking the children from her, depriving her of spousal support, making her
26 homeless, and stealing her one half of the community assets. But to jump from bitterness to
27 charges of child abuse is a stretch. Nonetheless, it is a leap the judicial educators insist should be
28 made in family law cases against all women alleging child abuse against the father.
1 13. Because of that judicial training to automatically question and doubt women
2 when they make charges of abuse J. Salcido ended up giving custody of a child to a child sex
3 abuser when she had been on the bench for just six months. She probably also felt she had to get
4 along and getting along with the other judges meant being hard on mothers who allege child
5 sexual abuse and disbelieving them. Most of all, award custody to the perpetrator.
6 Despite a mothers cry for help, San Diego Judge DeAnn Salcido signed a court
order in 2003 giving a father custody of his six-year-old daughter. He still had
7 custody six years later when he was arrested and convicted of child molestation.
8 Salcido told me in a phone interview this week she wants to apologize to Joyce
Murphy, the mother she did not believe. I tried to reach out to her but she was
9 not receptive, said Salcido, who left the bench in 2010. She is justified. All I
can do is change my practices and try to change the system.
10
Desperate to protect her daughter, Murphy fled with her child but was caught,
11 pleaded no contest to felony kidnaping and lost most contact with her daughter. In
2009, the childs father, Henry Parson, was convicted of molesting other young
12 girls and Murphy was given full custody.
13 Recalling when she first learned of Parsons arrest, Salcido said, I was horrified.
I had been trained to be suspicious of abuse claims during divorce cases. Child
14 Protective Services said the allegation was unfounded as a new judge I thought
Well just do 50-50 custody and move along.
15
Today, Salcido is working to change Americas justice system because she
16 believes it has developed a culture of discriminating against women and children.
Its absolutely a civil rights issue, she said. Whether it is family court or
17 criminal courts, the system is designed to protect those with political power or
wealth. Women who are going through a divorce are normally financially
18 struggling and children dont vote. Judge: I Gave a Child Molester Custody of
His Daughter, byMCMoeweFollow
19 ww.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/25/1324443/-Judge-I-Gave-a-Child-Molester-Cus
tody-of-His-Daughter#
20
14. Salcido was removed from the bench by the Commission on Judicial Performance
21
(CJP) for inappropriate conduct, like joking around too much and embarrassing a litigant,
22
while on the bench. At least that is what the CJP claims. However, Salcido did not engage in
23
sexual harassment of a woman clerk, as did Judge John Gibson of San Bernardino Superior
24
Court, nor did she become a juvenile court judge trolling for children and then making them her
25
wards to sexually abuse them as alleged against Craig Kamansky of San Bernardino Superior
26
Court, nor did she destroy what appeared to be criminal evidence of child porn as did Judge
27
Craig Kamansky, nor did she sexually proposition a court clerk in a quid pro quo arrangement as
28
Judge Valeriano Saucedo of Tulare Superior Court is alleged to have done and is now on trial
5
1 before the CJP (and will probably keep his job).

