56-1 Ccfc Stuart Decl Iso Oppo to Sup Ct Rule 11 w Exhibits Final

8/13/2019 56-1 Ccfc Stuart Decl Iso Oppo to Sup Ct Rule 11 w Exhibits Final

1/24

-1-STUART DEC. ISO OPPO TO MTN SANCTS

3:13cv1944 CAB (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Colbern C. Stuart IIIEmail: [email protected] Pacific Highway Ste. 102San Diego, CA 92110Telephone: 858-504-0171Facsimile: 619-231-9143In Pro Se

Dean Browning Webb (pro hac vice pending)Email: [email protected] Offices of Dean Browning Webb515 E 39th St.Vancouver, WA 98663-2240Telephone: 503-629-2176

Attorney for Plaintiffs California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC, andLexevia, PC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COALITION FORFAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY BARASSOCIATION, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. 13cv1944-CAB-BLMJudge Cathy Ann Bencivengo

DECLARATION OF COLBERN C.STUART IN SUPPORT OFOPPOSITION TO THE SUPERIORCOURTS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS;

F.R.C.P. RULE 11(b)Date: December 19, 2013Time: 3:30 p.m.Courtroom:4C

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTEDSUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL

Com laint Filed: Au ust 20, 2013

I, Colbern Stuart, declare and state:

I am a Plaintiff in this action, President and founder of Plaintiff California

Coalition for Families and Children, PBC, and Lexevia, PC. I have personal


2/24



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called to testify would competently testify

as follows:

1. As President and co-founder of Plainitff California Coalition for Families andChildren, PBC, CEO of Lexevia, PC, and as a practicing lawyer since 1995, I have

obtained experience and conducted extensive investigation and research relating to

each of the factual and legal allegations of the Complaint over a period of many

years. I have contributed to the drafting of the Complaint based on that personal and

professional knowledge and experience. See Compl. 102-106 for details.

2. I am not a divorce lawyer. As a lawyer licensed and practicing in Californiastate courts for over a decade I am familiar with California state practice and

procedure generally applicable in all California Superior Courts.

3. I have experienced the State of California Family Court practices through myown dissolution litigation and in assisting dozens of similarly-situated parents

enduring modern family court malfeasance, fraud, and abuse.

4. I founded Plaintiff California Coalition for Families and Children to addressthose common concerns and provide a vehicle for domestic dispute industry reform,

education, and engagement toward those ends. My experience in civil rights

scholarship, activism, commercial and pro bono representation in state and federal

courts nationwide permits him an uncommon perspective to family court practices.

Complaint paragraphs 71-75, 77-99, 100-101, 110, 113-123.

5. I have not brought the claims of the Complaint to harass defendants or for anyimproper purpose. My purpose is to remedy injury caused during the course of my

and my co-Plaintiffs reform efforts, and to cure the systemic affliction which

Defendants have proven incapable or unwilling to cure for themselves.

6. I, my co-Plaintiffs, and the parent community we support have undertakenextensive efforts prefacing the filing of this lawsuit to effect reform by other means

but such efforts have been resisted by Defendants, and even met with violence.

Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a press release issued shortly after this


3/24



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

litigation was filed describing the frustrated efforts many parents and divorce industry

litigants experience while engaging in family court litigation. The injuries leading to

this lawsuit occurred to me and my co-Plaintiffs while we were engaging Defendants

in precisely those reform efforts.

7. My co-Plaintiffs and I have not chosen litigation as a firstbut perhaps as alastresort, having exhausted every state-level remedy we are capable of. We have

consistently been met with the explanation that thats just how it is in Family

Court. As any educated citizen or lawyer could conclude, You know how it is is

oftentimes corrupt, unethical, or illegal. So it is here.

8. The inclusion of the home addresses of certain Defendants in the Complaintwas not intended to harass, but to satisfy requirements of pleading venue where a

defendant "resides" or "may be found under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). In preparation for

filing this lawsuit, I have performed ordinary due diligence in obtaining information

regarding the residence and business whereabouts of each defendant, including

Defendants Schall, Trentacosta, Wohlfeil and others, as they were readily available

from phone books, online records, online skip-trace searches, or other public

resources. Obtaining such information is part of every pre-litigation investigation I

have ever undertaken, numbering in the hundreds. I am unaware that any of the

information I disclosed is private or otherwise confidential.

9. The Superior Courts motion alleges, without reference to any evidence, that Irefused to take any steps to correct their violationreferring to my response to Ms.

