57-x Ccfc Stuart Decl Table x.c Ex c

7/27/2019 57-x Ccfc Stuart Decl Table x.c Ex c

1/33

-1-STUART SUPP DEC ISO OPPO TO CJP MTN TO DISMISS

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

SUPPLEMENTALDECLARATION OFCOLBERN C. STUART IN SUPPORTOF OPPOSITION TO COMMISSION ONJUDICIAL PERFORMANCE MOTION

TO DISMISSDate: December 19, 2013Time: 3:30 p.m.Courtroom:4C

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTEDSUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL

Complaint Filed: August 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

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

as follows:


2/33



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

1. Plainitffs Opposition to the Motion To Dismiss Complaint of DefendantsCommission on Judicial Performance, Lawrence Simi, and Brad Battson referenced a

table X.x at page 1. That table was inadvertently not included with the Declaration of

Colbern Stuart filed with the Court on December 5, 2013. It is attached hereto as

Exhibit C.

I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the

foregoing is true and correct.

DATED: December 6, 2013 By: /s/

Co ern C. Stuart, III, Pres ent,California Coalition for Families andChildren, PBCin Pro Se

Colbern C. Stuart, III


3/33



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

6th 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


4/33

California Coalition for Families and Children, et al. vs.

San Diego County Bar Association, et al,

United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaCase No. 3:13cv1944 CAB BLM

Declaration of Colbern Stuart in Support of Plaintiffs

Opposition to Commission Defendants Motion to Dismiss

Exhibit C


5/33

-1-EX. C TO STUART DECL. ISO OPPOSITION TO

CJP MOTION TO DISMSS3:13-CV-1944 CAB (BLM)

Ex. C to Declaration of Colbern Stuart:Table X.x; referenced in Memorandum in Opposition to DefendantsCommission on Judicial Performance, Lawrence Simi, Brad Bateson

(Commission Defendants) Motion to Dismiss

Complaint Allegation Relevant to Commission Defendants18. Defendant Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) is an entity with

jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, 18 of the California Constitutionresponsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicialincapacity and for disciplining judges. . . . The commission's mandate is to

protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintainpublic confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system,including in this District.

19. Defendant Lawrence J. Simi (SIMI) is the Chairperson for the CJPresiding at 357 Irving Street, San Francisco, California, doing business in thisthis District as the Chairperson for the CJP. In that capacity he is authorized andrestricted pursuant to the same laws authorizing and restricting the CJP. He issued herein his individual and official capacities.

20. Defendant Brad Batson (BATSON) is an individual employed as aninvestigator for DEFENDANT CJP. BATSON at all times herein mentionedwas the representative, agent, and employee of the CJP in addressing the DDIJOCOMPLAINTS I and II and performing the duties of his office in this District.He is sued herein his individual and official capacities.

59. Defendants acting in concert with COLD at times acted as agents of andtherefore are at times named as color of law defendants by virtue of theirrelationships with COLD as agents, affiliates, co-conspirators, or superiors ofCOLD, as more specifically described below.

60. Collectively, the above-referenced defendants, operating full or part timeas part of a broader Family Law Community of professionals, institutions,entities, practices, methods, products and services and its ancillary arms shallhereafter be referred to as the Domestic Dispute Industry (DDI). Litigants withinthe DDI, including STUART and those similarly situated, are hereafter referredto as Domestic Dispute Industry Litigants (DDIL).

69. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege that in doing all of the thingsalleged, COLD, and each of them, acted under color of statutes, regulations,customs and usages of the State of California, County of San Diego, and/or Cityof San Diego, and pursuant to the official policies thereof, except as otherwisealleged.


6/33



70. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and allege that at all times mentioned eachDefendant was the agent, associate, affiliate, co-conspirator, superior and/oremployee of each other defendant and was acting within the course, scope and

purpose of such relationship in each act ascribed to them herein, except asotherwise alleged.

82. FFRRESA Engagement in Reform of State Color of Law Actors:Plaintiffs FFRRESA has included numerous ENGAGEMENTS with state andfederal authorities to attempt to enforce FFRRESA reforms on California lawsand institutions, including identification, publication, accusation, formal andinformal complaints, ENGAGEMENT, litigation, and collaborative remedy ofthe illegal activities of the Domestic Dispute Industry. These efforts include:

83. DIJO COMPLAINTI: In November, 2009, STUART contacted the UnitedStates Attorneys Office for the Southern District of California to report violationsof the FFR, specifically identifying numerous provisions of federal law,

including 18 U.S.C. 2(a)-(b), 241, 242, 371, 666, 1341, 1343, 1346, 1503,1505, 1510, 1581-1595, 1951, 1961-1964; and 42 U.S.C. 1981-86 (thesestatutory provisions shall hereafter be referred to as the Civil Rights Civil andCriminal Statutes, or CRCCS) by SCHALL, DOYNE, and WOHLFEILdetailing allegations consistent with those asserted herein. STUART detailednumerous violations of the CRCCS on the part of SCHALL, includingdeprivation of rights, abuse of process, abusive behavior and remarks from the

bench, a long history of three prior admonishments by Defendant CJP includinga 2008 conviction for drunken driving, a persistent pattern of refusals to adhere

to state and federal minimum due process standards in STUARTS case andseveral others known publically, illegal, unnoticed, and without probable causesearches and seizure of STUART and STUARTs property inside the a civil(family law) courtroom, and generally extreme and outrageous unprofessionaldemeanor.