2 15. Both Gibson and Kamansky kept their jobs as judges. Currently, Kamansky
3 teaches ethics(!) to attorneys as a MCLE provider. Jason Bumpus sued Kamansky in the Central
4 District of California for rape and sodomy and received $300,000.00 as a settlement of his claims
5 against Kamansky. Subsequently, the young man committed suicide. Kamansky continues to
6 move about in circles of polite society, especially in the legal world, and is supported by the
7 California Supreme Court. Despite this writers efforts to remove him as a MCLE provider,
8 Chief Justice Cantil-Sukuye stands by him. How many of his judge friends allow him around
9 their children alone while supporting him as a judge who harmed children appearing before him
10 if Bumpus and other children are to be believed ?
11 16. According to Case Studies found at http://protectiveparents.com/cases.html
12 A Contra Costa Superior Court judge made these rulings in favor of a pedophile
13 and against the children who were the pedophiles victims:
14 After disclosing molest by her father, this 11-year-old victim and her two siblings
were forced to continue overnight, unsupervised visits with the identified
15 perpetrator. The father admitted molesting his daughter and was convicted.
Nevertheless, overnight visits were court ordered to continue. In 1997 the
16 five-year-old daughter disclosed molest by the father. Unsupervised visits
continued because the court determined the father was not able to pay a
17 supervisor.
18 17. Thus, the tradition of misogyny and anti-child animus in family court continues
19 with children, like the children in this case, Jason Bumpus, and the children the Contra Costa
20 judge allowed to be molested by their father continuing to pay the price, the price being the
21 violation of their constitutional right to emotional and bodily integrity and to their lives.
22 18. Judge Joyce Cram is the prefect example of how misogyny and anti-child attitudes
23 are perpetuated among family law judges. She should have been investigated and removed from
24 the bench for what she did in the Allison/Adair matter. She had suddenly retired when her good
25 friend, former attorney Mary Nolan, was indicted. California passes on to the Judicial Council
26 enormous amounts of federal funding for the courts, funding that is often earmarked for the
27 protection of women and children.
28 19. In doing so, California knowingly has placed this funding into the wrong hands.
1 Judicial Council knows or should know of J. Crams misconduct directly impacting on the safety
2 of children. Still the Council allows J. Cram to double dip, i.e., collect her generous judicial
3 pension and fill in for family law judges who go on vacation or are otherwise unavailable.
4 20. Council appointed J. Cram to serve in place of Judge Bowen recently in Contra
5 Costa family Court where she can harm other mothers and children by anti-woman, anti-child
6 rulings.
7 21. Judge Bowen has also struck the Faustian bargain with the Council and his peers
8 so that he is not ostracized by his colleagues. He would not want to be removed from a case
9 because he properly applied the law and the facts to a case in which the mother alleged the father
10 committed child abuse and there is a preponderance of evidence that the father did, as happened
11 to Judge Don Franchi, San Mateo Superior Court.
12 22. He certainly does not want to be removed as a judge as was Salcido when she
13 filed a writ petition complaining that her supervising judge did not insist that the laws in criminal
14 domestic violence cases were followed by the judges, by the D.As, and by public defenders.
15 There is NO judicial independence in family or juvenile court law where the mother alleges child
16 abuse against the father. Either the judges tow the line and give custody to the perpetrator of
17 abuse or find themselves isolated and ostracized by their peers or even removed from the bench
18 by CJP.
19 23. Council allows J. Cram to teach in the judicial college which means she is
20 passing on to new judges the misogyny and anti-child animus she engages in, while on the family
21 law bench. Council is thus aiding and abetting the continuing practice of invidious gender
22 discrimination against female protective parents instead of focusing on the protection of the
23 children using federal funds to do so. Given her conduct in this case, J. Cram is the least likely
24 candidate to teach new judges. Because she and other judges like her teach the new generation of
25 judges, misogyny lives on in Californias family and juvenile courts and is now a national
26 nightmare.
27 24. With California, County, and Court allowing judges like J. Cram to fill in for
28 other judges after her retirement, and to teach at the Judicial College, and not warning J. Bowen
1 about the manner in which he is conducting the Allison custody matter, it is no wonder that
2 mothers and children like Allison, A.A., and S.A. cannot obtain justice in family court.
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 25. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331
5 (federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. section 1343(3), 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (civil rights),
6 and 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction over related state tort claims). Venue lies in
7 this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b) since the claims arose here.
8 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT.
9 26. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2. Plaintiff filed in federal court in San Francisco,
10 because the acts occurred, and most of the defendants reside, or work, in Contra Costa County.
11 PARTIES
12 27. Allison is a resident of Marin County. She was married to Adair and is now
13 divorced from him. Allison is the mother of A.A. and of S.A.
14 28. A.A. is the daughter of Allison and Adair and is now 8 years old. She is a resident
15 of Contra Costa County.
16 29. S.A. is the daughter of Allison and Adair and is now 6 years old. She is a
17 resident of Contra Costa County.
18 30. Adair is a resident of Contra Costa County. He was married to Allison and is now
19 divorced from her. He is the father of A.A. and of S.A. He engaged in acts of sexual abuse
20 against the two children which violates their constitutional right to bodily and emotional
21 integrity. He also violated Mother and Childrens fundamental constitutional rights to a family
22 relationship and companionship of one another.
23 31. Shabazz is a former detective with Contra Costa Sheriff Department, now with
24 the Contra Costa Coroners Office. In doing the acts complained of in this lawsuit, he acted
25 under color of state law. He is sued in his individual capacity. In December 2010, he threatened
26 Allison with criminal prosecution for making false allegations of sexual abuse and lied to her that
27 A.A. had not disclosed sexual abuse to McCann. In February 2011, he obstructed justice by
28 ordering police officers not to question Adair because he was on probation for abusing his oldest
1 daughter and by not referring all the police and medical reports to Adairs probation officer.
2 Also, in February 2011, he defamed Allison to Marin CPS workers which dissuaded them from
3 filing a juvenile court petition for A.A. and S.A. in August 2011, Shabazz suppressed evidence
4 of Adairs sexual abuse at the custody trial, and joined forces with Lawrence in doing so. He
5 testified that Adair did not need supervised visitation when he knew that Carpenters report
6 addressed to him urged that Adair be placed immediately in supervised visitation. He conspired
7 with Lawrence to keep out of evidence in August 2011 the McCann interview, the two Stidwell
8 SART reports, the Carpenter Report, and the Brooks report. He may have influenced Officer
9 Jackson not to issue an Emergency Protective Order against Adair although Connell, Stidwell,
10 and her supervisor SART Director Ann Rea urged Allison to obtain one against him and/or to get
11 him into supervised visitation.
12 32. DEFENDANT EMILY AMMOT (Ammot) is a detective with Contra Costa
13 Sheriff Department, who, on information and belief, informed Contra Costa Judge Bowen that
14 there was an ongoing criminal investigation of Adair in October 2013. She promised Allison a
15 thorough investigation and never conducted one, closed the case, and claimed there was
16 insufficient evidence for a prosecution, thus participating in the Sheriff Departments and District
17 Attorneys ongoing coverup of Adairs child abuse crimes resulting in the two daughters having
18 to continue to live with their alleged abuser. In doing the acts complained of in this lawsuit,
19 Ammot acted under color of state law. She is sued in her individual capacity
20 33. DEFENDANT DONALD PATCHEN is a Sergeant with Contra Costa Sheriffs
21 Department. He informed Allison that the case was referred to him from Ammot six months
22 after she was assigned the case because her workload was too heavy to work on the case. He
23 refused to conduct an investigation and closed the case. In doing the acts complained of in this
24 lawsuit, he acted under color of state law. He is sued in his individual capacity.
25 34. DEFENDANT UNNAMED UNKNOWN CONTRA COSTA CHILD
26 PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKER (CPS Worker - DOE 1) is employed by CONTRA
27 COSTA COUNTY. CPS Worker refused to accept the mandated report of visitation monitor
28 Emilzer Lettier in February 2014 concerning Adairs gross negligent supervision of A.A. and
1 S.A. as part of the coverup scheme of CPS, the Sheriffs Department, and the D.A.s office to
2 hide and suppress all the evidence of Adairs abuse of his two younger daughters even after he
3 was convicted of child abuse of his oldest daughter. CPS Worker did so because of the practice
4 and custom of the County to deny equal sheriff and social worker services to female protective
5 parents and their children based on their status as abused children. In doing the acts complained
6 of in this lawsuit, CPS Worker acted under color of state law. She is sued in her individual
7 capacity.
8 35. County is a public entity existing by reason of the constitution and laws of the
9 State of California. Its policies, customs, practices, and procedures caused the constitutional
10 violations of which Mother and Children complain. County is also a recipient of federal funds
11 and engaged in invidious gender discrimination against Allison.
12 36. Court is a public entity existing by reason of the constitution and laws of the State
13 of California. Its policies, customs, practices, and procedures caused the constitutional violations
14 of which Mother and Children complain. Court is also a recipient of federal funds and engaged
15 in invidious gender discrimination against Allison.
16 37. California is a state and in that capacity receives federal funds and disburses those
17 funds to Court, Council, and County.
18 38. According to the website of the courts at
19 http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-jc.htm the Judicial Council is the policymaking body of
20 the California courts, the largest court system in the nation. Under the leadership of the Chief
21 Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring
22 the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. Judicial Council
23 staff implements the councils policies.
24 39. Part of the duties of the Council is to assign retired judges to fill in for regularly-
25 assigned judges. It also appoints judges to teach at the Judicial College. Council is a recipient of
26 federal funds. Council is perpetuating gender discrimination against female protective parents by
27 allowing a retired judge like J. Cram to fill in for regular judges in family law and to teach at the
28 Judicial College.
10
1 40. One of the members of the Council is James Fox (Fox), a former 28 year San
2 Mateo District Attorney. He is in charge of funding for equal access to justice which is
3 astonishing given Foxs dismal record on race. He also exerts undue influence over Jayne Kim,
4 Chief Trial Counsel of the Bar.
5 41. Despite Foxs record on race, Council appointed Fox to oversee disbursement of
6 Equal Access to Justice funds which helps to explain the extreme unequal access to justice by
7 the poor, by racial minorities, especially, black citizens, and by women and children
8 42. Fox is unethical, and mishandled a child sex abuse criminal case against William
9 Ayres, a child psychiatrist, when he was the San Mateo District Attorney so that it resulted in a
10 hung jury. Fox supports two prosecutors, Alfred Giannini and San Mateo D.A. Steve Wagstaffe,
11 found guilty of racial discrimination in jury selection by the Ninth Circuit. The murder
12 convictions they had obtained were reversed solely because of their misconduct. Giannini and
13 Wagstaffe worked under Foxs supervision when Fox was the San Mateo D.A. Recently, Fox
14 misappropriated member bar dues to pay the unethical Giannini to train Bar prosecutors how to
15 win convictions prosecuting other attorneys for being unethical! Fox also supported Steve
16 Wagstaffe, now the San Mateo D.A., when Wagstaffe worked under the supervision of Fox.
17 Wagstaffe, along with Fox, is also responsible for the botching of the criminal prosecution
18 against Ayres. Only because an intrepid journalist, the Ayres victims, and the victims families
19 doggedly followed Ayres and proved that he was feigning dementia did Wagstaffe reluctantly
20 decide to recharge Ayres. Ayres ended up with just eight years despite sexually abusing
21 hundreds of children.
22 43. Fox is also friends with San Mateo Sheriff Greg Munks. This writer alleged in a
23 federal pleading filed in the Ninth Circuit that Munks was busted in a FBI sting operation in Las
24 Vegas in a residential location filled with sex trafficked underaged girls from Asia. Within one
25 month of filing the pleading, the Bar controlled by Fox -- announced another Bar prosecution
26 against Barry, in connection with her representation of Michele Fotinos and her children, victims
27 of San Mateo gender discrimination in family court. Thus, Fox as a member of the Council
28 would be a supporter of judges like J. Cram and would encourage all new judges to distrust all
11
1 mothers alleging sexual abuse since his friend Munks was almost prosecuted for having sex or
2 attempting to have sex with an underaged girl sex trafficked from Asia.
3 44. Allison is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that at all times herein
4 mentioned Defendants, except for California, Court, Adair, and County, were employees of the
5 County and in doing the things herein alleged, were acting within the scope of his/her agency and
6 employment with the County. Lawrence acted as a contractor for the County providing legal
7 services for A.A. and S.A. as their attorney in exchange for which she received compensation
8 from the County most likely coming from federal funds.
9 45. Defendants DOE 2 through DOE 10, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious
10 names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff. When their true names and
11 capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this complaint by inserting their true names and
12 capacities herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that each of the
13 fictitiously-named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged,
14 and that Plaintiffs damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those unnamed,
15 unknown Doe defendants
16 STATEMENT OF FACTS
17 A law enforcement officer has enormous power. The most powerful people, in my view
after 47 years of it, are police officers on the street because they have the discretion to act
18 and not to act. They have to be counted on to have good judgment to know where lines
are to be drawn. They are very powerful. They are very important. And while the
19 prosecutor can decide whether to prosecute, while the judge can decide how to sentence;
it is the police officers in charge of the day-to-day law enforcement that must enjoy the
20 confidence of the people that the power to enforce the law will be even-handed. That's not
what happened here. And that's what my concern is.
21 Judge Charles Breyer, United States of America v. Stephen Tanabe, Case No. CR
11-0941 CRB, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California, transcript 79:1-12,
22 of sentencing hearing of former Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff Tanabe, Feb.19,
2014
23
46. Judge Breyers comments about police officers at the sentencing hearing of former
24
Contra Costa County deputy sheriff Tanabe applies with equal force to Tanabes colleagues in
25
the Contra Costa Sheriffs Department, including DEFENDANT XAVIER SHABAZZ,
26
(Shabazz), DEFENDANT EMILY AMMOT (Ammot), AND DEFENDANT DONALD
27
PATCHIN (Patchin ) as well as to the other members of the Sheriffs department beyond the
28
statute of limitations who participated in the widespread coverup of DEFENDANT BRUCE
12
1 ADAIR (Adair)s sexual abuse of the two daughters, A.A. and S.A.
2 47. Federal prosecutions of at least five individuals (if not more) involved in the
3 justice system in DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (County) prove that the County
4 is awash in corruption, including the Family Court, the Sheriffs Department, and the County.
5 When Allison filed for dissolution and sought protection of her two daughters, she had no idea
6 she was walking into a hornets nest where justice was for sale, and public servants who were
7 supposed to protect the public from criminals were the criminals from whom the public needed
8 protection.
9 48. The criminal conspiracies later resulting in federal prosecution were occurring
10 approximately shortly before, and at the same time as, Shabazz and DEFENDANT JUDITH
11 LAWRENCE (Lawrence) were suppressing the evidence against Adair that he was sexually
12 abusing A.A. and protecting him from being arrested on probation violations based on
13 uncharged crimes of child sexual abuse. Adair was on probation for child abuse of his oldest
14 daughter A1.A. as he was being investigated for sexual abuse of his second daughter, A.A.
15 Shabazz and Lawrence are part of the County pattern of corruption.
16 49. In a hearing in December 2013, in a proceeding in IRMO Adair, to regain custody
17 brought by Allison in Contra Costa Superior Court, Judge Bowen ordered production of police
18 and medical records Allisons attorney had subpoened in December 2013. Judge Bowen
19 provided the parties sheriff reports and medical records of SART Nurse Stidwell. In December
20 2013, James Carpenter, M.D., a forensic child abuse examiner, also provided his report to
21 Allison in response to her subpoena served on him.
22 50. In reviewing the records ordered produced by Judge Bowen, Allison and her
23 attorney discovered in March 2014 for the first time that Shabazz had criminally obstructed
24 justice by ordering police officers in February 2011 not to interview Adair about whether he
25 had sexually abused the older child, A.A. because he was on probation for conviction of child
26 abuse of his oldest daughter, A1.S, from another relationship. Shabazz not only violated the law
27 concerning probationers; he actively protected Adair so that Adair did not have to answer
28 questions of officers about the sex abuse allegations. He hid the fact that he was protecting Adair
13
1 from Allison.
2 51. Although Judge Bowen ordered the production of the official records
3 documenting Adairs sexual abuse of A.A., he continued the pattern of cover up of Adairs
4 sexual abuse by denying Allison the opportunity to present the evidence and testimony she was
5 denied when J. Cram conducted the hearing on custody in 2011.
6 52. J. Bowen adopted the arguments of Merritt Weisinger, Adairs attorney, that
7 Allison had her opportunity to present the evidence at the trial in August 2011 which is false.
8 Lawrence and Shabazz made sure that the forensic evidence of sexual abuse would be
9 suppressed. Judge Bowen agreed with Weisinger and would not allow Carpenter, Stidwell, and
10 other experts who did not testify at the 2011 trial to testify in his court to prove Adairs sexual
11 abuse of the daughters.
12 53. Shabazz had a duty to turn over all evidence that Adair was likely sexually
13 abusing A.A. to Adairs probation supervisor. He had access to the Stidwell reports. Dr.
14 Carpenter addressed his report to Shabazz. He had reports of Dr Johnson, A.A.s pediatrician, of
15 Jessica Reid Tsukahara, the therapist for the child, and of Dr. Connell, an E.R. physician who
16 documented physical evidence of sexual abuse and to whom A.A. disclosed that Adair had
17 abused her. He had McCanns recorded interview of A.A. disclosing Adairs abuse. He had
18 Brooks report. Based on information and belief, Shabazz did not provide any of this evidence
19 of uncharged crimes of child sexual abuse of Adair to Adairs probation officer.
20 54. Shabazz actively suppressed evidence crucial to the daughters safety and welfare
21 at the family law custody trial in August 2011. At the time of the trial in August 2011, both
22 Shabazz and Lawrence knew that in his report Carpenter had concluded that the injuries he
23 observed on A.A.s buttocks were intentionally inflicted and that he had urged that Adair be
24 placed in supervised visitation.
25 55. What is even more despicable is that while Lawrence listened, Shabazz testified
26 that Bruce did not have to be in supervised visitation. Lawrence did not object nor challenge
27 Shabazz in cross examination about Carpenters recommendation. Shabazz was unqualified to
28 render that opinion and it was a lie. Carpenter was the expert, and he urged that Adair be placed
14
1 in supervised visitation. Lawrence and Shabazz had an obligation to produce his report at the
2 time of trial. Lawrence had an obligation to subpoena Carpenter to trial.
3 56. Besides Carpenter, Lawrence also had a duty to subpoena McCann, Stidwell, and
4 Brooks because they were connected to law enforcement. All prove that A.A. repeatedly
5 disclosed sexual abuse by Adair, except for Carpenter, and he concluded that A.A. suffered
6 intentionally-inflicted injury and that Adair needed to be in supervised visitation. Lawrence
7 should have subpoened Connell, because, she like Stidwell, found physical evidence of sexual
8 abuse, had made a mandated report, and had contacted Shabazz leaving a message for him to
9 call her. Shabazz chose not to return her call. Connell urged that Adair be kept away from the
10 two girls.
11 57. This case of Allison and her two little girls is a powerful argument for why family
12 court should not hear child abuse and domestic violence cases. The case is filed by one parent
13 against the other parent. Given the institutional gender discrimination in the legal system, family
14 law judges, fathers, their counsel, minors counsel, custody evaluators, social workers, therapists,
15 etc. are free to shift the focus from the abuse of the children to the mother. An attack is mounted
16 against the mother purposely to direct the focus away from the evidence of the abuse of the
17 children which is what happened in this case. A child abuse case in family court is a prototype of
18 Kill the Messenger, and as Gary Webb soon learned, and protective parents are learning
19 everyday, the case becomes about the parent reporting what her children are telling her, and not
20 about the children.
21 58. Since Allison lost custody of her girls in August 2011, despite a preponderance of,
22 if not clear and convincing, evidence that Adair is sexually abusing the two girls, Contra Costa
23 Sheriff Dept and the D.A.s office have played games with Allison promising a full and complete
24 investigation, doing nothing, closing the case, and telling Allison there is insufficient evidence to
25 make an arrest and a prosecution. County has made it clear to Adair they will not investigate
26 Adair, or arrest or prosecute him or even remove the girls from his custody. Thus, the County has
27 made it clear that Adair can do pretty much what he chooses to the girls.
28 59. Yet, A.A. disclosed Adairs sexual abuse to the following individuals:
15
1 *Her stepgrandfather, Garry Grady on or about November 15, 2010;
2 *Her maternal grandmother, Patricia Ferris, on or about November 15, 2010
3 *Her mother, Allison, on or about November 16, 2010
4 * Jessica Reid Tsukahara, Allisons therapist, in Nov. or Dec. 2010.
5 Tsukhara made a mandated report to CPS. CPS did nothing in accordance
6 with the widespread practice of CPS in Contra Costa and throughout the
7 state of California that no matter what the evidence is, if sexual abuse is
8 alleged in a family law case, the department will either state it is a matter
9 for the family law court (when it is a matter for the criminal court) and
10 do nothing, or take jurisdiction and remove the children from the reporting
11 parent, generally, the mother and transfer custody to the alleged pedophile.
12 * Debbie McCann, Childrens Interview Center, Martinez, Dec.15, 2010 .
13 McCann informed Shelley that Allison did say a lot and was very brave.
14 When A.A. would not go back into the room for an additional interview,
15 McCann said it was not necessary to conduct more interviewing, that she
16 had sufficient information which Allison took to mean that A.A. had
17 disclosed. The C.D.s of the interviews should have been produced in
18 response to Allisons sheriffs subpoena initially served in November 2013
19 in response to which Judge Bowen produced police and the Stidwell
20 records in December 2013.
21 * Dr. Johnson, A.A.s pediatrician. On or about January 25, 2011. He
22 provided a letter and testified at trial as to A.A.s disclosures of sexual
23 abuse.
24 * Dr. Connell, ER doctor at Sutter Health Hospital and E.R. nurse
25 (unnamed), on or about February 7, 2011. Dr. Connell put in her report,
26 I strongly advised the mother to not let the children be under his care at
27 all. She tried to contact Shabazz by telephone to report her findings and
28 he was unavailable. Allison was present when Connell placed the call to
16
1 Shabazz. Connell noted in her report she tried to reach him. At trial
2 Shabazz testified he never spoke with Dr. Connell.
3 Dr. Connells Physical findings: small mucosal tear and erythema
4 (redness) in the vagina . Yet, Lawrence did not subpoena Connell to trial
5 in July/August 2011.
6 * SART Nurse Kathryn Stidwell, on or about Feb 8, 2011. The records of
7 Stidwells SART interview on February 8, 2011, confirmed that A.A.
8 disclosed sexual abuse by Adair. The D.A., the Sheriff, and CPS
9 repeatedly denied Allison access to the Stidwell and Sheriff police records.
10 * James Carpenter, M.D., Contra Costa County Health Services, on or about
11 February 14, 2011: The child denied inappropriate sexual touching, but
12 spontaneously stated to Dr. Carpenter that her butt hurt but could not tell
13 the doctor why. He concluded that the bruises on both buttocks of the child
14 are ...most consistent with inflicted injury. The child did not give him an
15 explanation as to where these bruises came from, but Dr. Carpenter stated
16 ....it is unlikely to sustain the bruises like this on the fleshier part of the
17 buttocks accidentally. The most likely thing that happened was these
18 were inflicted injuries and the rectangular configuration on the right
19 buttock brings up the possibility of an object used in striking this
20 child. The child had significant redness on examination just three days
21 ago, which has resolved is a nonspecific finding. Redness by itself can
22 represent issues with hygiene [Carpenter found A.A. had good hygiene] or
23 could be secondary to recent trauma such as digital or penile contact with
24 the area. That it has resolved over three days suggests that whatever the
25 cause is no longer there. I would say in view of the uncertainty of what has
26 happened in this child that if visitation continues with the father, it should
27 be supervised to ensure that the child is not at risk for subsequent physical
28 injury or sexual contact. I would encourage the child to continue in a
17
1 therapeutic relationship to further identify the emotional sequelae of
2 possible victimization as well as living in a home with divorce. ...emphasis
3 added.
4 * Katelyn Brooks, CPS Marin County, February 16, 2011, Brooks interviewed
5 A.A. at her home outside the presence of any family member, including
6 Allison. A.A. confirmed once more that her father is touching her peepee.
7 * Detective Xavier Shabazz.
8 Initially he lied and told Allison that A.A. had not disclosed sexual abuse
9 to McCann. He did not know that McCann had told Allison that A.A. had
10 provided sufficient information which Allison believed meant that A.A.
11 had disclosed sexual abuse. Shabazz lied, because he threatened Allison
12 saying the D.A. was thinking of prosecuting her for making false
13 allegations of sexual abuse against Adair. Adair called his bluff and told
14 him to try it, that she was ready because the allegations were not false. In
15 court he testified that A.A. disclosed Adairs sexual abuse.
16 At the family law trial in August 2011, Shabazz testified that A.A. had
17 disclosed that her father touched her pee pee when McCann interviewed
18 her but since she could not describe how her clothes were removed, too
19 bad, she loses and no criminal charges would be brought. Shabazz did not
20 produce the videotape of McCanns interview of A.A. at the trial as
21 part of his coverup of Adairs abuse. Nor did Lawrence subpoena McCann
22 or A.A.s taped interview at the August 2011 trial.
23 60. Sgt Mike Jackson, Supervisor of Shabazz, lied to Shelley on December 27,
24 2010, and said A.A. did not disclose [to McCann] that her father touched her peepee and that is
25 why the Sheriff Department could not intervene. Shabazz told the same lie to Allison on
26 December 15, 2010 by telephone. Jackson also informed Allison that the D.A. was not going to
27 bring charges against Allison.
28 61. On February 8, 2011, Allison sought an Emergency Protective Order (EPO)
18
1 from Jackson. Under California law, a police officer can request an EPO from a judge if she
2 believes there is imminent danger of harm. Connell had written that Allison should keep A.A.
3 away from her father. Further, SART Director Ann Rea and the SART nurse recommended that
4 Allison seek an EPO. Jackson refused to seek one for A.A. acting in accordance with the
5 ongoing custom, practice, and policy of the County to cover up and suppress Adairs sexual
6 abuse of the daughters.
7 62. On February 7, 2011, Novato Police Dept came out to the hospital to make a
8 report and tried to schedule a physical SART exam that evening. They were not able to do so.
9 Allison contacted Shabazz and begged for an exam that same day. He dragged his feet and
10 refused to do so, knowing that time is of the essence since DNA and signs of sexual abuse
11 disappear quickly. The vaginal region heals rapidly. Shabazz said he would schedule a non-acute
12 exam for A.A. three weeks after she was assaulted to insure that evidence of the assault would
13 disappear.
14 63. Sgt Jackson also sabotaged Allisons efforts to get the SART exam that evening.
15 Novato Police Dept Deputy Stevenson also contacted Jackson to schedule the exam, and Jackson
16 refused. Stevenson offered to drive A.A. and Allison to the regional medical Center. Contra
17 Costa Deputy Sheriff Aguilar ordered Stevenson NOT to take A.A. for the SART exam that
18 evening, February 7, 2011. Thus, Aguilar joined forces with Shabazz and Jackson to sabotage
19 the SART exam by delaying it. Jackson insured that Adair did not have to stay away from the
20 children.
21 64. Because Jackson refused to seek an EPO, A.A. and S.A. had visitation with
22 Adair on Thursday, February 10, 2011. On Friday, February 11, 2011, A.A. began screaming in
23 the car at the grocery store parking lot and told her mother that Adair put his finger in her pee pee
24 and went up and down, up and down.
25 65. Because Allison now knew how important it was for the SART exam to occur
26 immediately after the disclosure of sexual abuse, she insisted that her child be seen by a SART
27 nurse. SART nurse Stidwell, as already alleged, did examine A.A. on or about Feb 11, 2011, one
28 day after the visit with Adair. She found extreme redness in the upper hymen area of the vagina
19
1 consistent with Adair inserting his finger roughly into her vagina as A.A. reported the day before
2 to her mother. SART Nurse also found bruising on the buttocks. A.A. also disclosed again the
3 sexual abuse of Adair.
4 66. In June 2011, Judge Cram made clear what she would eventually rule, that her
5 goal was to get Bruce Adair the parent already convicted for child abuse off supervised
6 visitation for which supervision she forced Allison to pay, unlike J. Bowen who makes Allison
7 pay for supervisors for her visitation, rather than Adair. This has reduced her visits from 6 hours
8 a week as allowed under the current order to 2 hours a week because she has no money to pay for
9 the additional hours.
10 67. Allison attempted to subpoena Dr. Carpenter, Dr. Connell, and Nurse Stidwell, as
11 well as Tsukahara, to trial in August 2011 but was unable to do so. She sought an adjournment of
12 the trial so she could try to bring the witnesses to court. Judge Cram called Allison a liar, her
13 favorite epithet for Allison although Judge Crams reasoning made no sense, that a mother
14 desperately trying to protect her daughters would not use her best efforts and all due diligence in
15 bringing witnesses to court who would corroborate what her daughter was alleging. Judge Cram
16 would not continue the trial. Judge Cram knew or should have known of Dr. Carpenters
17 qualifications as a medical forensic expert in the area of child abuse for County.
18 68. Knowing what J. Cram wanted, Lawrence did not join in Allisons request to
19 adjourn or continue the trial so that Allison could subpoena Carpenter and Stidwell (and
20 Connell). Lawrence understood that to keep her court appointment and get paid by the County
21 she had to keep Dr. Carpenter and Nurse Stidwell from testifying, particularly Dr. Carpenter so
22 because he had recommended that Adair needed to be in supervised visitation to protect
23 A.A., and that A.A. should have therapy.
24 69. Adair had perpetrated domestic violence on his oldest daughter, A1.A., when she
25 was only five years old by hitting her with an object on her leg and slapping her hard enough on
26 her face, that he left his handprint on her little face. She is now 12 years old and refuses to visit
27 with her father or to have anything to do with him. She personally witnessed acts of physical
28 abuse against her two sisters by her father. Adair had pled guilty or no contest to violating Pen.
20
1 C. Sec. 273a(b) cruelty to child by endangering A1.A.s health in December 2007 with four years
2 of unsupervised probation.
3 70. When J. Cram switched custody in August 2011 to Adair, J. Cram knew that
4 Adair was convicted of child abuse and that he was still on probation for that conviction. She
5 failed to make the necessary findings required by Fam. C. Sec.3044 explaining how Adair
6 overcame the presumption he was unfit to have custody of the two girls after having been
7 convicted of child abuse of their sister especially since he was still on probation for that crime.
8 Lawrence only did not object or demand that the judge make the findings required by Sec.3044,
9 she supported the switch in custody.
10 71. Further, Judge Cram, Shabazz, and Lawrence knew that since Adair was on
11 probation, all information concerning the sexual abuse investigations and reports had to be kept
12 from Adairs probation officer.
13 72. Pen. C. 1203.2(a) states in part:
14 (a) At any time during the period of supervision of a person (1) released on
probation under the care of a probation officer pursuant to this chapter, (2)
15 released on conditional sentence or summary probation not under the care of a
probation officer,...if any probation officer, parole officer, or peace officer has
16 probable cause to believe that the supervised person is violating any term or
condition of his or her supervision, the officer may, without warrant or other
17 process and at any time until the final disposition of the case, rearrest the
supervised person and bring him or her before the court or the court may, in its
18 discretion, issue a warrant for his or her rearrest. Upon such rearrest, or upon
the issuance of a warrant for rearrest the court may revoke and terminate
19 the supervision of the person if the interests of justice so require and the
court, in its judgment, has reason to believe from the report of the probation
20 or parole officer or otherwise that the person has violated any of the
conditions of his or her supervision, has become abandoned to improper
21 associates or a vicious life, or has subsequently committed other offenses,
regardless whether he or she has been prosecuted for such offenses. emphasis
22 added.
23 73. On information and belief, neither Lawrence nor Shabazz notified probation of
24 all the professionals who had reported A.A.s disclosures and/or documented injuries consistent
25 with abuse, to hide the fact that Adair was living ...a vicious life... And had ...committed
26 other offenses, regardless whether he or she has been prosecuted for such offenses....
27 74. As already alleged, Allison and her attorney discovered for the first time in
28 March 2014 as they studied the sheriff reports which Judge Bowen provided to the parties in the
21
1 family law matter on December 6, 2013 that Shabazz actually ordered officers NOT to
2 interview Bruce specifically because he was on probation.
3 75. Officer Thomas Shields prepared a police report which is dated February 12,
4 2011, concerning A.A.s disclosures of her fathers sexual abuse at the end of January and in
5 February 2011. At the end of Shields report, Shields states:
6 Bruce is on misdemeanor court probation for PC273a(b) - Cruelty to Child