Nesthus demands that I remove the original Complaint from the Internet and the

Court files including PACER. This Courts own files, including my Declaration in

support of Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Harassment Protective Order,

directly refute this baseless allegation. Redacted Complaint, Dkt#8; Plaintiffs Ex

Parte Motion for Temporary Harassment Restraining Order, Dkt#4.

10. After Ms. Nesthus August 25, 2013 letter to me, I immediately undertookextensive efforts to work with her to redact the Complaint, remove unredacted


4/24



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

versions of the Complaint from CCFC-controlled computer servers, alert others who

had posted the unreacted Complaint from their servers, and re-file a redacted copy of

the Complaint with the Court. As I obviously have no control over the Courts

PACER system or Court files, I could not cause the removal from PACER Ms.

Nesthus demanded. The Superior Courts claims that I was anything other than

reasonable are false, outrageous, ungrateful, and insultingbut unfortunately

consistent with a pattern of HARASSMENT AND ABUSE Ms. Nethus employers

have demonstrated habitually toward the litigants they serve.

11.The number of times the Complaint had been viewed on the Internet, that theComplaint also included home addresses of other Defendants which have not

objected and are not represented by The Superior Court or its counsel, and this

Courts courteous, yet not required, sealing of the original and redacted Complaints

to which no plaintiff objectsare not consistent with an intent to harassthey are

the ordinary and expected behavior of civil rights plaintiffs publicizing their efforts to

a nationwide community of similarly-situated domestic dispute industry professionals

and victim-litigants closely watching this case as an augur of the future of reform.

12.Further, even after I undertook efforts to accommodate The Superior Courtsbellicose demands, I was confronted with a half dozen alerts from CCFC members,

partners, and affiliates who were contacted by San Diego Sheriff Department

Deputies and Detectives who issued take-down demands to remove the Complaint-

-coerced threats without warrant or probable cause. These legally-indefensible

threats of state police power have caused significant disruption in our parent network,

and themselves constitute further illegal deprivation of Plaintiffs rights of free

speech, due process, and access to courts. I intend to raise these issues by appropriate

means through this or related channels.

13. One purpose in bringing this action is to enjoin the rampant disobedience tothe rule of law which present defendants and their collaborators have violently and

collusivelyrefused to observe for themselves. This action is directed in part to


5/24



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

conforming insubordinated criminalpractices of courts, judges, lawyers, social

workers, and mental health professionals with existing and longstanding principles of

state and federal commercial, health and welfare, and constitutional law.

14. I respectfully submit that any sanction award against Plaintiffs in this casewould be unjust. Plaintiffs are a public benefit corporation and their members and

advocates which, in the course of attempts to facilitate the reform of voracious

criminal enterprises, have fallen victims to the illegal tactics of those very enterprises.

15. It would be difficult to exaggerate the devastating impact to date ofDefendants illegal activities on the resources available to Plaintiffs to continue their

reform efforts, including this litigation. CCFC is not a commercial operationit has

no revenue other than donations and the generous goodwill of many dedicated

volunteers. It is a community of victims of these very defendants heinous acts of

fraud and abuse, who have formed to recover their losses, but more importantly to

prevent that same harm from befalling others unaware of the maze of horrors that

awaits them once they step behind Defendants doors.

16.The Complaint details our efforts in seeking attention and assistance to remedyand reform an industry few fail to recognize as a dystopia, yet almost none have the

knowledge, concern, or courage required to attend. To my and my co-Plaintiffs

dozens of overtures, government agencies, politicians, and the commercial and pro

bono legal community have universally respond yes, its a mess, but we dont know

how to fix it.

17. As the intended benefactors of that dystopiaparents and childrenwhoveinstead of benefiting from that system have fallen victim to it, I and my co-Plaintiffs

have valuable input of what is wrong and how to fix it. Yet our wealth of

experience, knowledge, and suggestions is not equaled by a wealth of material

resources to implement them. Like most family court litigants, I and my fellow

CCFC members left family courts with little more than harrowing nightmares and a

very bitter taste in our mouths which, though highly motivating, are accompanied by


6/24



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a debilitating fear of further legal reprisal or financial victimization by the very

defendants present here.

18. Defendants have effectively monopolized or blockaded all venues foreffecting reform through state-level machinerycourts, judges, lawyers, bureaucrats,

and psychologists collaborate to police a poisonous toll-based maze they themselves

built which outrageously extracts wealth from unsuspecting families by artifice, trick,

and deceit.

19.That wealth and power, initially earned by the honest hands and brows ofparents working to provide for their children, has by trick and device been converted

into the hands of some of San Diegos strongest law firms, hired to defend the

schemes that pay their billsand today returns to a new scene to pick those pockets

yet again, by means of new rules in a new courthouse.