84. The U.S. Attorneys Office advised STUART as follows:A. That the DDIJO COMPLAINT I allegations could be violations of federallaw, but that because the matters were not all that serious STUART should

proceed instead with the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP),the California State body with jurisdiction to investigate, and enforce standards,

rules, and laws, including violations of federal law, regarding state actorsjudicial behavior;

B. That the CJP had jurisdiction to impose address, investigate, and discipline orotherwise dispose of STUARTs complaints under both state and federal law,


7/33



and was obligated to report any violations of federal criminal law to theappropriate federal authorities;

C. That if Stuart filed a complaint with both the U.S. Attorneys Office and theCJP, the U.S. Attorneys Office would not take action until the complaint to theCJPs Office was exhausted.;

D. That the CJP was the first step in the process. The U.S. Attorneys Officeadvised Stuart that he could, if he wished, file a complaint with the U.S. Attorneyand the Grand Jury, but that because the facts did not indicate anything serious,the U.S. Attorney would likely not act;

E. That if STUART was unsatisfied with the CJPs response, he could pursue thesame complaint directly with the U.S. Attorney or F.B.I. and rely on the

documentation, evidence, facts, and testimony provided to the CJP.85. Though STUART disagreed that the behavior he described was notserious, he obeyed the instructions of the U.S. Attorneys Office, contacting theCJP to continue prosecution of the DDIJO COMPLAINT I in the CJP Offices.The CJP representative advised STUART that because DOYNE was not anelected or appointed judicial official, the CJP had no jurisdiction to hearComplaints regarding him. The CJP further advised that since STUARTsComplaint regarding WOHLFEIL was related to his appointment of DOYNE,and because SCHALL was the party primarily involved in the allegations of civil

rights deprivations concerning DOYNE, that a complaint regarding WOHLFEILwould not be appropriate. The CJP advised STUART to deliver a writtendescription of his complaint regarding only SCHALL.

86. STUART did so, detailing violations of the CRCCS by SCHALL. Stuartalso detailed facts relating to DOYNE and WOHLFEILs potential involvementin violations of the FFR and CRCCS. STUART submitted the complaint to theCJP and copies thereof to the United States Attorneys Office, the Grand Jury ofthe United States District Court for the Southern District of California, theInternal Revenue Service, all of Californias representatives in the United StatesHouse of Representatives and the United States Senate, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, and the California Commission on Judicial Performance (hereafterbe referred to as the FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS).

87. STUART also provided a copy of the DDIJO COMPLAINT (I) tonumerous DDIJO DEFENDANTS including all then-sitting DDIJO on the SanDiego County Superior Court, Family Law Division, San Diego County SuperiorCourt supervising Judge Kenneth So, the San Diego Daily Transcript, the San


8/33



Diego Union Tribune, a number of state and federal media outlets, parentinggroups, and related entities. A true and correct copy of Stuarts letter to theFEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS is unavailable and as such isreferenced as if attached (Ex. 22).

88. During the investigation of DDIJO COMPLAINT I, STUART continuedto interact with the FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, including ator around the time of the STUART ASSAULT, and continues today.

89. DDIJO COMPLAINT II: In October, 2012, STUART supplemented hisprior DDIJO COMPLAINT I with more extensive detail regarding SCHALL,WOHLFEIL, AND DOYNE, INC., and asserting additional allegations againstDEFENDANTS SCHALL, ALKSNE, C. GOLDSMITH, and GROCH.STUART submitted the DDIJO COMPLAINT II to the FEDERAL LAWENFORCEMENT OFFICERS regarding substantially the same allegations asasserted herein. A true and correct copy of the DDIJO COMPLAINT II is

attached hereto as Exhibit 21. STUART delivered a copy of DDIJOCOMPLAINT II other DDIJO, the FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENTOFFICERS, the public and various media outlets.

90. STUART has continued to interact with the FEDERAL LAWENFORCEMENT OFFICERS regarding the DDIJO COMPLAINTS through the

present day.

Other CCFC Federal Engagement: CCFC organizers and affiliates have becomeinvolved as witnesses and potential parties in reporting violations of the CRCCSto several FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. . . .

96. At the time of the STUART ASSAULT, STUART, CCFC member Dr.Emad Tadros and Eileen Lasher and other CCFC members were in ongoing DUEADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE with the FEDERAL LAWENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVES,including Senator Barbara Boxer, and Defendants AOC internal affairsrepresentatives Eric Pulido and John Judnich, SCSDC, RODDY, CJP, to provideinformation, documents, assistance, testimony, and evidence of violation of theCRCCS.

98. On information and belief, state and FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENTOFFICERS have and continue to investigate PLAINTIFFS allegations under the

CRCCS toward presentment to a grand jury, indictment, and prosecution underfederal law.

99. The above-described activities of PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates ininteraction and cooperation with FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENTOFFICERS, constitutes attendance as a witness or party at proceedings, giving ofevidence, documents, records, objects, or other testimony given or any record,


9/33



document, any information relating to the commission or possible commission ofa CRCCS violation or otherwise regarding PLAINTIFFS FFRRESA and relatedmatters to the FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS in pursuit ofinvestigation, presentation, indictment, prosecution, redress, reform, and

punishment of DEFENDANTS shall hereafter be referred to as the DUEADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

112. This matter arises out of DEFENDANTS criminal and tortiousinterference with and retaliation for PLAINTIFFS PUBLIC BENEFITACTIVITY. DEFENDANTS are owners, associates, participants, collaborators,affiliates, benefactors, associates of entities providing traditional professional,legal, social, and government services as part of the DDI. They have actedaggressively and illegally against PLAINTIFFS to commit criminal and civilviolations of PLAINTIFFS state and FFR civil rights, obstruct justice, abuse

process, interfere with existing and prospective business relations, and commit

civil and criminal violations federal law prohibiting RACKETEERINGACTIVITY under 18 U.S.C. 1961 (b). These and other civil and criminalstatutes set forth herein are collective referred to as the Civil Rights Criminal andCivil Statutes, or CRCCS. The details of DEFENDANTS activities inviolation of the FFR and actionable under the CRCCS have been described in

publications attached hereto as Exs. 1-10.

113. As part of PLAINTIFFS PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY, PLAINTIFFShave sought opportunities to ENGAGE FLC professionals and clients to raiseawareness of the ongoing unsafe, inefficient, and illegal activity and harm to

clients being caused by the FLC, and to influence DEFENDANTS towardadoption of safer, more efficient, and legal white hat alternatives to FLCpractices such as those advanced by PLATINTIFFS. In furtherance of thosegoals PLAINTIFFS have initiated and/or coordinated numerousENGAGEMENTS with FLC members, including DEFENDANTS.