(Socket # 07002953875) Patricia [Ferris, A.A.s maternal grandmother?] told me
7 he was assigned probation following a report of abuse to another child of his from
a different mother [Michelle Seyada]. I was directed not to question Bruce after
8 Sgt. Solomon spoke to Detective Shabazz. Emphasis added.
9 76. J. Cram, Lawrence, and Shabazz knew that Adair could have been prosecuted,
10 convicted, and jailed for a probation violation sexually abusing his daughter based only on
11 preponderance of the evidence. Thus, Shabazz and Lawrence suppressed the Sheriff records, the
12 Carpenter report, the Stidwell reports, McCanns taped interview, the Brooks report, Tsukahara
13 report, Johnson report, Connell report. They both insured that Carpenter, Stidwell, Connell,
14 McCann, and Brooks would not testify.
15 77. At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Cram ruled irrationally there was no evidence
16 of sexual abuse, although Dr. Johnson had testified about A.A.s disclosing to him, Allison at
17 least had Connells and Tsukaharas reports in evidence, and Shabazz admitted that A.A. had
18 disclosed sexual abuse to McCann. J. Cram ruled that Allison made it all up, and switched
19 custody immediately to the perpetrator, placed Allison in supervised visitation, and ordered an
20 armed deputy to go out to Allisons home to make sure she turned the girls over to their abuser.
21 78. Shabazz never provided a report, although Patchin confirmed to Allison that it
22 was standard protocol for the officer doing the investigation to provide a report about her
23 findings.
24 79. Allison filed a complaint with the Sheriff Departments Internal Affairs in
25 September 2011. IA covered up Shabazzs misconduct.
26 80. The discovery of Shabazzs directive to officers not to question a probationer
27 about whether he is committing new offenses and/or living a vicious life which was suppressed
28 all these years is the linchpin explaining how Adair on probation for seriously injuring one
22
1 daughter could have escaped revocation of probation for sexually abusing his other daughter with
2 all the evidence amassed against him.
3 81. Shabazz knew that Adair was on tenterhooks with his probationary status hanging
4 over him like a sword of Damocles. So instead of bringing Adair in for questioning and
5 searching him and his property for evidence, Shabazz perverted the law, turned it on its head, and
6 abused his official authority to protect the alleged abuser of a child.
7 82. When the girls began showing up at supervised visitation, within just a few weeks
8 of Judge Crams ruling, they immediately begin to complain of symptoms associated with sexual
9 abuse.
10 83. The following is from official monitor reports prepared by professional monitors
11 employed by Safe for Us, a vendor which was paid state and federal funds to provide supervised
12 visitation through Contra Costa Superior Court.
13 1. On 8/24/2011 S.A. then began to complain that her bottom hurt so Allison
took off her panties, looked at it and asked Allison for a washcloth so she could
14 put it on S.A. Allison first put a warm cloth on her, but she requested a cold cloth
so Allison returned to the bathroom bringing a cold cloth back with her.Bates
15 Stamp #0013
16 2. On 9/14/2011 in Barbara Kelly's reports A.A. says: "Then come to daddy's
17 house. Everything daddy does is wrong-he feeds us the wrong things, does things
the wrong way. Allison, "If you eat bad candy you will get sick." A.A.: "He
18 forces me to do things." Emphasis added. Bates Stamp #0021.
19 3. On 9/27/2011, the Visitation monitor was standing in the door of the bathroom.
After using the toilet, while holding a small plastic toy in her hand, S.A. said to
20 the NCP, "I want to put this in my butt. The NCP then replied, "no, don't do
"did daddy do that to you?" S.A. responded, "no, I did" When they returned
21 to the common area A.A. was quiet and looking downwards. The NCP said,
"what's wrong honey?" A.A. looked at the VS and made no response. "while the
22 NCP had her back turned S.A. pulled her own hair for a moment." "Then both
girls said to the NCP, "don't go." A.A. said, "I don't want to go back to daddy's."
23 Following this visit a Suspected Child Abuse report was filed by the VS on
9/27/2011. Bates Stamp #0034. emphasis added.
24
4. On 1/17/2012, A.A. turned to me and said, "My pee pee itches" as she
25 grabbed her crotch area....: The CP explained that A.A. had diarrhea and
possibly had a rash and that may be the reason for the itch. [ Adair denied to Dr.
26 Nicole Brito, his handpicked obstetrician that the girls ever had diarrhea].
....Batestamp 068.
27
5. On 1/28/2012 S.A. expresses that her bottom hurts. A.A. states, "daddy said
28 you were mean to him but he was fine with it but that if you are mean to him one
more time he will be mean to you."Bates Stamp #0061.
23
1 6. On 2/25/2012, A.A. states, "my bottom hurts" NCP asked A.A., "did
something happen and A.A. said, "I don't know" and A.A. looked at VS with a
2 smile. BatesStamp #0072.
3 7. On 2/28/ 2012, "At one point while playing as S.A. sat down, she opened her
legs, pushed her shorts to the side and looked at her crotch area. Bates Stamp
4 #0075.
5 8. On 3/31/2012, The Program Director stated that we had noticed the girls
beginning to say things randomly and act out in ways that indicate that they need a
6 safe place to begin sorting through their feelings. PD informed CP that therapy is
not always talk therapy , but rather it could be play and a way of helping the
7 children to express safely their feelings.
8 9. On 4/21/2012, S.A. moved her hand and put it on her private parts. She
left her hand there for a minute. She looked up to The VS and when our eyes
9 met The VS looked away to avoid embarrassing S.A.. S.A. pulled her
underpants to the side and slipped her index finger into her pants. She made
10 a motion with her finger on her private parts and for about 5 seconds, she
closed her eyes. The VS was watching S.A. at the corner of her eye. S.A.
11 looked up again to see if The VS was watching her and she slowly pulled out
her finger and crossed her legs. S.A. asked NCP, "how did you come to
12 supervision, how did you end up here, tell me how?" NCP also told her,
"honey, I also don't know but we will not be here forever. S.A. said, "yes, we
13 are because you will be here at this center forever." S.A. then said, "my pee
pee hurts." The CP was informed about making comments about The other
14 parent and was informed about S.A.'s behavior but he did not comment.
Bates Stamp #0080.
15
10. On 4/21/2012, After using the bathroom S.A. was playing in the common
16 area when she told me that, "My pee pee hurts" I responded, "honey did you fall
on something? that is not good for your pee pee to hurt." S.A. did not follow
17 up that conversation. Bates Stamp #0080.
18 11. On 6/5/2012, A.A. states, "my bottom hurts." The Program Director
intervenes . A.A. tells The PD that she wants more time with her mommy. Bates
19 Stamp #0093.
20 12. On 6/9/2012, NCP told A.A., "I love you sweetie pie," S.A. responded,
"put your foot in your crotch, two times." NCP asked S.A. who had told her
21 that. S.A. responded, "daddy." S.A. then said, "hit him in the crotch."
Afterward, S.A. stated, "he" and with a child-like voice that both VS could
22 not make out, said a few words ending the sentence in "pee." NCP specified
that she heard along with the grandparents that S.A. said, he put his finger
23 in her pee.". Bates Stamp #0099. emphasis added.
24 13. On 6/12/2012, S.A. said, "my pee pee hurts." . Bates Stamp #103.
25 14. On 6/30/2012, S.A. said, "it hurts mommy". NCP asked, "what hurts,
your pee pee hurts?" S.A. said it did. . Bates Stamp #0105.
26
15. On 9/29/12 S.A. said to NCP, My peepee hurts, it burns. At 3:19 PM, the
27 VS spoke with CP and informed him of S.A.s comment to NCP that her peepee
hurt and was burning before she used the restroom. CP stated that since leaving
28 the visitation center S.A. has been in his care and she had not complained about
having a sore bottom. Batestamp # 236
24
1 16. On 10/2/2012, VS asked the CP to correspond with NCP regarding S.A.'s