20.Anyaward of sanctions against Plaintiffs in this case would be devastating,and only further the perpetration of what will be proven to be a shameful and

fraudulent abuse of knowledge of public processes and institutions, public police

power, and tainted wealth by those operating under a public license, oath, and duty to

protect those in their care. Sanctions would deplete our meager resources, and most

disturbingly be a blow to the courage, dignity, and public spirit of parents and

children nationwide, who have barely the means to defend themselves.

DATED: December 5, 2013 By: /s/

Co ern C. Stuart, III, Pres ent,California Coalition for Families andChildren PBC

in Pro Se

Colbern C. Stuart, III


7/24



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have

consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the

court's CM-ECF system per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b )(2)(E). Any other

counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail this

5th day of December, 2013.

By: /s/

Colbern C. Stuart, III, President,California Coalition for Families and

Children, PBC

in Pro Se

Colbern C. Stuart, III


8/24

California Coalition for Families and Children, et al v. San

Diego County Bar Association,USDC SDCA Case No.

Case No. 13cv1944-CAB-BLM

Declaration of Colbern C. Stuart in Support of Opposition to Motion for

Sanctions

Exhibit A


9/24


10/24


11/24


12/24


13/24


14/24


15/24


16/24


17/24


18/24


19/24


20/24

California Parents File Federal Racketeering Lawsuit against FamilyCourt Judges; Charge Criminal Extortion, Bribery, Abuse of Office

August 20, 2013 -- San Diego, CA In its continuing campaign to end the harassment, fraud, and

abuse rampant in California State Family Courts, a parents rights group, the California Coalition for

Families and Children, has filed a lawsuit today in federal court charging the San Diego County courts,

social workers, divorce attorneys, and psychologists with federal criminal racketeering.

The abuses of parents and children by Family Courts, social workers, and family law attorneys have

harmed parents and children for far too long. We intend to end that abuse.says CCFC President

Colbern Stuart. Family court is designed by its makers to be probably the most dangerous life event

parents and children can endure. It enables and profits from every inhumane instinct known to man

greed, hate, resentment, fearresulting in abundant cash flow for the divorce industry and a fallout of

parent and childrens misery.

And behind the curtain of this machine of misery weve uncovered its causethe multi-billion dollar

divorce industry, populated by judges, attorneys, and a machinery of tax-dollar fed judicial

administrators,social workers that George Orwell would marvel at.

Wevebeen delivering that message kindly for years now, yet the tide keeps rising on families in

crisis. Weve appealed to the county courts, state and local politicians, statejudicial oversight bodies,

United States Representatives, and just plain old human dignity, but the harassment and abuse of

parents and children has only increased. A resort to federal court intervention in the widespread

criminal collusion in state government was the next logical step.

Its time to recognize Family Court for what it isa corporate crime ring raiding parents and children

of financial and psychological well-being, and devouring our childrens futures. And its not just divorce

lawyersits judges,judicial administrators,psychologists, cops and prosecutorspeople we should

be able to trustin a modern day criminal cabal using county courtrooms and sheriffs deputies as the

machinery of organized crime. Say Stuart. Since state officialshands are too deep into the cookiejar to stop their own abuse, were seeking the assistance of federal oversight.

CCFC has been active in past years uncovering fraud and abuse of families and children in state

courts, including the consumer fraud case of Dr. Stephen Doyne, the most notable child custody

evaluator in San Diego. They not only let Doyne run wild for years, they actively protected his abuse

of parents and children. In my mind, the industry is a godless abomination says Stuart. One of our

parents who challenged Doyne and lost was orderedby the same court that employs Doyneto pay

Doynes attorneys feesover $380,000for calling out his undisputed fraud. Its outrageous, and its

going to stop.

CCFCs Complaint details both civil and criminal charges. Weve alleged over 34 specific federal

crimes in the complaint, and were turning our evidence over to the F.B.I. and U.S. Attorney forfurther investigation. Says Stuart.

The Complaint is available online through CCFCs Facebook page atwww.facebook.com/ccfconline.