124. DEFENDANTS received CCFCs press releases announcing theENGAGEMENT ahead of the Seminar. True and correct copy of articles

identifying a spike in downloads of the CCFC Press Release byDEFENDANTS is attached at Exhibit 29 and incorporated herein as if set forthin full. DEFENDANTS also knew or had reason to know of the CCFC

FFRRESA by virtue of CCFCs past ENGAGEMENT, and FFRRESA.129. In attendance at the seminar were approximately 100 legal professionals,

presumably members of the FLC, as well as approximately fifteen uniformedarmed Sheriffs Deputies spread in a uniformly-spaced perimeter along the wallsof the room. After STUART selected his seat, the Sheriffs Deputies changed


10/33



their perimeter to positions nearer to STUART along the walls, effectivelysurrounding STUART. Each deputy was watching STUART closely.

130. The seminar began with introductory remarks by Family Law Divisionsupervising judge ALKSNE. However, after only about two minutes of

speaking, ALKSNE announced an abrupt break, apologizing that she needed abreak so we can straighten something out. One or more of the SDCBADefendants had signaled or otherwise drew the attention of Defendant ALKSNEto alert her of STUARTs presence and that the plan to eject STUART (described

below) was underway.

132. The group conferred for several minutes, looking in STUARTS directionand referencing his presence with nods, glances, and gestures. It was apparentthat the group was discussing STUART. STUART remained seated quietlyduring the unscheduled break.

133. After consulting with ALKSNE and others, two employees of defendant

ODO and two Sheriffs Deputies approached STUART where he was seated.The men asked STUART if he was Colbern Stuart. STUART acknowledgedhis identity. The men then asked STUART to accompany them to leave theseminar. STUART declined and inquired why he was being asked to leave. Themen reiterated that the SDCBA wanted him to leave. STUART again refused,stating that he had purchased a ticket and was intent on attending the entireseminar. STUART asked if he was breaking any laws or interfering with theseminar in any way. The men replied no. STUART politely again expressedhis desire and intent to remain attending the entire seminar.

134. The men then informed STUART that if he did not leave voluntarily thatthey would forcibly eject him. STUART objected, again stating that he intendedto remain. The men then returned to where the others were huddled severalfeet away. The group again conferred with similar references and gesturestoward STUART.

135. Within moments, the same two security guards and two Sheriffs deputiesapproached STUART, who continued to sit quietly awaiting the resumption ofthe seminar. The men again asked STUART to leave. STUART again refused.The men then forced STUART to stand, grabbed his arms, forced his hands

behind his back, and handcuffed him. They searched his person, emptied his

pockets, and seized his property, consisting of a notebook, reading glasses, amobile phone, pen, spare change, CCFC and LEXEVIA business cards, and awallet. They forcibly led STUART out of the SEMINAR in front of dozens ofSTUARTs professional colleagues including one of his law partners, fellow barmembers, lawyers, judges, professional service providers, clients, employees,and law enforcement officers.


11/33



136. The officers released STUART outside of the SDCBA building andinformed him he was not free to return. The seminar re-convened immediatelyafter STUARTS removal. According PLAINTIFFS witnesses present at theSEMINAR, several SDCBA panel speakers joked during the seminar I guess hegot what he asked for and lets see if that gets them any publicity. They made

puns about CCFC as THE Litigants Behaving Badly, calling CCFC a bunchof borderlines crazy parents and stating thats why we have to do what wedo.

137. Subsequent to the formation of the STUART-SDCBA CONTRACT andprior to the STUART ASSAULT, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were orbecame aware of the STUART-SDCBA CONTRACT, the plannedENGAGEMENT, STUARTS planned attendance at the SEMINAR andENGAGEMENT, his affiliation with PLAINTIFFS, and PLAINTIFFS PUBLICBENEFIT ACTIVITIES. DEFENDANTS considered PLAINTIFFS PUBLIC

BENEFIT ACTIVITIES to be a threat to traditional FLC persons, institutions,businesses, and enterprises, including those identified in the ENTERPRISEALLEGATIONS below.

138. Upon learning of the Engagement, DEFENDANTS and each of themaffiliated, came to a meeting of the minds, and agreed to support the STUARTASSAULT in retaliation, abuse of process, and obstruction of justice asdescribed herein. In doing so, DEFENDANTS and each of them CULPABLY(to be defined as unreasonably, unlawfully, willfully, intentionally, maliciously,without probable cause, recklessly, knowingly, unjustified, brutal, and offensive

to human dignity, fraudulently, oppressively, wantonly, in premeditation, indeliberate indifference, with the intent to deprive rights, privileges andimmunities of others including plaintiffs and retaliate for exercising same,criminally, wrongfully, in bad faith, in furtherance of on or more alleged criminalor civil CONSPIRACY, with deliberate indifference, in a manner that wasextreme, outrageous, unjustified, and in reckless disregard for the possibility ofcausing harm, damage, loss and constitutional injury as elsewhere alleged)altered their planned behavior for the seminar to respond to PLAINTIFFS

presence and the ENGAGEMENT, including failing to exercise their duty toprevent or aid in preventing the acts of other DEFENDANTS as alleged herein,

to support, permit, facilitate, encourage, affiliate with, coordinate, collaborate,with one another in joint purpose, efforts, enterprise and conspiracy, toCUPLAPLY retaliate for, obstruct, deter, hinder delay, oppress, obstruct,unfairly compete with, and deprive PLAINTIFFS PUBLICL BENEFITACTIVITIES by committing the STUART ASSAULT in defiance of the rule oflaw (the CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY).


12/33



139. DEFENDANTS acts in furtherance of conspiracy included alerting allother DEFENDANTS of PLAINTIFFS PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, andthe ENGAGEMENT, the STUART-SDCBA CONTRACT, STUARTs plannedattendance at the SDCBA SEMINAR, and the activities of others, includingother DEFENDANTS in the CONSPIRACY TO ASSAULT STUART.