bruise on her nose to help support the visit. He declined to do so. While S.A. was
2 using the restroom, she announced that she had only peed and not pooped. She
then stated, "Don't tell my daddy because he is going to get mad." NCP asked,
3 "what's daddy going to get mad about?" S.A. stated, "My daddy said not to talk
to the Supervisor about my pee pee (her private parts). During checkout, the
4 VS informed CP about S.A.'s comments. CP acknowledged and stated, he did
tell S.A., "now, don't talk about your pee pee if nothing is wrong with your
5 pee pee." S.A. has been complaining that her pee pee hurts since the supervised
visitation commenced back in August of 2011. Bates Stamp #0129. emphasis
6 added.
7 17. On 10/6/2012, S.A. then says, "Daddy said don't talk about my undie. I
mean my pee pee." I then ask, "how come?" S.A. then gets off her chair and
8 whispers to me. VS asks, "What's the secret?" S.A. looks at VS and says, "You
can't." VS asks, "I can't what?" S.A. then says, "You can't know about my pee
9 pee because my daddy says its my private." Batestamped 180-181.
10 18. On 11/20/2012, As S.A. was painting a heart, she jumped off the table and
said, "oww", don't touch my leg. I smashed it on the bobcat. S.A. said it hurt
11 when she touched it. NCP asked what happened and S.A. told NCP, " Daddy was
driving and I was in the crack. My leg was getting crushed and then daddy put me
12 up front with him and I was safe. ". Bates Stamp #0191.
13 19. On 1/12/2013, A.A. states, "daddy hit me on my leg." NCP asked A.A., "did
it hurt?" She replied, "yes." [A1.A. confirmed that this incident did happen as her
14 mother, Michelle Sayada asked her about the incident]. Bates Stamp #0138.
15 20. On 4/15/2013, Respondent reported that S.A. had an accident at school.

However, S.A. is not in school since she is 4 , she is at a babysitter's house in
16 the neighborhood of Respondent and she got a bump on her forehead. Respondent
reported that S.A.'s nanny was trying to fix a writing desk for S.A.. He reported
17 that he had the caution measures to ensure that S.A. was feeling ok to come to
the visit. Respondent pulled S.A.'s hair back and showed the VS S.A.'s bump.
18 mother who was at the visit became very alarmed. Adair showed up and tried to
minimize the injury although the bump was much larger. .....Allison called the
19 Contra Costa Sheriff's department and had them do a welfare check that evening
as I was worried that S.A. might have had a concussion. The Sheriff Deputy was
20 only able to report that S.A. was breathing at the time he saw her as she was
sleeping. He also indicated that he did witness seeing the significant bump on
21 her forehead. Badge # 71747, Incident # C131051041. See batestamps 225-228.
22 21. On 4/20/2013, VS asked CP if there was anything that she needed to know
before the visit began. CP had said that S.A.'s bump on her head had gone down
23 and now she had bruises around her eyes because of that. CP said, "I'm not sure if
you know what happened on Monday but she came in here with a bump and then
24 she hit her head again here. That's what caused her to get those shiners", CP
stated. The VS confirmed to CP on 4/15/2013 at the visit prior that S.A. DID
25 NOT hit her head in the visit again that evening and S.A. confirmed it as well.
Bates Stamp #0145. Adair had given conflicting stories on how S.A. suffered such
26 a large bump on her forehead and then black eyes five days later.
27 22. On 5/20/2013 S.A.'s right eye was extremely swollen underneath her eye and
she had a black eye. CP told VS that S.A. had an accident at the babysitter's house
28 again and that the folding chair hit her in the eye. Once more Adair offered a
suspicious reason for the childs serious injury of her eye.
25
1
2 Negligent Investigation and Suppression of Evidence Bruces Sexual Abuse by
Contra Costa CPS/CSW Jennifer Lund and Sheriff Department, September
3 through November 2011.
4 84. As indicated in the visitation monitor report dated September 27, 2011, a portion
5 of which was quoted above, the visitation monitor made a mandated report to Contra Costa
6 County Sheriff Dept and Marin County Children and Family Services. Contra Costa CSW
7 Jennifer Lund investigated the sex abuse charge against Adair as to S.A.and concluded that there
8 was insufficient evidence for the department to take any action. She did so in the face of what
9 A.A. and S.A. had been reporting Adair was doing to them. She ignored the numerous
10 professionals reports about what A.A. had disclosed about Adair sexually abusing her, the
11 reports of Connell, Stidwell, Carpenter, Johnson, Tsukahara, CSW Brooks, McCanns taped
12 interview of A.A., the physical injuries of S.A. and A.A. in the custody of Adair, their repeated
13 complaints their pee pees were burning and Dr. Carpenter, SART director, SART nurse, and
14 Connell recommending supervised visitation for the father.
15 85. Deputy sheriff, Nubia Zamora actually allowed Adairs mother to drive S.A. to
16 the sheriff department for an interview on Oct. 25, 2011. J. Cram allowed Adairs mother to
17 supervise visitation between A.A. and Adair before Allison lost custody. Adairs mother allowed
18 her son, the alleged perpetrator, to sleep in the same bed with the little girl who was disclosing he
19 was sexually abusing her. Adair and his mother made sure that S.A. denied all sexual abuse when
20 McCann interviewed her.
21 86. Although denied the McCann taped interviews of the girls, we know at least that
22 A.A. told McCann that Daddy had touched her peepee or words to that effect. Surely at this
23 point McCann should have been on guard that something had to be amiss in Adairs household.
24 The monitor reported that S.A. talked about putting something up her butt like her dad does to
25 her.
26 87. Adair lied, according to Zamoras report. Zamora claims Adair denied that S.A.
27 had any complaint of pain or rashes. Why Zamora took him at his word is mindboggling. All she
28 had to do was read the numerous monitor reports of both A.A. and S.A. complaining of their pee
26
1 pees burning. In August 2011 during one visit, S.A. began to complain that her bottom hurt so
2 Allison took off her panties and examined her bottom. S.A. asked Allison for a washcloth so she
3 could put it on her. Allison first put a warm cloth on her, but she requested a cold cloth so
4 Allison returned to the bathroom bringing a cold cloth back with her. Bates Stamp #0013.
5 88. Zamora also appeared to accept at face value statements of Adairs babysitter,
6 Kiersten Petty, who actually chuckled at the fact that S.A. wanted to put a toy up her butt like
7 Daddy does to her. Petty, perhaps unwittingly, said that when S.A. takes a nap she likes to play
8 with herself which Petty claims all children do. Since Petty has not been cross examined, it is
9 not known whether her own children have ever stuck something up their rectums, regularly
10 masturbate as they take naps or when they are in public places as S.A. did.
11 89. In keeping with the Countys habit, custom, and practice, Contra Costa CSW
12 Jennifer Lund refused to take action to remove the girls from Adairs custody stating in her report
13 something to the effect that a tot trying to put a toy up her butt like her dad does to her did not
14 rise to any level of concern.
15 90. As already alleged, the monitor reports document serious injuries to the two girls
16 besides evidence of sexual abuse. In February 2014, the girls reported that Adair had given A.A.
17 a motorized scooter and that she and her sister go on the scooter by themselves into dangerous
18 traffic. The Monitor Emilzer Lettier tried to make the report on the phone but CPS Worker -
19 DOE 1 who did not identify herself refused to accept the report in keeping with the Countys
20 custom and practice of covering up the crimes of abuse and neglect of Adair
21 Abandonment of Investigation by Ammot and Patchin .
22 91. In October 2013, Ammot promised Allison a robust investigation based on what
23 the girls have been disclosing during supervised visitations. She should have also considered the
24 evidence amassed against Adair with respect to A.A. prior to the custody trial in August 2011.
25 Adairs criminal behavior was an unbroken pattern of neglect and abuse of the two girls both
26 before and after he obtained custody of the girls. Ammot misled Allison, never opened up an
27 investigation, and the case was passed to her supervisor Patchin.
28 92. Patchin did nothing, closed the case, and claimed falsely there was no evidence of
27
1 sexual abuse (or neglect).
2 93. These deputies are part of the cover up of Adairs abuse and neglect, are letting
3 the statute of limitations run, rather than remove the girls from Adairs custody so they are free to
4 disclose his years of abuse and neglect against them. Just as Shabazz made sure to quash all
5 evidence of Bruces probation violations so that his probation would not be revoked, he would
6 not be sentenced to jail, or issued a permanent restraining order to stay away from S.A. and A.A.,
7 so Ammot and Patchin continue on with the failure to conduct an investigation. They continue to
8 deny equal police services to Allison as a female protective parent and to the two girls based on
9 their status as abused children.
10 The Widespread Corruption in Contra Costa:
11 94. At the time when Shabazz and Lawrence were violating the rights of Allison and
12 her children, County corruption was widespread, tainting the County Drug Force, the Sheriffs
13 Department, and Contra Costa Superior Court.
14 95. Those from Contra Costa County prosecuted in the Northern District of
15 California that this writer could locate are Stephen Tanabe, Contra Costa Sheriff Deputy; Louis
16 Lombardi, who worked as a sheriff deputy and then as a San Ramon police officer while assigned
17 to the Contra Costa Narcotics Enforcement Team (CNET); Norman Wielsch, the commander of
18 CNET; the ubiquitous Christopher Butler, private investigator and former Antioch police officer
19 like Tanabe and Wielsch; and family law Attorney Mary Nolan. Butler was involved in a
20 criminal conspiracy with Tanabe, in another conspiracy with Nolan, and in a conspiracy with
21 Wielsch.
22 96. Deputy Tanabes indictment was filed on December 15, 2011, based on a criminal
23 conspiracy Tanabe engaged in with Butler for the benefit of Nolans family law clients
24 committed between November 2010 and January 2011.
25 97. The charges against Tanabe were serious. The superseded indictment of Tanabe
26 filed April 26, 2012, alleges that Tanabe committed the crimes of
27 18 U.S.C. 1349 - Honest Services Fraud Conspiracy;
28 18 U.S.C. 1343 and 1346 - Honest Services Fraud;
28
1 18 U.S.C. 1951 - Conspiracy to Extort Under Color of Official Right;
2 18 U.S.C. 1951 - Extortion Under Color of Official Right
3 All crimes occurring sometime between November 2010 and January 2011.
4 98. Tanabe was part of the conspiracy with private investigator Christopher Butler to
5 entice men involved in dissolution proceedings to bars, get them to drink to the point of
6 impairment, and after the men got in their cars and started driving, stop them and issue them
7 DUIs.
8 99. Para 4 of Tanabes indictment alleges:
9 As part of this scheme, TANABE agreed to and did participate in three DUI
stings. In two stings, TANABE waited outside the bar for the targets, H.A. and
10 M.K., to exit and then stopped the targets shortly after they drove off. In the third
sting, TANABE arranged for another Deputy Sheriff to wait outside the bar, while
11 TANABE remained inside the bar with C.B., monitoring the alcohol intake of
target, D.B. In all cases, the targets were stopped and arrested for DUI. In his
12 incident reports for the arrests he made, TANABE falsely stated that he was on
"routine patrol" at the time of the targets' arrests.
13
100. Para 5 of Tanabes indictment alleges:
14
In exchange for TANABE making DUI arrests and arranging for another officer to
15 make an arrest, C.B. compensated TANABE with cocaine and a firearm.
16 101. On February 25, 2014, the judgment against Tanabe after being found guilty by a
17 jury was on Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Deprivation of Honest Services, crime
18 ending in January 2011; Wire Fraud and Deprivation of Honest Services, crime ending in
19 January 2011
20 102. Judge Breyer sentenced Tanabe to 15 months prison time and 3 years supervised
21 release. His prison sentence began on April 15, 2014. Docket #209.
22 103. According to Affidavit of FBI Agent Kenneth L. Karch in Support of Criminal
23 Complaint filed May 5, 2011, Northern District of CA, Case No.11-MJ-70534, Louis Lombardi
24 who was prosecuted around the time that Tanabe was, had been employed by Contra Costa
25 Sheriff Dept and then in 2007 became employed by San Ramon Police Dept. (SRPD). He was
26 assigned to CNET in June 2005 while employed by the Sheriffs Department. He remained
27 assigned to CNET after joining SRPD, until his transfer to SRPD's patrol division in March
28 2009. Lombardi was committing crimes linked to his work on the drug task force in 2010 and as
29
1 late as February 2011.
2 104. On October 24, 2011, three months after Shabazz and Lawrence succeeded in
3 their conspiracy to have custody turned over to Adair, the government filed an indictment against
4 Lombardi, United States of America, Case No. CR 11-0785, Northern District of CA, alleging
5 that between June 2005 (still employed by the sheriffs department, until 2007) and June 2009
6 Lombardi committed the following violations:
7 18 U.S.C. 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law;
8 21 U.S.C. 846 and 856 - Conspiracy to Maintain Drug Involved Premises;
9 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841- Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute

Marijuana;
10
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(I)-Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana;
11
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(I) - Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine;
12
18 U.S.C. 220) - Possession of Stolen Firearm.
13
105. On May 8, 2012, the Court filed a judgment of conviction, Document #42,
14
against Lombardi on the following counts which included the date that the crime ended:
15
18 U.S.C. 242, Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law, March 20, 2008;
16
18 U.S.C. 242 Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law, November 13, 2008;
17
18 U.S.C. 242 Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law, December 1, 2008;
18
18 U.S.C. 242, Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law, November 5, 2010;
19
21 U.S.C. . 846 and 856 Conspiracy to Maintain Drug-involved Premises, Late
20 2010;
21 Distribute and to Distribute Marijuana, Late 2010;
22 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(D), Possession with Intent to Distribute and

Distribution Of Marijuana, November 2010;
23
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1), Possession with Intent to Distribute and
24 Distribution of Methamphetamine, May 25, 2010
25 18 U.S.C. . 922(j), Possession of Stolen Firearm, February 2011.
26 103. Lombardi was sentenced to 36 months prison. Id., #42, p.3.
27 106. On August 9, 2011, just as Shabazz and Lawrence finished suppressing and
28 withholding the evidence of Adairs sexual abuse in Allisons custody trial, the government filed
30
1 an indictment against Wielsch and Butler, United States of America v. Wielsch, et al., CR 11-
2 0529, August 9, 2011, Northern District of CA.
3 107. The violations alleged are:
4 21 U.S.C. 846 - Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and to Distribute

Methamphetamine and Marijuana;
5
21 U.S.C. 841 (a)(l) - Possession with Intent to Distribute and Distribution of
6 Methamphetamine;
7 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(I)Possession with Intent to Distribute and Distribution of

Marijuana;
8
18 U.S.C. 666(a)(l) - Theft From Programs Receiving Federal Funds;
9
18 U.S.C. 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights;
10
18 U.S.C. 1951 - Extortion Under Color of Official Right;
11
18 U.S.C. 1951 - Hobbs Act Robbery;
12
18 U.S.C. 2- Aiding and Abetting.
13
108. The commander and the former police officer not only established an illegal house
14
of prostitution but shook down the women providing the sexual services, thus making a double
15
profit off the womens backs as alleged at para 26, Indictment, supra:
16
Beginning in or about November 2009 and continuing to in or about April 2010,in
17 the Northern District of California, the defendants, CHRISTOPHER BUTLER
and NORMAN WIELSCH,did knowingly and intentionally affect and conspire to
18 affect commerce by extortion, that is, by obtaining property not due to them or to
CNET, to wit periodic cash payments, from persons operating an illicit massage
19 parlor, with the persons' consent, in exchange for shielding the massage parlor
employees from law enforcement action, under color of official right. Specifically,
20 Pleasant Hill, California, which WIELSCH and BUTLER agreed to protect using
WIELSCH's law enforcement status. In exchange for this protection, the women
21 working at the massage parlor made weekly payments to BUTLER, which
BUTLER shared with WIELSCH.
22
109. Wielsch pled guilty to the following crimes, he was sentenced to 168 months and
23
fined $150,000.00, and the judgment was entered on May 22, 2013:
24
21 U.S.C 846 and 941(b)(1)(A)(viii) and 841(b)(1)(D), Conspiracy to
25 Possess with Intent to Distribute Marijuana and Methamphetamine, with the
Crime Ending on February 16, 2011
26
18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1) Theft from Programs Receiving Federal Funds, Crime
27 Ending on February 15, 2011
28 18 U.S.C. 241 Conspiracy Against Rights, Crime Ending on February 6, 2009
31
1 18 U.S.C. 241 Conspiracy Against Rights, Crime Ending in August 2010
2 18 U.S.C. 1951 Hobbs Act Robbery, Crime Ending in August 2010.
3 110. On September 25 2012, judgment was imposed against Butler after he pled guilty
4 to the following crimes:
5 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841(b)(1)(D), Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to

Distribute Marijuana and Methamphetamine, Crime Ending in February 16,
6 2011
7 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 2, Theft from Programs Receiving

Federal Funds; Aiding and Abetting, Crime Ending in February 15, 2011
8
18 U.S.C. 241, Conspiracy Against Rights, Crime Ending in February 6, 2009
9
18 U.S.C. 241, Conspiracy Against Rights, Crime Ending in August 2010
10
18 U.S.C. 1951, Hobbs Act Robbery, Crime Ending in August 2010
11
18 U.S.C. 1951, Extortion under Color of Official Right, Crime Ending in
12 April 2010
13 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(a) and (4)(a) Illegal Wiretapping, Crime Ending in