Quotes:

The present-day suffering of so many parents and children has and is being wrought within a larger

system characterized by a widespread institutional failure ofindeed contempt forthe rule of law.
http://www.facebook.com/ccfconlinehttp://www.facebook.com/ccfconlinehttp://www.facebook.com/ccfconlinehttp://www.facebook.com/ccfconline


21/24

California legal institutions such as family courts and the legal community, professional institutions

such as the state bar and psychology boards, and criminal justice institutions have in the recent

decade gradually combined to cultivate a joint enterprise forum in which widespread family practice

exceptions to the rule of law are not only tolerated, but increasingly encouraged. Professional

behavior that would only a few years ago be recognized as unethical, illegal, or otherwise intolerable

by American legal, psychological, law enforcement, or social work professionals has increasinglyachieved acceptanceindeed applausefrom institutional interests which benefit from a joint

enterprise enforcing the unwritten law of who you know is more important than what you know.

In this lawless behaviors most crass infestation, California Superior Court Family Division judges are

regularly heard to announce, in open court, I amthe law and proceed to act accordingly with

impunity, indifference, andwithout shame.

The effect on parents and children seeking social support within this coalescing family law forum

has not been as advertised by courts and professionalsa new healingbut instead a new affliction:

animposed disabilityof de rigueur deprivation of fundamental rights in the name oftherapeutic

jurisprudencefunded by converting college funds into a bloated ministry of the bar leaving families

and their children with mere crumbs of their own success.

The case centers on the April 15, 2010 assault of CCFCs President, Cole Stuart, at the San Diego

County Bar Association meeting of family court judges and attorneys. Stuart was attending the

meeting of family court judges and attorneys on behalf of CCFC. SDCBA recognized Stuart as the

President of the Parents Rights group and ordered fifteen armed bar association security to tackle

him, handcuff him, and throw him out.

According to Stuart, around ten CCFC parents and children attended the seminar to advance their

reform efforts and send a message of doctor, heal thyself. The San Diego County Bar Association

meeting of judges and attorneys chose a theme critical of their own clients: calling them Litigants

Behaving Badly. CCFC chose a counter-theme: CCFC parents and children carried signs statingJUDGES BEHAVING BADLY; if YOU dont follow the law, why would WE?

Judge Judy may be entertaining daytime televisionfor some, but that indignity has no place in our

justice systemeven in what they consider to below-brow family court. Yet many family court

judges regularly administer such obnoxiousrenegadejustice every day, in open defiance of the rule

of law. Sober as a judge these days has a whole new meaning. Says StuartIve been a

successful lawyer for 18 years and seen both excellence and failure, but Ive never been ashamed of

my profession until the days I walked out of family court. I decided then that this lawless rolling

train wreck of shame to my profession and harm to my community must stop. And for that

inspiration, they sent me to jail.

CCFC and Stuart are suing SDCBA and the dozen judges and lawyers who organized the seminar.

They were well aware of our intent to be present at the Seminar--and had fifteen Sheriffs Deputies

and a paddy wagon waiting to welcome us when we arrived. We had been in court to seek sanctions

against them in the morning, then they assault me that very evening.

According to the CCFC Complaint: Family Courts, including judges, blame Litigants Behaving Badly

for harms enabledindeed largely manufacturedby the Domestic Dispute Industrys own

longstanding predatory commercial practices. CCFC saw the Litigants Behaving Badly theme as part

of the self-delusional propaganda engaged in by so many [divorce industry] members who, rather


22/24

than recognizing the harm their industry enables and healing themselves, instead blame their own

clients, who, quite true, do regularly abuse process, their loved ones, and even themselvesin perfect

compliance with [divorce industry] instructions.

The lawsuit alleges that divorce lawyers illegally conspire with judges to steal from parents as part of

a racketeering criminal enterpriseand brings over 30 claims of federally-indictable crime. Civil

rights violations, fraud, and obstruction of justice are federal crimeseven for judges.

The lawsuit seeks to hold judges and courts personally responsible for overseeing the crime

committed by the attorneys and social workers in their courtroom. Judges have a legal and ethical

duty to ensure rights under the judicial canons of conduct. Its just not possible that intelligent

lawyers like judges dont understand exactly what goes on in their courtrooms, yet they allow it to

continue. In CCFCs opinion, this judicial collusion is far more serious crime than even the fraud of

divorce attorneys themselves says Stuart.

CCFC has filed a motion for a protective order preventing the San Diego Defendants from harassing

them Since theyve known about CCFC and its reform toward the more humane family dispute

resolution solutions we offer, theyve treated us as enemies of the state. When we thought wed be

welcomed, or at least heard, weve instead become targetsof prosecution and terrorist threats--Theyassaulted me, harassed our members including threatening gun cock and death threat late night

phone calls, attacked our businesses, professional licenses, and threatened to jail and extort us with

further crime. Its outrageous that our own government allows this to happen, and were asking the

federal court to protect our members as we pursue the civil and criminal charges against the courts.