140. One or more of DEFENDANTS communicated with DDISO DOES, andGORE, to coordinate an increased presence of DDISO Defendants at theseminar, hired, altered, communicated with, or coordinated with ODODefendants, communicated with SDCBA, SDSD DOES 16-20, GORE,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, TRENTACOSTSA, RODDY, CJC, ALKSNE,DOYNE, INC., DDIJO DOES 1-10 regarding of the ENGAGEMENT,researched PLAINTIFFS and their PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, DUEADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, the DDICE and other CRIMINAL and civilCONSPIRACIES, facilitating ENTERPRISE affiliation, coordination, and

cohesion, in defiance of the rule of law.143. DEFENDANTS in the STUART ASSAULT have:Used, attempted, and threatened use of force CULPABLY andUNREASONBLY (to be defined as without due care, in breach of duty, without

provocation, justification, defense, privilege or immunity, and in an unjustifiedand excessive manner);

Terrorized, seized, detained, restrained, arrested, imprisoned, assaulted, searched,injured, cruelly and unusually punished, harassed, intimidated, and annoyed

STUART, CCFC, LEXEVIA, and their clients, colleagues, partners, andaffiliates in violation of their and

Deprived STUART of and retaliated for his FFRRESA and PUBLIC BEEFITACTIVITIES.

These and other terroristic threats, abuse, assaults, and illegal activity describedherein shall be denominated HARRASSEMENT AND ABUSE.

147. No act alleged against any defendant in the STUART ASSAULT is ajudicial act, an act intimately associated with the criminal judicial process, or,

with the potential exception of DDISO DOES, pursuant to any authority, charter,constitution, regulation, or law.

149. In performing the acts ascribed to them, DEFENDANTS knew or shouldhave known that STUART was an attorney, and assaulting him as described infront of dozens of his professional colleagues, clients, and judges would cause


13/33



him severe mental distress and resulting business injury. Specifically,DEFENDANTS knew or should have known:

A. PLAINTIFF maintained dozens of business, personal, and professionalrelationships in San Diego such that the STUART ASSAULT in the presence ofdozens of PLAINTIFFs business, personal, and professional colleagues wouldcause severe emotional distress;

B. PLAINTIFF was an attorney at law licensed to practice in three statesincluding California such that the STUART ASSAULT would jeopardizeSTUARTS law practice and license, causing emotional severe distresstherefrom;

C. PLAINTIFF was a founding member and office of LEXEVIA and CCFC such

that assaulting STUART in front of CCFC members and LEXEVIA partners,business colleagues, and clients would intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, andterrorize PLAINTFFS and their affiliates, furthering HARASSMENT ANDABUSE, and causing cause PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates to:

(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from anofficial proceeding;

(ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity

or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;

(iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or toproduce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding;

(iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has beensummoned by legal process; and

(v) be otherwise hindered, deterred, delayed, or wrongfully influenced thereby.

(collectively hereinafter referred to as CHILL) from further DUEADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, FFRRESA, and PUBLIC BENEFITACTIVITY.


14/33



D. That CHILLING PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates would further injurePLAINTIFFS affiliates PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES further causingPLAINTIFFS HARM.

E. STUART, was the founder and lead partner of the law firm LEXEVIA, withoffices in San Diego and Los Angeles, such that the STUART ASSAULT andresulting impact on LEXEVIA would cause loss of business assets, income, andgood will, causing further emotional distress to STUART.

151. At all times pertinent hereto, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed oneor more PROFESSIONAL DUTIES to PLAINTIFFS with respect to their statusas citizens, professionals, attorneys, law enforcement officers, fiduciaries, colorof state law actors, judicial officers, employers/employees, and theiragents, officers, affiliates, and collaborators.152. Said PROFESSIONAL DUTIES include:

A. All DEFENDANTS: Duty of ordinary reasonable care: The duty to actREASONABLY, and to avoid acting UNREASONABLY and CULPABLY.

B. COLD: Exercise color of law powers only in the presence of jurisdiction:those provided under enabling legislation, rules, charters, or constitutions;

protect, uphold, and defend the laws and the Constitution of the United States;act only in the public interest; provides only honest government services; avoidall conflict, undue influence, bribery, self-dealing, bias, nepotism; commit nodeprivations of clearly established civil rights; create or inflict no HARM unless

specifically authorized after due process of law;

D. Fiduciaries (DDIA, DDIPS): Duties of trust and loyalty trustee of treatingpecuniary interests of named or foreseeable beneficiaries equal to own;

E. DDIJO: Protect rights of those in courtroom; ensure rights; all dutiesenumerated in Canons 1-6 (Ex. 39) and related codes;

G. Supervisors: train, enforce law, implement, create, monitor policy,background checks, discipline, terminate, exercise power to prevent or aid inpreventing breaches of others with power to influence or control;


15/33



I. Municipal: Enact no policies, rules, laws, customs, behaviors or procedureswhich are intended to or deliberately indifferent to constitutional injury . . . .

153. Pursuant to California Govt. Code 820, a public employee is liable forinjury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person. Thisspecial ordinary care duty of California state public employees extends notonly to avoid harm by the public employees direct actions, but to avoid harm toall those who are foreseeably injured by virtue of the public employees actionswhich set in motion acts that result in constitutional injury.

154. By virtue of the State of Californias special statutory duties imposed onCOLD, PLAIINTIFFS possess reciprocal rights under state and federal due

process to the observance of those duties. (CALIFORNIA FUNDAMENTALRIGHTS)(CFR).

156. In performing the acts ascribed to them, DEFENDANTS, and each ofthem UNREASONABLY and CULPABLY breached one or morePROFESSIONAL DUTIES, depriving one or more of PLAINTIFFS of theirCALIFONRIA FUNDAMETNAL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES ANDIMMUNITIES.

158. Each Defendant acting under color of state law is empowered andrestrained from acting by virtue of the respective constitutions, charters, articlesof incorporation, appointments, or other entity formation documents describingthe Defendants jurisdiction.

159. In proceeding as described in the STUART ASSAULT Defendants, andeach of them acted in the complete absence of jurisdiction, causing off thereservation injury.