August 9, 2007
14
111. On April 28, 2014, at the request of the government, the Court reduced Butlers
15
imprisonment to 84 months.
16
112. The government filed an indictment against family law attorney Mary Nolan on
17
September 6, 2012 and alleged the following violations:
18
26 U.S.C. 7201 - Tax Evasion;
19
18 U.S.C. 371 - Conspiracy;
20
18 U.S.C. 2511 - Unlawful Interception of Communications
21
113. The tax evasion covered four years. Butler installed the eavesdropping devices in
22
the cars of opposing parties in the family cases in which Nolan was representing the other parties.
23
The government alleged that it went on for only a month, between August and September
24
2007.
25
114. Nolan entered a plea of guilty to four counts of tax evasion and one count of
26
unlawful interception of communication and judgment was entered on February 7, 2014
27
sentencing Nolan to two years of prison with her surrender date being March 6, 2014.
28
115. She was not prosecuted along with Butler and Tanabe for the stings of men who
32
1 drove while intoxicated although Judge Breyer commented at the sentencing hearing of Tanabe
2 on April 25, 2014 at 44:-10-11, Doc. #274, that it was Nolan who probably set this all in
3 motion. U. S. Attorney Prosecutor at 45:5-10 stated that Nolan actually did not have any
4 relation ...to any of the sting targets in this case...She had no part in these schemes.
5 116. However, Declan Woods, one of the men who drove drunk sued Nolan, Butler,
6 his ex wife, and the woman who encouraged him to drink and drive, (he couldnt say no?).
7 Declan did not sue Tanabe. Woods v. Nolan, et al., Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No.
8 C12-00505. In January 2014, in an unpublished decision, the First Appellate District Court of
9 Appeal affirmed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion of Nolan and Woods (Nolans client), Case
10 No A135953.
11 117. The iconic IRMO Elkins case originated in Contra Costa Superior Court which led
12 to the famous Elkins Family Law Task Force which led to the Task Forces Final Report and
13 Recommendations in April 2010 which have led to virtually nothing changing for parents and
14 children in family law courts because parents and (verbal-mature) children were excluded from
15 the process.
16 118. The 2007 ruling against the Contra Costa Court by its supervising Court just made
17 the family court judges more defiant, especially Judge Cram. J. Cram who made sure that Allison
18 and her daughters did not have a fair trial with the aiding and abetting of her misconduct by
19 Shabazz and Lawrence.
20 Ongoing Retaliation in the Contra Costa Court:
21 119. When Barry subpoened the witnesses that Allison was not able to subpoena to the
22 August 2011 trial, and Lawrence refused to subpoena them, namely, Carpenter, Stidwell, and
23 Connell, for the hearing before Judge Bowen, Judge Bowen still would not allow testimony from
24 these experts. He effectively turned the Elkin rule on its head with no due process and protection
25 for the two little girls whose lives are at stake..
26 120. To this day, Judge Bowen, the D.A., and the Sheriffs Dept refuse to provide
27 Allison a copy of McCanns interview of A.A and of S.A.
28 121. Following the instructions of the Sheriff Department, Barry recently reissued
33
1 another subpoena to the sheriff to obtain a copy of A.A.s and S.A. interviews. Adairs family
2 law attorney, Merritt Weisinger, moved to quash the subpoena. Attorney Weisinger argued that
3 Allison was not entitled to the recorded interviews although the recordings should have been
4 produced along with the other records in December 2013.
5 122. Judge Bowen did not notify Barry in December 2013 that serving the sheriff with
6 a subpoena to obtain the records of the sex abuse investigations was improper. Further the
7 Sheriff has a special form for a party requesting juvenile records to fill out. Adair followed this
8 procedure in 2010 or 2011, and Barry, in 2013 when she served a SPDT on the Sheriffs dept.
9 Yet, J. Bowen granted the motion to quash the subpoena. He stated there are procedures for
10 obtaining records of juveniles.
11 123. Sec.827 insists on a petition to the juvenile court to obtain juvenile records but
12 also states that parents are entitled to their own childrens records without having to file the
13 petition. Nonetheless, despite the clear wording of Sec.827, judges make parents, like non
14 parents, file the petition. Contra Costa also has the procedure of requesting the records from the
15 Sheriff who sends it to the juvenile court judge to approve. What was proper procedure in 2013
16 is no longer proper procedure in 2014 now that Allison filed a government claim against the
17 County even though the procedure is still in effect.. Judge Bowen, the County, and Weisinger
18 are doing everything in their power to keep Allison from obtaining the taped interviews of A.A.
19 and S.A.
20 124. Attorney Weisinger sought and obtained discovery sanctions against Allison
21 because Barry used a procedure she had used in November 2013, serve the sheriff with a SPDT
22 and fill out the sheriff request for the juvenile records.
23 125. Allison takes home about $1200 a month of which half is being garnished for
24 child support for Adair. Adair does not support his oldest child although he has a substantial
25 income. He hides his actual income with the assistance of his stepfather who manages his
26 business accounts. The taxpayers are supporting Adairs oldest daughter while the County
27 spends taxpayer dollars to harass Allison to pay Adair support.
28 126. The County has never garnished Adair, never conducted a debtors exam of him,
34
1 nor subpoened his stepfathers financial records he maintains for Adairs company. The County
2 has never questioned Adair how he can afford two attorneys, reporters transcripts, motions to
3 quash and to compel discovery, and a debtors exam and yet leave his oldest daughter on the
4 County dole. The County has harassed Allison by taking the only money she had in her account,
5 $250 or $300 and is now garnishing half her salary.
6 127. When Allison did not pay the sanctions because she has no money, Weisinger
7 served her with a debtors exam during visitation. The visitation monitor now wants to resign
8 because she warned the process server Weisinger hired not to do the service during a visit. The
9 process server ignored her, thus upsetting both Allison and her daughters the monitor also wants
10 to resign because Adair is aggressive and rude. Allison has no one else to hire or is too expensive
11 and will lose the 2 hours a week she has with her two daughters.
12 128. Weisinger conducted a debtors exam on May 28, 2015, with a court reporter
13 present. He learned that Allison has no assets and that she earns only about $1200 take home of
14 which $600 is going to a man who lets the taxpayers support his oldest child.
15 129. J. Bowen began the hearing late on May 28 concerning Allisons request for
16 modification of custody and support she filed in June 2013. The parties did not complete the
17 hearing. Barry requested that the court lift the monitor after four years of supervised visitation
18 because there was no constitutionally-sound reason for keeping a mother fin supervised visitation
19 other than she reported the sexual abuse of Adair. Knowing that Allison and the daughters never
20 had a fair trial, that all the official government records which proved the sexual abuse had been
21 suppressed at the first trial, J. Bowen read J. Crams order which stated that Allison had falsified
22 the charges. He denied Allisons request to life the monitor.
23 130. Barry has tried on two occasions to enter the visitation reports into evidence. J.
24 Bowen refuses to accept them under the business records exception, under the res gestae
25 exception, under the state of mind of out of court declarant exception, and because evidence of
26 conduct is not hearsay. They have not been admitted. He demanded evidence of changed
27 circumstances for Allison although he changed a mothers custody order and gave custody to a
28 father without proof of changed circumstances in another case.
35
1 131. When Barry tried to call Michele Seyada, the mother of A1.A, and A1.A. as
2 evidence of changed circumstances since Seyada supported Adair, and A1.A. was visiting her
3 father despite the abuse conviction against him at the time of the first trial. Now, A1.A. refuses
4 to visit with Adair and has not seen him in some time. Seyada would have testified that both
5 Lawrence and Adair lied to her about the evidence of sexual abuse, saying there was none. J.
6 Bowen will not allow the testimony of either Seyada and A1.A although he did state that A1.A
7 testimony might be allowed to provide rebuttal or impeachment evidence.
8 132. As already alleged, J. Bowen continues to keep Allison in supervised visitation
9 although there is no legal basis for doing so. Barry pointed out to J. Bowen that J. Cram never
10 gave Allison a due process hearing under Fam. C. Sec.3027.5 which was passed by the
11 Legislature in response to the overwhelming evidence that mothers were placed in supervised
12 visitation merely for reporting abuse of their children. The statute requires that Adair or the
13 Court prove that Allison made false allegations, absurd under the facts of this case, and that at
14 the time she made the charges, she knew the charges were false and made them to deprive Adair
15 of custody. She made allegations of sexual abuse to protect her children, because they were true
16 and not to deprive Adair of custody.
17 NEW ALLEGATIONS:
SUMMARY OF EFFORTS ON THE PART OF ALLISON TO OBTAIN RECORDS
18 PRODUCED IN DECEMBER 2013 AND TO OBTAIN TAPED INTERVIEWS OF HER
DAUGHTERS TO THE PRESENT TIME:
19
133. Allison attempted to subpoena Stidwell and Carpenter with no luck. Judge Cram
20
would not continue the hearing, called Allison a liar, and did not issue an OSC re: sanctions as to
21
Lawrence and her failure to bring these two witnesses, a part of the government response, using
22
federal and state funds, to allegations of child sexual abuse.
23
134. Allison attempted to obtain the records from the Sheriffs department shortly after
24
the trial before J. Cram. She was informed to use the Sheriff procedure that Barry utilized in
25
November 2013 and later to obtain the records. The sheriff forwarded Allisons request to the
26
juvenile court judge who denied Allison all the records although pursuant to Welf.&Insti. C.
27
Sec.827 Allison is guaranteed access to the records. .
28
135. Allison to this day despite herculean efforts of Barry cannot obtain the taped
36
1 interviews of the two girls. There appears to be no question that A.A. disclosed that Adair was
2 sexually abusing her on the taped interview. Judge Bowen is violating the rights of Allison under
3 Welf & Inst C. By not allowing Barry and Allison to have the interviews especially of A A.
4 because A.A. disclosed Adair was sexually abusing her.
5 136. Chan Park and Jennifer Hebert, mothers who were involved in juvenile court
6 proceedings where the children disclosed that the respective father was sexually abusing their
7 children obtained the taped interviews of their children. Both had cases filed against them in
8 child dependency cases in Los Angeles County, In re J. and S. U., Case No. CK 96639 (Park)
9 and In re A.H. and G.H., Case No. CK81609 (Hebert).
10 137. Allison (and her children) were denied substantive and procedural due process
11 when 1. J. Cram did not order Lawrence to obtain all records related to A.A.s sex abuse
12 investigation for admission into evidence. The taped interview of Allison, the Carpenter report,
13 and the Stidwell report were not just directly relevant and material to the issue of whether Adair
14 had sexually abused A.A. but were the official government record. All support the allegation that
15 Adair sexually abused A.A. This is another reason why family law courts should not be
16 permitted to hear sex abuse cases. 2. Allison and her childrens rights were violated when J.
17 Cram denied Allison a short continuance to try and subpoena Carpenter, Stidwell, and Connell to
18 the trial; and 3. When Shabazz did not produce the reports of Carpenter and Stidwell although
19 both were in his possession, Carpenter addressed his report to Shabazz, and they were directly
20 relevant and material to the issue of whether Adair had sexually abused A.A. Lawrences
21 misconduct borders on the criminal. She abandoned her clients and became the advocate for
22 Adair, the perpetrator of abuse against her clients and did so using federal, state, and county
23 funds earmarked to protect victims of abuse, not their perpetrators.
24 138. Adair continues to interfere with the visitation of Allison. Because J. Bowen will
25 not lift the unconstitutional requirement that Allisons visitation be supervised, Allison can only
26 see the girls 2 hours a week because she, and not Adair, must pay for the visitation. In addition,
27 Adair refuses to cooperate so that a new supervisor can be selected
28 //
37
1 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
2 139. Allison filed a County claim in April 2014, within one month of discovery of
3 Shabazzs directive to other deputies not to interview Adair because he was on probation and
4 within four months of receipt of the two Stidwell reports and the Carpenter report.
5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Conspiracy to Deny Access to Court, to Family Rights , to Bodily and Emotional Integrity,
6 and to Equal Protection - Based on Status of Female Protective Parent and Abused
Children; - 42 U.S. C. Sec. 1983 - First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment - Due
7 Process and Equal Protection Clauses - Applies to Plaintiff, Her Children, and to Shabazz,
Ammot, Patchin, Doe 1 - Unnamed Unknown Contra Costa Child Protective Services
8 Worker and Does 2 - 10
9 140. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 - 138 as if fully set out in this First Cause of
10 Action.
11 141. Shabazz conspired with Lawrence and possibly others to violate Plaintiff and her
12 childrens right to access to the Court guaranteed under the First Amendment by first, directing
13 deputies not to interview Adair concerning the sex abuse of A.A., second, by suppressing from
14 the court and from Allison the police reports in which Shabazz ordered the officers not to
15 interview Adair about the sex abuse of A.A., the McCann interview in which A.A. disclosed
16 sexual abuse by Adair, the two Stidwell reports in which A.A. disclosed sexual abuse by Adair
17 and on the second examination A.A. showed physical injury consistent with sexual abuse, the
18 Brooks report in which CSW Brooks reported that A.A. disclosed sexual abuse by Adair, and the
19 Carpenter report in which the doctor found evidence of intentional injury of A.A. and urged that
20 Adair be placed in supervised visitation.
21 142. Connell contacted Shabazz and left a message to call her. He never did. Connell
22 had also found physical injury consistent with sexual abuse and recommended that Adair be kept
23 away from the two girls.
24 143. Shabazz lied and testified in court that Bruce did not need supervised visitation
25 when he knew that Carpenter recommended that Adair be placed in supervised visitation. On
26 information and belief, Shabazz lacked the expertise and training to render such an opinion.
27 Further, he could not overcome the credentials of a medical doctor specializing in forensic
28 examinations of children alleged to have been abused.
38
1 144. Allison had no way of producing the reports of McCann, Carpenter, Stidwell, and
2 Brooks because J. Cram denied a continuance so that Allison could subpoena at least some of the
3 witnesses to testify. Shortly after the trial, the juvenile court judge denied Allisons requests for
4 their production. Allison was unable obtain the reports of the sheriff, Carpenter and Stidwell
5 until December 2013. Judge Bowen continues to deny the production of the McCann interviews.
6 Thus, to this day Allison cannot obtain the taped interviews of both girls.
7 145. Lawrence hid from the Court the fact that Carpenter recommended that Adair be
8 placed immediately in supervised visitation, suppressed the Carpenter, Stidwell, Brooks, and
9 McCann reports and failed to subpoena Connell, Carpenter, Stidwell, Brooks, and McCann to
10 testify at the custody trial. She and Shabazz threw the case on behalf of the abusing father and
11 Lawrence betrayed her own clients. She, like Shabazz, took full advantage of Allisons inability
12 to obtain all the reports and to subpoena the professional witnesses to trial.
13 146. Shabazz, Ammot, Patchin, and Doe 1 violated Plaintiff and her childrens right to
14 equal protection based on Allisons status as a female protective parent and on the status of the
15 children as abused children, Shabazz, by committing the bad acts alleged this complaint, and by
16 all four defendants covering up and suppressing the evidence of Adairs sexual abuse of the
17 children. The four defendants made it clear to Adair that they would never arrest or prosecute
18 him for sexual abuse nor would social services intervene to protect the two little girls from his
19 abuse. As a result, Adair continues to sexually abuse and neglect the children.
20 147. Allison was denied meaningful access to the court: 1. J. Crams hostility
21 towards Allison, repeatedly calling her a liar when the facts did not support that epithet, when
22 she made it clear to Lawrence and Shabazz she wanted Adair off supervised visitation without a
23 review of the evidence and before trial, when she concluded despite evidence and testimony at
24 trial that Adair had sexually abused A.A. that Allison had falsified the allegation and placed her
25 in supervised visitation without a due process hearing as required by Fam. C. Sec.3027.5.
26 Judge Bowen perpetuates this abominable denial of substantive and procedural due process to
27 Allison and the children by refusing to lift the supervised visitation and at the same time
28 disallowing Allison once more to put on the evidence and testimony Lawrence failed to put on
39
1 and suppressed at the trial overseen by J. Cram. Contra Costa continues to reinjure Mother and
2 Children.
3 148. Ammot promised Allison she would conduct a meaningful investigation into
4 Adairs sexual abuse of the daughters, and she knew when she made that promise she had no
5 intention of providing one. Patchin did nothing when he received the case from Ammot.
6 149. Ammot and Patchin and others in the County wanted to cover up the crimes of
7 Shabazz and Lawrence, because the County had just gone through a rash of federal convictions
8 based on crimes committed by two deputy sheriffs (one of whom became a police officer for a
9 department within the County), the commander of the drug force team, a prominent family law
10 attorney who was good friends with J. Cram, and a private investigator who was a former police
11 officer and was linked to all three conspiracies alleged in the indictments.
12 150. Another reason for the defendants to quash the investigation of Adairs sexual
13 abuse is because it would uncover the crimes Shabazz and Lawrence committed to carry out their
14 civil rights conspiracy. Their crimes are identical to some of the crimes committed by the
15 federal defendants. To prosecute Shabazz or refer him to the U. S. Attorney would cause even
16 more embarrassment to the County, to the Sheriff department, and to the family court whose
17 reputations were already tarnished by the federal convictions.
18 151. There is no question that Congress and California have determined that Allison as
19 a woman and the girls as abused children are entitled to special protection.
20 152. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits gender discrimination in
21 employment. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination against pregnant
22 women. The Ledbetter Act prohibits denial of equal pay for equal work. Meritor Savings Bank
23 v. Vinson which this writer argued in the U. S. Supreme Court in 1986 holds that both
24 environmental and quid pro quo sexual harassment constitute gender discrimination and are
25 therefore illegal. The Violence Against Women Act was specifically enacted to address violence
26 against women.
27 153. Interstate Domestic Violence: 18 U.S.C. 2261: It is a federal crime to cross state
28 lines and injure an "intimate partner." 18 USC. 2261(a)(2): ft is a federal crime to force or
40
1 coerce an "intimate partner" to cross state lines if the force or coercion leads to physical harm to
2 the victim.. Restitution, 18 U.S.C.. 2264. Violence Against Women Act. The woman who
3 suffers violence is entitled to restitution. CA Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Fam. C.
4 Secs.6200, et seq.
5 154. Federal laws which prohibit child sexual abuse include: 18 U.S.C. 2241(C)
6 which prohibits an individual from crossing state lines to commit sexual abuse against a child
7 less than 12 years old. 18 U.S.C. Sec.2243- Sexual abuse of a minor or ward. California laws
8 prohibiting sexual abuse of children are extensive. Penal Code 11164, et seq. are reporting
9 laws related to child abuse, including sexual abuse and requirements for investigation of such
10 allegations. Pen.C. Sec.261.5 prohibits sexual intercourse with a minor. Pen. C. Sec.273d
11 prohibits corporal punishment inflicting grave injury on the child. Pen. C. Sec.288 prohibits
12 assault on a child for sexual gratification.
13 155. Allisons suffered invidious gender discrimination as a a female protective parent
14 as follows:
15 Without judging the evidence, J. Crams announcement that Adair must be