A complete set of filings and exhibits is available from CCFCs Facebook page at

www.Facebook.com/ccfconline

About: CCFC is a nonprofit organization of parents-both men and women-who have experienced

marital dissolution proceeding in San Diego, Orange, or Los Angeles Counties, Our members are

professionals or others who are highly motivated to improving governmental and justice system

process addressing domestic relations, parentage, custody, and abuse.

CCFC seeks to promote the health and success of all families--parents and children equally and alike.

We perceive that parents and children presently lack effective and independent advocates within

government and the civil and criminal justice system, and as such their rights and interests are

regularly compromised in favor of the institutionalized interests of others, including government,

private attorneys and professional service providers, and the enormous domestic dispute industry.

CCFC organizers, officers, and affiliates are professionals dedicated to improving social, governmental,

and justice system processes concerning domestic relations, child rearing, parenting, constitutional

law, child custody, and domestic violence. Many of CCFCs members are mothers, fathers, and

children who have withstood abundant hardship resulting from the current practices of what is

generally described as the Family Law Community. These injuries and insults include fraudulent,

inefficient, harmful, and even dangerous services; an institutionalized culture of indifference to

clearly-established liberties; insults to the autonomy and dignity of parents and children; extortion,

robbery, abuse, and more, delivered at the hands of eager operators within the divorce industry.
http://www.facebook.com/ccfconlinehttp://www.facebook.com/ccfconlinehttp://www.facebook.com/ccfconline


23/24

California Coalition for Families and Children, et al v. San

Diego County Bar Association,USDC SDCA Case No.

Case No. 13cv1944-CAB-BLM

Declaration of Colbern C. Stuart in Support of Opposition to Motion for

Sanctions

Exhibit B


24/24

SState of California

Secretary of State

Statement of Information(Domestic Stock and Agricul tural Cooperative Corporations)

FEES (Filing and Disclosure): $25.00.If this is an amendment, see instructions.

IMPORTANT READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM

1. CORPORATE NAME

2. CALIFORNIA CORPORATE NUMBERThis Space for Filing Use Only

No Change Statement (Not applicable if agent address of record is a P.O. Box address. See instructions.)

3. If there have been any changes to the information contained in the last Statement of Information fil ed with the California Secretaryof State, or no statement of information has been previously filed, this form must be completed in its entirety.

If there has been no change in any of the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary

of State, check the box and proceed to Item 17.

Complete Addresses for the Following (Do not abbreviate the name of the city. Items 4 and 5 cannot be P.O. Boxes.)

4. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE CITY STATE ZIP CODE

5. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA, IF ANY CITY

STATE ZIP CODE

6. MAILING ADDRESS OF CORPORATION, IF DIFFERENT THAN ITEM 4 CITY STATE ZIP CODE

7. EMAIL ADDRESS FOR RECEIVING STATUTORY NOTIFICATIONS

Names and Complete Addresses of the Following Officers (The corporation must list these three officers. A comparable title for the specifofficer may be added; however, the preprinted titles on this form must not be altered.)

7. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE

8. SECRETARY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE

9. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE

Names and Complete Addresses of All Directors, Including Directors Who are Also Officers (The corporation must have at least ondirector. Attach additional pages, if necessary.)

10. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE



13. NUMBER OF VACANCIES ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IF ANY:

Agent fo r Service of Process If the agent is an individual, the agent must reside in California and Item 15 must be completed with a California streaddress, a P.O. Box address is not acceptable. If the agent is another corporation, the agent must have on file with the California Secretary of State certificate pursuant to California Corporations Code section 1505 and Item 15 must be left blank.

14. NAME OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

15. STREET ADDRESS OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA,IF AN INDIVIDUAL CITY STATE ZIP CODE

Type of Business

16. DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION

17. BY SUBMITTING THIS STATEMENT OF INFORMATION TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE, THE CORPORATION CERTIFIES THE INFORMATICONTAINED HEREIN INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS IS TRUE AND CORRECT

EV34288

FILEDIn the office of the Secretary of State

of the State of CaliforniaLEXEVIA, PC

NOV-28 2013

C3195397

4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110


COLBERN C STUART 4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110


COLBERN STUART 4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110


[Note: The person designated as the corporation's agent MUST have agreed to act in that capacity prior to the designa

COLBERN C STUART


CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMIL

56-1 Ccfc Stuart Decl Iso Oppo to Sup Ct Rule 11 w Exhibits Final

Documents

Transcript of 56-1 Ccfc Stuart Decl Iso Oppo to Sup Ct Rule 11 w Exhibits Final