160. In exceeding the limits of their authority, DEFENDANTS, and each ofthem, committed a trespass onto the property, persons, rights, privileges, andimmunities of PLAINTIFFS and are strictly liable for all HARM resultingtherefrom.

173. DEFENDANTS maintained rules, policies, customs, procedures,traditions, practices and permitted behaviors by policymakers themselves which

perpetrated an intentional, reckless, and deliberate indifference to the likelihood

of constitutional injury of the type caused to PLAINTIFFS in the DDIJO,DOYNE, INC., COMPLAINTS, and STUART ASSAULT, including customsand policies in violation of FFR and CALIFORNIA FUNDAMENTALRIGHTS, and permitting HARASSMENT AND ABUSE against thoseexercising FFRRESA.


16/33



174. DEFENDANTS were acting pursuant to such custom and policy incommitting the acts ascribed to them herein.

184. DEFENDANTS were aware of the CCFC FFRRESA, BUSINESSDEVELOPMENT and ENGAGEMENT before the SDCBA SEMINAR.

185. DEFENDANTS disfavored PLAINTIFFS PUBLIC BENEFITACTIVITIES; Specifically PLAINTIFFS JUDGES BEHAVING BADLYMESSAGE, and PLAINTIFFS ongoing FFRRESA.

186. DEFENDANTS affected the STUART ASSAULT to cause PLAINTIFS,their members and affiliates, HARM, injury, embarrassment, intimidation, andhumiliation, to their person and property CULPABLY and in retaliation for andwith the intent to suppress, deprive, interfere with, and obstruct PLAINTIFFSFFRRESA.

187. DEFENDANTS actions were CULPABLE in violation of PLAINTIFFsrights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution.188. By the STUART ASSAULT DEFENDANTS intended, attempted, and didCHILL PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates from further FFRRESA asPLAINTIFFS, their affiliates, including the DDIA, DDIPS, DDIJO, DDIL, andothers at or aware of the STUART ASSAULT were frightened, worried,demoralized, and emotionally and psychologically traumatized. PLAITNIFFSand their affiliates have since abandoned further PUBLIC BENEFITACTIVITY, dissembled, disassociated, avoided interactions with otherPLAINTIFFS, causing personal and property HARM to PLAINTIFFS. After the

STUART ASSAULT, PLAINTIFFS were inundated with business contacts,queries, and requests for direction which PLAINTIFFS, compromised,terrorized, and debilitated by the affect of the HARRASSMENT AND ABUSE,could not adequately respond to, further exacerbating damages to PLAINTIFFSCCFC FFRRESA, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY.

189. Further, PLAINTIFFS clients, professional colleagues, and affiliates at oraware of the STUART ASSAULT who previously had high opinions ofPLAINTIFFS and referred them significant business stopped referring businessto PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates out of fear of reprisal by DEFENDANTS.

202. PLAINTIFFS membership in and advocacy for the EQUAL

PROTECTION CLASSES was known to and targeted by DEFENDANTS priorto the SDCBA SEMINAR. DEFENDANTS CULPABLY undertook each of theacts ascribed to them with the intent affect the STUART ASSAULT andHARRASSMENT AND ABUSE with the intent to deprive PLAINTIFFS, andeach of them, of equal protections, privileges, and immunities, including rights


17/33



related to FFRRESA, rights as advocates for and on behalf of the EQUALPROTECTION CLASSES.

203. In performing the acts alleged above, DEFENDANTS conspired:

A. to deter, PLAINTIFFS, by the STUART ASSAULT and HARRASSMENTAND ABUSE, from attending or testifying freely, fully, and truthfully as a partyor witness in PLAINTIFFS FFRRESA, or from testifying to any matter, freely,fully, and truthfully;

B. to injure PLAINTIFFS, by the STUART ASSAULT and HARRASSMENTAND ABUSE, in their person or property on account of having participated inFFRRESA or testified in conjunction with the FFRRESA and the DUEADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE;

C. to influence, by the STUART ASSAULT and HARRASSMENT ANDABUSE, the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror inconnection with PLAINTIFFS FFRRESA and the DUE ADMINISTRATIONOF JUSTICE;

D. committed the STUART ASSAULT and HARRASSMENT AND ABUSE forthe purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, the DUEADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE and PLAINTIFFS FFRRESA with intent todeny to PLAINTIFFS as members and advocates for the EQUAL

PROTECITON CLASSES the equal protection of the laws and to

E. by STUART ASSAULT and HARRASSMENT AND ABUSE, injurePLAINTIFFS in their property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce,the right of PLAINTIFFS and THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSES, to theequal protection of the laws.

205. In committing the STUART ASSAULT, DEFENDANTS CULPABLYacted in CIVIL CONSPIRACY for the purpose of depriving PLAINTIFFSindividually as members of and advocates for the EQUAL PROTECTONCLASSES, of the equal protection of the laws and equal privileges and

immunities under the laws, including but not limited to their FFRRESA, theDUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and retaliating for exercise thereof,causing PLAINTIFFS deprivation and injury therefrom.

207. In committing the STUART ASSAULT, DEFENDANTS CULPABLYCONSPIRED to cause the STUART ASSAULT for the purpose of preventing orhindering the FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS and color of state


18/33



law actors identified herein from giving or securing to all persons within the stateof California, including the EQUAL PROTECTION CLASSES andPLAINTIFFS individually as members of and advocates for the EQUALPROTECTON CLASSES.

209. In committing the STUART ASSAULT, Defendants CULPABLY andUNREASONABLY acted and CONSPIRED to prevent by force, intimidation, orthreat, PLAINTIFFSS FFRRESA as a member or on behalf of each EQUALPROTECTION CLASS, in a legal manner, and to injure PLAINTIFFS in personand property on account thereof.

211. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had knowledge of all facts allegedherein, including that the acts CONSPIRED to be done, and committed asalleged in Counts 11-15 were about to be committed.

212. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, by virtue of their relationships witheach other defendant, their authority under color of law, and PROFESSIONAL

DUTIES, had power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same.213. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, neglected or refused to exercise their

powers to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same.

260. DEFENDANTS, in connection with their businesses, professions,PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, CONSPIRACIES and ENTERPRISEOPERATIONS, use in their advertisements, promotions, sale and offer for saleof their legal services words, terms, names, symbols, and devices, andcombinations thereof, (COMMERCIAL SPEECH) which are false andmisleading.

261. In their COMMERCIAL SPEECH DEFENANTS represent that theirservices abide by ordinary and professional standards of care, are legal, efficient,safe, and effective exercise of governmental powers and public licenses providedunder law as follows per defendant:

Entity/ies Misrepresentation/ReferenceA. All Defendants See below; public and private services are legal, safe,efficient, obedient to PROFESSIONAL DUTIES and standards of care.

F. CJP: The CJP protects the rights of litigants from judicial abuse,transgression, and civil rights violations of the FFR and CFR; CJP has authorityto and does enforce the CRCCS on behalf of litigants; the CJP is the first stopin proceeding in federal court for enforcement of civil rights; DDIL need not

proceed to federal court; The CJP is a neutral finder of fact; The CJP is loyal to


19/33



PROFESSIONAL DUTIES to serve the interests of litigants equally as togovernment lawyers

266. With respect to each Defendant:

A. In their activates described herein, DEFENDANTS operate CRIMINALENTERPRISES which defraud, abuse, oppress, and deprive PLAINTIFFS andthe general public of their property and liberty.

B. In their COMMERCIAL SPEECH promotion for such ENTERPRISES,including websites, literature, public appearances, statements andrepresentations, DEFENDANTS misrepresent theirs and others legal and

professional services as legal, fair, honest, and beneficial, when in fact they arefraudulent, harmful, inefficient, oppressive, and illegal.

C. Further, in their advertising and promotion DEFENDANTS fail to warnconsumers of the illegality of their services, the constitutional deprivations theycause and form the basis of liability for, and the many disastrous pitfalls whichoccur regularly from use of such professional services. As such, DEFENDANTSmislead as to the nature, characteristics, qualities, of their and theirENTERPRISE affiliates services, including the nature of the ENTERPRISE and

purposes of the SAD.

D. Defendants mislead consumers by misdirection from superior, legitimate,

legal services by one ore more SAD, and by advising thats how it is in familycourt, and by failing to advise of the full options consumers have toward legal,healthy, and safe alternatives to avoid the abundant harm likely to befall thosewho engage in such activities.

E. DDICE DEFENDANTS operate SAD and black hat operations underthe guise of white hat legality and professional responsibility, therebydeceiving consumers of legal services into engaging such services with theexpectations that such is as safe, lawful, and healthy as standard legal and

psychological services. They are not.

268. In addition to the allegations regarding each Defendant above, certaindefendants are each engaged in activities which constitute a RICO Enterprise,and that each such defendant is a person, as that term is defined pursuant toSection 1961(3) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of1970 (RICO).


20/33



. . .

K. COMMISSION JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE, a municipal entityL. LAWRENCE J. SIMI, an individualM. BRAD BATSON, an individual . . . .

269. By virtue of their affiliations, conspiracy, associations, and collaborationas alleged herein, RICO DEFENDANTS function collectively as alter egovehicles of one another facilitate and further the commercial purposes of theENTERPRISES alleged herein.

270. Specifically, in addition to the conspiracy allegations detailed above, eachdefendant is liable as a principal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2(a)-(b), and that eachand every RICO person that is a RICO defendant is liable as a co-conspirator

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 371.

271. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, while affiliated with one or more

ENTERPRISES, have operated, affiliated with, and participated directly andindirectly in the conduct of ENTERPRISE affairs through a pattern ofracketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1964 (b), (c), and (d) as follows:

RICO Enterprise 1

The California Domestic Dispute Industry Criminal Enterprise (DDICE)

273. The California Domestic Dispute Industry Criminal Enterprise (DDICE)consists of individual private and public professionals, professional corporations,

professional membership organizations, and governmental entities engaged in

that portion of family law practice in which two or more parties havecompeting interests, or compete with the government for such interests, and isdescribed herein as Domestic Dispute Law. Domestic Dispute Law includesmarital dissolution, parentage, child custody, child support, domestic violence,and related areas.

274. All RICO DEFENDANTS including DDICE DOES 1-500 and the entitieswith which they are associated, including every other ENTERRISE, civil andcriminal CONSPIRACY constitute the DDICE. These entities, acting concertwith one another, are organized and maintained by and through a consensualhierarchy of agents, partners, managers, directors, officers, supervisors, agents,

deputies, and/or representatives that formulate and implement policies, practices,relationships, rules, and procedures related to Domestic Dispute Law.

290. The constituent members comprising each ENTERPRISE are engaged in aconcerted campaign to extort, defraud, trick, deceive, corruptly persuade,victims, including primarily family court litigants and their children andextended families (Domestic Dispute Industry Litigants DDIL) to exercise


21/33



control over, and extract maximum value from, the target community estate(TCE). The TCE includes all assets of the DDIL, the labor value of the DDILgoing forward, and the custody award value of any children of the DDIL.

291. Further, in unfairly protecting their commercial purposes, each

ENTERPRISE harasses, threatens, assaults, abuses, denigrates, impugn, and/orotherwise harm, or threaten and attempt to harm, competitors, critics, reformers,and others.

292. The ENTERPRISES operate as a cabal, a semi private, sometimessecret, informal affiliation of entities with public presence and identity that iswholly or partially inaccurate and misleading as to the true goals, affiliations,and processes of the cabal. The ENTERPRISES achieve their respective

purposes by fraudulent collusion among DDICE operators and affiliates, who intheir COMMERCIAL SPEECH represent to their DDIL clients that therelationships among the DDICE members are in compliance with legal and

ethical PROFESSIONAL DUTIES when they in fact are not. See False Flagand Pose Advocacy SAD below. (COMMERCIAL PURPOSES).