removed from supervised visitation as soon as possible.
16
Ordering Allison to pay for Adairs supervisor when he was in supervised
17 visitation.
18 Ordering Allison to pay for her own supervisor when the shoe was on the other
foot.
19
Permitting the paternal grandmother to supervise Allison who allowed the child to
20 sleep in Adairs bed although he was being supervised because of allegations he
was sexually abusing the little girl Grandmother allowed him to sleep with;
21
Lawence, Shabazz, and J. Cram suppressing the official government record
22 (Carpenter report, Stidwell Report, Taped Interview of S.A., Brooks Report) in
court
23
Shabazz defaming Allison by repeating the defamation of J. Cram to social
24 worker to deter her from filing a juvenile court petition to protect the girls from
Adair
25
Shabazz referring to Adair on a first name basis during trial
26
Prohibiting officers from doing their job during the sex abuse investigation of
27 A.A.s allegations by ordering them NOT to question Adair specifically because
he was on probation for child cruelty to his oldest daughter and suppressing this
28 information.
41
1 Calling Allison a liar when the evidence did not support that name calling;
2 Minimizing the sexual abuse evidence that Allison managed to present at trial in
absurd fashion, such as, a cut in the vaginal region could have been from an
3 accident while ignoring the childs disclosure at the time that the cut was noted by
the doctor that Adair was sexually abusing her;
4
Shabazz NOT allowing the police officers to take Allison immediately for a
5 SART exam when they were ready to do so because he knew that injury to the
vaginal area heals quickly.
6
156. The obvious favoritism for the father who from a preponderance of evidence, if
7
not from the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, had sexually abused A.A. and the
8
misogyny built in to the government institutions caused Allison to lose custody and the girls to be
9
turned over to their perpetrator. Allison and the girls were denied equal sheriff services, equal
10
minors counsel services (Lawrence was blatant; she had become Adairs attorney in fact), and
11
equal court services because of their mothers status as a female protective parent and their status
12
as abused children. Defendants, Lawrence, and J. Cram had misappropriated government funds
13
in doing the acts of misconduct alleged in this pleading.
14
157. Under the Fourteenth Amendment both Allison and the girls enjoy a liberty
15
interest in the continuing companionship of one another. Allison enjoys a liberty interest in the
16
continuing custody of her girls. Those rights were violated for the reasons alleged in paras 1 to
17
156.
18
158. Allison and her daughters have suffered extreme pain and suffering mental
19
anguish, emotional and physical distress, and have been injured in mind, body, and spirit.
20
Allison has had to retain an attorney to prosecute the rights of her and her children.
21
159. Allison seeks a declaratory judgment that the custody order changing custody to
22
Adair and placing Allison in supervised visitation which J. Cram issued as a result of the fraud
23
and suppression of evidence of the defendants is void and unenforceable.
24
160. The acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thus
25
justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages against all the defendants in an amount to
26
be determined at trial.
27
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
28 Conspiracy to Injure Rights of Party in State Court, 42 U.S.C. Sec.1985(2)- State Clause -
Denial of Equal Protection and Denial of Family Rights and Companionship -
42
1 Applies to Plaintiff and the Daughters and to Shabazz and Does 2 - 10
2 161. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 - 158 as if fully set out in this Second Cause of
3 Action.
4 162. Shabazz and Lawrence conspired for the purpose of impeding, hindering,
5 obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice in the custody proceeding in the California
6 superior court, IRMO Adair, with intent to deny Allison, A.A. and S.A. equal protection of the
7 law as female protective parent and as victims of sexual abuse. The conspiracy was designed to
8 hide and cover up Adairs sexual abuse of A.A.
9 163. Shabazz carried out this conspiracy by first, lying to Allison that A.A. had not
10 disclosed sexual abuse by Adair to McCann and threatening her with prosecution for making
11 false allegations of sexual abuse against Adair, second by ordering deputies not to interview
12 Adair about the sexual abuse of A.A., which he concealed from Allison, third, by defaming
13 Allison to Brooks and her supervisor to dissuade them from filing a juvenile court petition to
14 protect the children from Adair, which he also concealed from Allison, fourth, by falsely
15 testifying that Bruce did not need supervised visitation when he knew that Carpenter had
16 examined A.A., found she had been intentionally injured, and had recommended supervised
17 visitation for Adair, fifth, when he suppressed the Carpenter report at trial although it was
18 addressed to him, the Stidwell report, the taped interview of A.A., and the Brooks report, sixth,
19 by not disclosing to the Court that Stidwell, the SART nurse, had found evidence of sexual abuse
20 on the second examination and that A.A. had disclosed sexual abuse to her on both occasions
21 when Stidwell examined her, that A.A. disclosed that Adair was abusing her in the McCann
22 taped interview, and to social worker Brooks.
23 164. Lawrence carried out the conspiracy with Shabazz by failing to subpoena
24 McCann, Brooks, Stidwell, Carpenter, and Connell and their reports to trial, and having failed to
25 issue the subpoenas, not support Allison in seeking a continuance so she could subpoena at least
26 some of the professional witnesses to trial. Lawrence also strenuously objected when Allison
27 tried to get evidence in through hearsay.
28 165. Lawrence did not object to her coconspirators testimony that Bruce did not
43
1 need supervised visitation, although she had read the Carpenter report and knew that he
2 recommended supervised visitation for Adair. She may have joined with Shabazz to insure that
3 Adairs probation officer did not receive the reports showing that A.A. had repeatedly disclosed
4 that Adair was sexually abusing her, and that Connell and Stidwell found physical signs of sexual
5 abuse in A.A.
6 166. Lawrence took full advantage of the fact that Allison could not obtain the records
7 nor subpoena the witnesses to the hearing. She cross examined witnesses as if she were Adairs
8 attorney and not the childrens.
9 167. Allison did not obtain the sheriff, Stidwell, and Carpenter reports until December
10 2013, two years and four months after the custody trial had ended and J. Cram had awarded full
11 custody to Adair and supervised visitation for Allison and her two daughters.
12 168. The foregoing acts or omissions of the defendants deprived the plaintiff and her
13 children of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the Equal Protection Clause as a
14 female protective parent and as victims of child sexual abuse and the Due Process Clause of the
15 Fourteenth Amendment to family and companionship rights and the childrens right to bodily and
16 emotional integrity in that until December 6, 2013, Allison did not have all the records she still
17 does not to prove the true facts.
18 169. Until March 2014, Allison did not know that Shabazz had ordered deputies not to
19 interview Adair concerning the uncharged crimes of sex abuse so that his probation would not be
20 revoked. Shabazz and Lawrence successfully defeated Allisons request for custody of A.A. and
21 S. A. A.A. and S.A. were successfully deterred from disclosing the sex abuse Adair was
22 perpetrating on them because they came under his control. Thus, when they disclosed that their
23 peepees were burning and S.A. told her mother her bottom hurt, the girls knew they had to stop
24 short of naming the perpetrator of their injuries.
25 170. As a proximate result of the violation of Mothers and Childrens rights as listed
26 above by Defendants, Adair and her children have suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and
27 severe emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind, body, and spirit. Adair has
28 had to retain an attorney and pay fees to prosecute this lawsuit.
44
1 171. Allison seeks a declaratory judgment that the custody order changing custody to
2 Adair and placing Allison in supervised visitation which J. Cram issued as a result of the fraud
3 and suppression of evidence of the defendants is void and unenforceable.
4 172. The acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, thus
5 justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants in an amount to be
6 determined at trial.
7 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff and Her Children of Equal Protection of the Law and to
8 Hinder Authorities from Providing Equal Protection of the Laws, 42 U.S.C. Sec.1985(3) -
Applies to Plaintiff and the Daughters and to Defendants Shabazz, Lawrence, Ammot, and
9 Patchin, Doe 1, Does 2 - 10
10 173. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 - 169 into this Third Cause of Action as if
11 fully set out.
12 174. Defendants conspired to deprive the plaintiffs and the two girls of equal protection
13 of the law and to prevent or hinder the constituted authority of the state from providing equal
14 protection of the law to the plaintiffs based on Allisons status as a female protective parent and
15 her children as abused children.
16 175. Besides the allegations of the First and Second Causes of Action incorporated into
17 this Third Cause of Action, Shabazz prevented and hindered the constituted authority of the state,
18 namely the probation officer by failing to provide the officer all the evidence of uncharged
19 crimes, namely, the sexual abuse of A.A., by ordering fellow deputies not to interview Adair
20 concerning the sexual abuse, and by deterring Brooks and her supervisor from opening up a
21 juvenile court petition to protect the two girls from Adair. Allison did not discover Shabazzs
22 first two obstructions of the authority of the state until March 2014 after being provided the
23 police reports in December 2013 and did not discover the third obstruction of the authority of the
24 state until January 2014.
25 176. Ammot, Patchin, and Doe 1 conspired to deprive Allison and the two girls of
26 equal protection based on their status as female protective parent and as abused children, of
27 family rights, and of the companionship of one another, and forcing the daughters to live with
28 their father thereby depriving them of their right to bodily and emotional integrity all of which
45
1 violate the liberty interest of the plaintiffs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
2 Amendment.
3 177. Plaintiffs have suffered extreme pain and suffering mental anguish, emotional
4 and physical distress, and have been injured in mind, body, and spirit. Plaintiffs have had to
5 retain an attorney to prosecute the rights of Plaintiffs.
9 179. The acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, thus
10 justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages against all the defendants in an amount to
11 be determined at trial.
12 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Monell violation - Applies to Plaintiff and the Daughters and to County
13
180. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 - 169 into this Fourth Cause of Action as if
14
fully set out.
15
181. Based on the principles set forth in Monell v. Dept. Of Social Services, and related
16
cases, County is liable for the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs, because County
17
maintains a policy, practice, custom, and habit of deputy sheriffs and those they conspire with,
18
including the commander of the County Drug Enforcement Team, to commit crimes including
19
violation of civil rights Secs 241 (conspiracy to violate civil rights), 242 (violation of civil rights
20
under color of law), and 1343 (wire fraud) of Title 18.
21
182. On information and belief, Shabazz committed wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, when
22
he ordered the deputies to not interview Adair about his uncharged crimes of sex abuse by
23
telephone and/or email and when he spoke with Lawrence to carry out and execute their civil
24
rights conspiracy and fraud in the custody trial on the phone or by email.
25
183. Shabazz also committed the crime of 18 U.S.C. Sec.241 conspiring with
26
Lawrence and others to cover up Adairs violation of family and companionship rights and the
27
childrens rights to bodily and emotional integrity guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
28
184. Shabazz committed the crime of 18 U.S.C. Sec.242 by conspiring to violate, and
46
1 violating, under color of law the family rights and companionship rights guaranteed to Plaintiff
2 and her children, conspiring to deny, and to deny, equal protection based on Plaintiffs status as
3 a female protective parent and the childrens status as abused children, and conspiring to deny,
4 and deny, Plaintiff her constitutional right under the First Amendment to access to the Court.
5 160. The widespread practice of committing conspiracies based on these crimes, made
6 Shabazz and Lawrence conclude that they could commit such crimes and engage in the civil
7 rights violations as alleged in this complaint for which Plaintiff seeks relief.
8 185. Lawrence is most likely a recipient of federal funds. She committed the crime of
9 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1) Theft from Programs Receiving Federal Funds. She stole from the
10 federal programs providing attorney fees for her services because she defrauded her clients and
11 aided and abetted a man which from all the evidence molested his daughters.
12 186. Allison contends that as insiders, Shabazz and Lawrence, or at least Shabazz, had
13 to know of the criminal conspiracies which were occurring primarily in 2010 and 2011 because
14 they originated in his department and with the Drug Enforcement Team in which the sheriffs
15 department played a huge role. With such a pervasive environment of corruption, Shabazz and
16 Lawrence believed their conspiracy to protect Adair would never be uncovered or challenged.
17 187. Tanabe committed his crimes between November 2010 and January 2011, just as
18 Shabazz began committing his crimes in this case. Tanabes indictment was not filed until
19 December 15, 2011, after Shabazz and Lawrence successfully protected Adair from probation
20 revocation and got him custody of two little girls.
21 188. Lombardi began committing his crimes in 2008 into late 2010, just as Shabazz
22 began committing his crimes in this case. Lombardis indictment was not filed until October
23 2011 after Shabazz and Lawrence successfully protected Adair from probation revocation and
24 got him custody of two little girls.
25 189. Wielsch committed his crimes in February 2009, August 2010, and in February
26 2011, just as Shabazz began committing his crimes in this case.
27 190. Butler committed his crimes in August 2007 (with Nolan), in April and August
28 2010, in February 2009, and in February 2011 just as Shabazz began committing his crimes in
47
1 this case.
2 191. The joint indictment against Wielsch and Butler did not occur until August 9,
3 2011, just at the time Shabazz and Lawrence successfully protected Adair from probation
4 revocation and got him custody of two little girls.
5 192. Nolan committed eavesdropping crimes in 2007. She was not prosecuted with
6 Butler and Tanabe for the false stings against the men involved in divorces. Nolan was not
7 indicted until September 6, 1012. Upon the announcement of her indictment in the press, J.
8 Cram, reputed to be very good friends with Nolan, retired immediately from the bench.
9 193. Shabazz and Lawrence must have been convinced they could get away with their
10 scheme since the indictments of Tanabe, Lombardi, Wieschl, Butler, and Nolan (and
11 accountability) came after Shabazz and Lawrence accomplished the goals of their conspiracy.
12 The Countys pervasive pattern of corruption was the moving force behind the constitutional
13 violation for the Secs. 241 and 242 violations brought under their civil counterparts, 42 U.S.C.
14 Secs.1985 and 1983.
15 194. Child Protective Services engages in a habit, custom, and practice of refusing to
16 investigate charges of child sexual abuse arising in family cases. Lund failed to conduct a
17 meaningful investigation in September 2011. Doe 1 quashed the mandated report of the
18 visitation monitor about the danger in which Adair had placed the two girls in 2014 in
19 accordance with that police.
20 195. As a result of the Countys deliberate indifference to the rights of Allison as a
21 female protective parent and her abused children Allison and her children were denied due
22 process and equal protection.
26 197. Allison and her children have suffered extreme pain and suffering mental
27 anguish, emotional and physical distress, and have been injured in mind, body, and spirit.
28 Allison has had to retain an attorney to prosecute the rights of her and her children.
48
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence per se Applies to Allison and her Two Daughters and to Defendants Shabazz,
2 Ammot, Patchin, Doe 1, and Does 2 - 10
3 198. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 - 194 into this Fifth Cause of Action as if fully
4 set out.
5 199. Shabazz, Ammot, Patchin, and Doe 1 have a mandatory duty under Penal Code
6 Section 11166, subdivision (a) to investigate child abuse allegations. The statute also imposes a
7 duty on police officers to take further action when an objectively reasonable person in the same
8 situation would suspect child abuse. Further action would entail reporting the "known or
9 suspected instance of child abuse to a child protective agency immediately or as soon as
10 practically possible by telephone" and preparing and sending "a written report thereof within 36
11 hours of receiving the information concerning the incident." (11166, subd. (a).)
12 200. Shabazz, Ammot, and Patchin failed to provide meaningful investigations in
13 accordance with Pen. C. Sec.11166. In fact, Ammot and Patchin performed no investigations of
14 Adairs abuse of the two children.
15 201. Child Protective Services (CPS) is charged by the California Penal Code and
16 its own statewide guidelines, known as the California DSS Manual, with investigating all
17 allegations of child abuse. (Penal Code 11165.9; DSS Manual 31-110 & 31-115.) CPS social
18 workers are mandated reporters, as outlined in Penal Code 11166, and are required to report
19 all suspected abuse pursuant to this Penal Code section as well.
20 202. Welf. & Inst. 328 also charges social workers with mandatory investigative
21 duties regarding reports of child abuse. The plain language of Welfare & Institutions 16500
22 shows the legislatures intent to provide a legal framework to protect at-risk children, as quoted
23 in pertinent part below:
24 The legislature hereby declares its intent, in providing for this statewide system of
child welfare services, that all children entitled to be safe and free from abuse and
25 neglect. Welf. & Inst. 16500
26 203. The statewide DSS Manual requires that social workers conduct an in-person
27 investigation with all relevant children, and their custodial parents. (DSS Manual 31-125.22.)
28 Social workers are further charged with determining, based on their investigations, the potential
49
1 for or the existence of any condition(s) which places the child, or any other child in the family or
2 household, at risk and in need of services... (DSS Manual 31-125.)
3 204. Lund and Doe 1 did none of these things, and flat out rejected the complaint
4 because the County had redlined the case and decided to quash any complaints about Adair and
5 the two daughters. Doe 1's refusal to conduct an investigation occurred within the statute of
6 limitations.
7 205. Government Code 815.6, creates liability when a person is harmed by a public
8 entitys failure to perform a mandatory duty. Allison filed a timely government claim with the
9 County.
10 206. Allison and her children have suffered extreme pain and suffering mental
11 anguish, emotional and physical distress, and have been injured in mind, body, and spirit.
12 Allison has had to retain an attorney to prosecute the rights of her and her children.
13 207. The acts of Defendants evinced a willful and deliberate disregard for the rights of
14 Allison and her two children, and thus, the negligence is gross, justifying an award of exemplary
15 and punitive damages against the defendants named in this cause of action in an amount to be
16 determined at trial.
17 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Gender Discrimination by Recipients of Federal Funds - Declaratory
18 and Injunctive Relief and Damages - Applies to Judicial Council, County, Court, and
California - Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act , (VAWA) 42 U.S. Code
19 Sec.12395(b); Juvenile Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.5501, et seq; The Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
20
208. Allison incorporates paragraphs 1 - 204 into this Sixth Cause of Action as if
21
fully set out.
22
209. 42 U.S. Code Sec.12395(b)(13)(A) states:
23
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of actual or perceived race,
24 color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph
249(c)(4) of title 18), sexual orientation, or disability, be excluded from
25 participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available
26 under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103322;
108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public
27 Law 106386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109162; 119 Stat.
28 3080), [1] the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, and any
other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for
50
1 grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on

Violence Against Women.
2
210. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d-7(a) states:
3
(a) General provision
4
(1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the
5 Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a
violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29
6 U.S.C. 794], title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20
U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42
7 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute
8 prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial
assistance.
9
(2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to in
10 paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in
equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such
11 remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any
public or private entity other than a State.
12
211. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, also
13
prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in the delivery of services and employment practices
14
at 42 U.S.C. 5672(b). See 28 CFR 42.203.
15
212. Contra Costa hypocritically is also seeking federal funds for Safe and Bright
16
Futures for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence $400,000 to implement the federally
17
funded plan to diminish the damaging effects of domestic violence on children and adolescents
18
and to stop the cycle of intentional injury and abuse. Adopted 2014 Federal Legislative
19
Platform of Contra Costa County found at
20
http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/documentcenter/view/33422
21
213. According to the website quoted above, the County received $428,000
22
appropriated for FFY 2009; $550,000 for FFY 2010. This money was most likely commingled
23
with other funding for the Court and County and thus used to protect Adair and to force the two
24
little girls into the sole custody of Adair, which makes the futures of A.A. and S.A. decidedly
25
unsafe and very dim. The County has perverted the purpose of these federal funds, using the
26
funds to defeat their very purpose.
27
214. Federal funds, possibly even the Safe and Bright Futures for Children Exposed to
28
Domestic Violence fund, pay for the salaries of Judge Cram, a former judge and state employee,
51
1 if the County paid her in addition to her state salary; Judge Bowen; Contra Costa County Sheriff
2 Department Supervisor Bill Baker, Detectives Xavier Shabazz, Nubia Zamorra, and Emily
3 Ammot, Sergeant Mike Jackson, Deputy Aguilar; Child Protective Services, Director, CSW
4 Jennifer Lund, and CSW Doe 1 (unknown unnamed CSW who refused to accept mandated report
5 of visitation monitor Emilver Letier in Feb. 2014); District Attorney Nancy Georgiou; County
6 Contractor Lawrence.
7 215. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is a source of funding
8 for certain court programs and is the primary source of prevention funds for child welfare
9 agencies.
10 216. Council allows J. Cram to fill in for regular judges receiving double payments
11 from the taxpayers and the Council appointed her to teach new judges at the Judicial College
12 despite her record of protecting Adair, a man who sexually abused his two daughters, of
13 depriving Allison of equal protection as a female protective parent, and of forcing the two little
14 girls to live with their abuser.
15 217. The Council has members like Fox who supported Giannini and Wagstaffe, two
16 prosecutors who engaged in racial discrimination in selection of juries. Fox misappropriated bar
17 dues to pay Giannini to train bar prosecutors on how to prosecute attorneys for ethical
18 violations. Fox and Giannini have engaged in serious ethical violations for which the Bar should
19 have prosecuted both of them because they engaged in misconduct which harmed the public
20 interest, not just a single client. Foxs misconduct was egregious because he was the supervisor
21 of both Giannini and Wagstaffe. He endorsed their racism in selection of juries by supporting
22 them and failing to discipline them. Fox is friends with San Mateo Sheriff Munks who tried to
23 have sex with underaged girls sex trafficked and kidnapped from Asia to serve as prostitutes for
24 men like Munks. With members like Fox on the Council and in charge of Equal Access to
25 Justice funds, mothers alleging child abuse will never receive due process and equal protection.
26 218. All of the above-named public servants are charged with the knowledge of what
27 exposure to domestic violence does to children as stated in the Countys Adopted 2014 Federal
28 Legislative Platform of Contra Costa County under the heading, Safe and Bright Futures for
52
1 Children Exposed to Domestic Violence fund:
2 ....[domestic violence] influences personality, shapes personal skills and behaviors,

impacts academic performance, and substantially contributes to the high cost of law
3 enforcement, civil/criminal justice and social services. Exposure to domestic violence is
associated with greater rates of substance abuse, mental illness, and adverse health
4 outcomes in adulthood, and substantially contributes to the high cost of law enforcement,
civil/criminal justice and social services. reshapes the human brain and is the primary
5 cause of trauma in childrens lives. It influences personality, shapes personal skills and
behaviors, impacts academic performance, and substantially contributes to the high cost
6 of law enforcement, civil/criminal justice and social services. Exposure to domestic
violence is associated with greater rates of substance abuse, mental illness, and adverse
7 health outcomes in adulthood, and substantially contributes to the high cost of law
enforcement, civil/criminal justice and social services.
8
219. Nonetheless, California, Council, County, and the Court allowed those named in
9
para 214 to use federal, state, and county funds for the purpose of protecting an individual who,
10
from all the evidence, was sexually abusing his daughters and to insure that he would obtain sole
11
custody of these two young vulnerable children. The Court committed gender discrimination by
12
requesting funds from the County and State to pay Lawrence to represent the children when she
13
protected the childrens abuser while committing fraud on the children and endangering their
14
lives. California aided and abetted the gender discrimination of Council, Court, and County by
15
providing them federal funds. California is well aware of the crisis in juvenile and family court
16
statewide whereby good mothers lose custody of their children in family and juvenile court when
17
they try to protect them.
18
220. Discrimination on the basis of Allisons gender resulted in denial of Allisons
19
liberty interest in the custody of the two girls and the family rights of both and her children and
20
denial of companionship with one another guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. The
21
gender discrimination has also resulted in denial of equal protection to Allison and to her
22
daughters and denial of equal family court and social services based on irrational favoritism
23
towards the male perpetrator of sexual abuse, namely, Adair. As a result, Allison was stripped of
24
custody and continuing companionship of her children. She has had only extremely limited
25
access to her children since November 2012. The children have suffered irreparable harm, forced
26
into the custody of Adair.
27
221. Allison has had to retain an attorney to litigate this lawsuit and she is
28
entitled to attorney fees.
53
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 Allison prays for relief as follows:
3 1. Award out-of-pocket, compensatory, and punitive damages against all defendants
4 named in the First, Second, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action;
5 2. Award out-of-pocket and compensatory damages against all defendants
6 named in the Fourth and Sixth Causes of Action
7 3. Award attorney fees against all defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec.1988 named
8 in the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action; pursuant to CCP 1021.5 in the Fifth
9 Cause of Action, and pursuant to Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the Sixth Cause of
10 Action;
11 4. Issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2201, 2202 that the
12 order changing custody to Adair and placing Allison in supervised visitation in August 2011 is
13 void and unenforceable.
14 5. Issue a declaratory judgment that when Judge Cram, Contra Costa County Sheriff
15 Department Supervisor Bill Baker, Detectives Xavier Shabazz, Nubia Zamorra, and Emily
16 Ammot, Sergeant Mike Jackson, Deputy Aguilar; Child Protective Services, Director, CSW
17 Jennifer Lund, and CSW Doe 1; District Attorney Nancy Georgiou; County Contractor Lawrence
18 engaged in a coverup of Adairs sexual abuse of the two daughters while receiving salaries from
19 public funds, their coverup constituted theft from public funds and fraud on the taxpayers;
20
DATED: July 13, 2015 /s/_________________________________
21 PATRICIA J. BARRY
22
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
23
Allison requests a jury trial on all causes of action and issues in this complaint.
24
DATED: July 13, 2015 /s/_________________________________
25 PATRICIA J. BARRY
26
27
28
54

Allison v. Shabazz Et Al. Case No. CV 14-04813 JSW

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Allison v. Shabazz Et Al. Case No. CV 14-04813 JSW

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case4:14-cv-04813-JSW Document49 Filed07/13/15 Page1 of 54

1 PATRICIA J. BARRY (SBN 59116)

1 6. Gender Discrimination by Recipients and

1 before the CJP (and will probably keep his job).

5 denied when J. Cram conducted the hearing on custody in 2011.

11 abuse of the daughters.

19 of uncharged crimes of child sexual abuse of Adair to Adairs probation officer.

24 placed in supervised visitation.

27 Shabazz in cross examination about Carpenters recommendation. Shabazz was unqualified to

2 time of trial. Lawrence had an obligation to subpoena Carpenter to trial.

6 intentionally-inflicted injury and that Adair needed to be in supervised visitation. Lawrence

20 about the children.

1 *Her stepgrandfather, Garry Grady on or about November 15, 2010;

2 *Her maternal grandmother, Patricia Ferris, on or about November 15, 2010

3 *Her mother, Allison, on or about November 16, 2010

4 * Jessica Reid Tsukahara, Allisons therapist, in Nov. or Dec. 2010.

5 Tsukhara made a mandated report to CPS. CPS did nothing in accordance

12 * Debbie McCann, Childrens Interview Center, Martinez, Dec.15, 2010 .

17 disclosed. The C.D.s of the interviews should have been produced in

18 response to Allisons sheriffs subpoena initially served in November 2013

19 in response to which Judge Bowen produced police and the Stidwell

20 records in December 2013.

21 * Dr. Johnson, A.A.s pediatrician. On or about January 25, 2011. He

22 provided a letter and testified at trial as to A.A.s disclosures of sexual

24 * Dr. Connell, ER doctor at Sutter Health Hospital and E.R. nurse

25 (unnamed), on or about February 7, 2011. Dr. Connell put in her report,

2 Shabazz testified he never spoke with Dr. Connell.

3 Dr. Connells Physical findings: small mucosal tear and erythema

6 * SART Nurse Kathryn Stidwell, on or about Feb 8, 2011. The records of

7 Stidwells SART interview on February 8, 2011, confirmed that A.A.

10 * James Carpenter, M.D., Contra Costa County Health Services, on or about

18 were inflicted injuries and the rectangular configuration on the right

19 buttock brings up the possibility of an object used in striking this

21 ago, which has resolved is a nonspecific finding. Redness by itself can

23 could be secondary to recent trauma such as digital or penile contact with

28 injury or sexual contact. I would encourage the child to continue in a

1 therapeutic relationship to further identify the emotional sequelae of

2 possible victimization as well as living in a home with divorce. ...emphasis

7 * Detective Xavier Shabazz.

10 provided sufficient information which Allison believed meant that A.A.

11 had disclosed sexual abuse. Shabazz lied, because he threatened Allison

15 court he testified that A.A. disclosed Adairs sexual abuse.

20 produce the videotape of McCanns interview of A.A. at the trial as

22 or A.A.s taped interview at the August 2011 trial.

27 bring charges against Allison.

28 61. On February 8, 2011, Allison sought an Emergency Protective Order (EPO)

6 abuse of the daughters.

24 and went up and down, up and down.

3 sexual abuse of Adair.

9 the additional hours.

22 because he had recommended that Adair needed to be in supervised visitation to protect

23 A.A., and that A.A. should have therapy.

9 she supported the switch in custody.

12 from Adairs probation officer.

13 72. Pen. C. 1203.2(a) states in part:

2 interview Bruce specifically because he was on probation.

5 February 2011. At the end of Shields report, Shields states:

6 Bruce is on misdemeanor court probation for PC273a(b) - Cruelty to Child

14 McCann, and Brooks would not testify.

25 September 2011. IA covered up Shabazzs misconduct.

26 80. The discovery of Shabazzs directive to officers not to question a probationer

2 all the evidence amassed against him.

6 abused his official authority to protect the alleged abuser of a child.