293. The ENTERPRISES also compete unfairly through their COMMERCIALSPEECH by misrepresenting the legitimacy of the ENTERPRISES, byrepresenting to DDIL that their illegal behavior is how it is in a take it orleave it breach of one or more PROFESSIONAL DUTIES.

294. The ENTERPRISES also compete unfairly within the DDI marketplace bycreating the impression that non- ENTERPRISE entities are incapable ofrepresenting the interests of family law clients. In the present case, the

ENTERPRISES operated as alleged to suppress and retaliate for PLAINTIFFSFFRRESA and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES by HARRASSMENT ANDABUSE to restrict the family law marketplace access, knowledge, and awarenessto only ENTERPRISE operators and affiliates.

295. Funded by fraudulent exploitation of the DDIL TCE, ENTERPRISEoperators and affiliates engage in bribery, exchanging value, emoluments,

patronage, nepotism, and/or kickback schemes within their networks to assuresystem-wide cash flow and continued viability and vitality of theENTERPRISES. ENTERPRISES refuse such cooperation with non-affiliates,thereby baring potential competitors. These bars include fraudulently

manipulated referrals, representations, certifications, nepotism, illegal antitrusttactics, and manufactured pitfalls to support the pervasive who you know cabalin defiance of the rule of law.

296. When necessary, illegal marketplace protections are perpetrated by illegalcriminal justice system sanctions by DDIJO and DDISO, direct attacks such asthe STUART ASSAULT DDISO, and HARASSMENT AND ABUSE. This


22/33



predatory competitive behavior targets any entity, association, or organizationthat supports and advocates for DDIL that appears as a potential or probablethreat to these DDICE purposes, including PLAINTIFFS (ENTERPRISEUNFAIR COMPETITION).

Domestic Dispute Industry Legal Services Marketplace297. The ENTERPRISES are successful due to manipulation of unique factorscharacterizing the marketplace for Domestic Dispute Industry legal services.DDIL are ordinarily families in crisis seeking to resolve their personaldifficulties by altering relationships. In doing so they must often seek theinvolvement of the state. For contested or unusually complex matters, DDILenlist experts to help navigate the market. Hence, a market for family law expertsto assist in navigating the complexity and/or maximizing outcome exists. (DDIMARKET).

298. The DDL view the DDI either as a necessary evil to be treated as a toll, or

in some cases a nefarious tool of oppression to illegally obtain wealth, power,and control at the expense of a former loved one. The DDI can deal with either.However, for purposes of the civil and criminal enterprises alleged herein, thelater represent an exploitation opportunity for DDICE operatives, and as suchspecial attention is paid to them.

299. ENTERPRISE affiliates who serve or cultivate the illegal purposes of theenterpriseblack hat operativesview DDIL as a raw material: a resourcefrom which to extract net profit. While each case may present differentcircumstances, and while DDICE associates market their services as

specialized, in fact the DDICE operate in conspiracy with common SADapplied to each DDIL in the DDI MARKET; providing white hat services tothose seeking simple, healthy solutions, while still preserving, promoting,misrepresenting, and protecting the ability to deliver illegal, unhealthy, yet farmore profitable black hat services.

300. However, to maintain long-term vitality, DDICE operatives must governthemselves to avoid exposure of their illegal SAD, or overfisingextracting somuch value from one or more DDIL that they sour to the DDIL marketplace orreveal the ENTERPRISE and SAD, thereby inducing reform such as FFRRESA,and DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE.

301. Yet the balance necessary to achieve maximum TCE extraction withoutfair competition, revelation, or overfishing cannot be achieved withoutcooperation between the petitioners and respondents counselhence FalseFlag and other fraudulent SAD by which DDIA, DDIJO, and DDIPS exerciseclient control by refraining from zealous advocacy or honest services in hopesof lowering extraction costs for Petitioners counsel, maximizing TCE extraction,


23/33



and leaving at least one unburned DDIL to perpetuate future SAD on futureDDIL market entrants.

302. Petitioner and Respondent counsel (seeking to maximize wealth transfer)evaluate each case early through compelled disclosures known as Income and

Expense Declarations. These forced sworn statements require both parties toreveal extensive details regarding income, assets, and expenses. The putativegoal is for the determination of support levels. However ENTERPRISE operatorsand affiliates also use the declarations to plan how to maximize extraction ofvalue from the TCE. This collaboration is evidenced by the common observationthat DDICE operators and affiliate follow the business rule to bill until theclient runs out of money or patience, then quit. (or, in the case of even whitehat operatives, finish for free). DDIJO fully comply by allowing DDIAwithdrawals for nonpayment with unusual ease, in further violation of the equal

protection of the laws.

303. Unfortunately, unlike commercial legal markets populated by businessclients and in-house counsel, many DDIL lack the sophistication, intelligence,market awareness, or general psychological stability in a time of crisis torecognize the SAD until it is too lateif then. As such, educating the DDILmarketplace to improve awareness and thereby eliminate the competitiveadvantage of illegal black hat operators has been a central theme both inPLAINTIFFS FFRRESA and BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT.

304. For the DDICE operatives, the market for perpetrating the SAD on unwaryDDIL has become almost too easythe main goal is no longer to facilitate the

illegal extraction but to avoid overfishing. DDICE operatives must seek tomaximize the value extracted from the TCE in the short term without achieving aburned DDIL rate that deters potential future market entrants from seekingservices, or becoming too aware of the market dynamics enabling crime. This

balance can only be achieved through coordination among DDIA, DDIPS, andDDIJO Enterprise operatives who must defy their PROFESSIONAL DUTIES tocoordinate the cabal.

305. They do so by the False Flag SAD described below, including PoserAdvocacy paperwads and kite bombs to achieve maximum TCE extractionwith as little risk for deterrence and exposure. Hence the tendency of the DDICE

to utilize irrational motivating tactics such as The PIT fear or anger or DDI-FICE (selfishness, greed), with balancing tactics such as illegal conspiracythrough SAD, drives illegal market collusion.

Longevity

307. In conducting the affairs of the ENTERPRISES, and in committing theacts, omissions, misrepresentations, and breaches referred to herein beginning as


24/33



far back as 1997 and continuing up through initiation of these proceedings, RICODEFENDANTS engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in contravention ofTitle 18 United States Code 1962(c) inasmuch as the defendant was employed

by, or associated with, one or more ENTERPRISE engaged in activities thataffect federal interstate and/or foreign commerce, and conducted such multiplecriminal enterprise affairs by and through a pattern of racketeering activity.

Abuse of Process: The Pit

308. The central tool of the DDICE is the widespread illegal exercise of theenormous equitable powers of state DDI courts. DDI courts exercise such

powers putatively under a set of laws enacted to extend state police powers tointervene in intense domestic interpersonal conflict to address domesticviolence. . .

DVILS Orders

309. Collectively, the DVILS create a set of practices and procedures whereby

a party asserting that another within the DOMESTIC RELATIONS CLASS mayquickly obtain an injunction imposing severe and onerous deprivations,restrictions, penalties, pains, and expense on another suspected of undesirableactivity. . . .

310. Upon overcoming the procedural safeguard of showing of good causefor the existence of abuse, a DDI court may grant an order imposing thefollowing Personal Conduct, Move Out, Stay Away, Property Controland Child Custody and Visitation . . . .

312. . . . PLAINTIFFS shall borrow the term used by the DDICE itself to refer

to the device hereafter as THE PIT. By threatening, offering, or processing its(illegal) invocation, DEFENDANTS defraud the DDIL, perpetrating one or morefrauds and swindles, abuse of process, or deprivations of FFR and CFR describedherein.

315. THE PIT is the embodiment of the pervasive disregard for the rule of lawpervading the DDI ENTERPRISES. The DVILS are illegal, unconstitutional,and criminal to seek and enforce, yet their use in practice has becomeunremarkablelargely because those who use them benefit, and those againstwhom they are used are unaware of their illegality because they are mislead.

316. The DVILS ORDERS and all acts relating to soliciting, advising,

obtaining, adjudicating, issuing, and enforcing are an illegal abuse of process.First, the laws on which they are based are unconstitutional. See Ex. 1, 2. Inaddition, the DV and CR mandatory use Forms on which the orders areinconsistent with extend beyond the statutory authorization articulated in theDVILS. Third, the terms used, even if statutorily enabled, are fatally andunconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Ex. 35.


25/33



317. DDICE operators and affiliates , in soliciting, threatening, offering,advertising, directing, granting, issuing, and enforcing DVILS ORDERS areviolating at least sections 241 and 242 of Title 18. The construction of a non

profit or public enterprise funded by United States grants and fraudulent grantapplications is a violation of section 371 of that Title.

Scheme and Artifice to Defraud 5

False Flag breach of PROFESSIONAL DUTIES

328. DDICE operators regularly breach one or more of their PROFESSIONALDUTIES of loyalty, zealous advocacy, fiduciary responsibility, and professionalcompetence through one or more false flag frauds to induce, deprive, ordeceive DDIL. Ex. 32. These False Flag maneuvers involve one or moreCOMMERCIAL SPEECH misrepresentations to unsophisticated DDIL, therebydepriving them of the benefits of legal professional services, and perpetratingfraud. False Flag schemes and artifices include:

329. Poser Advocacy, Paperwads, Kite Bombs: Poser Advocacy is thepractice and sale of what appears to be the practice of law to unsophisticatedDDIL. Attorneys engaging in poser advocacy act to appeal to their clientsemotions, greed, or other untoward ends to generate fees with no beneficial legalwork performed. Poser advocates write angry letters (paperwads), exchangeworthless formwork discovery, or repeatedly file baseless motions with no hopeof success (kite bombs), to generate what looks like legitimate legal to anunsophisticated DDIL acclimated to a daytime TV diet of Judge Judy drama andCSI suspense.

330. In the more sophisticated commercial legal marketplace, poser advocacy isnot tolerated as clients insist, and attorneys abide by, legitimate practice andethical standards. Because of the unique nature of the clients and market,DDICE members are able to pass off Poser Advocacy as real legal work. It isnot.

331. Yet given the nature of the marketplace and absence of DDIL awarenessof the fraud, there is little incentive to eradicate its existence. Because it ishighly profitable, even if illegal, it is therefore quietly encouraged. Because itcan only exist in a market place where all playersthe attorneys, professionalservice providers, and even judgesplay along, it requires a cabal enterprise

to be successful. Outsiders such as PLAINTIFFS who offer legal, safe, and farmore efficient services are market spoilers, and as such are illegally targeted asdescribed herein.

Scheme and Artifice To Defraud 6

DDIA and DDIJO FFR/CFR Abstention


26/33



332. DDIAs for both petitioners and respondents conspire to ignore their oathsto protect, uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States,thereby providing ineffective, fraudulent, incompetent, and harmful advice totheir clients and community. Both petitioner and respondent counsels ignore theillegality of the DVILs and withhold objections to increase job security and thebillable activity provided by The Piteither seeking to throw a litigant in it, orworking to dig one out. They fail to advise their clients rights to object to theconstitutionality of such orders as doing so would deprive the DDI of a highly

profitable tool. Their failure to do so establishes an industry standard of privateabstention from exercise of constitutional rights, suiting DDIA, DDISW,DDISO, and DDIJO alike.

333. In abstention, DDIAs violate their PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, oaths ofoffice, as well as their duties to individual clients, and in so doing also commitinvidious discrimination against the EQUAL PROTECTON CLASSES.

334. To the extent that DDILs raise objections or observations relating to theillegal acts, DDIA and DDISW CULPABLY advise that the U.S. Constitutiondoes not prohibit such acts, and that there is nothing you can do to prevent

judges from issuing illegal orders, or otherwise WRONGFULLY DISSUADEDDILs from their own FFRRESA. The representation is false.

DDIJO Acquiescence

335. These SAD cannot go unnoticed by any competent legal professional, orunacted upon by any ethical one. And yet they are prolific among Defendants,indicating that the DDIJO themselves are at best deliberately indifferent to the

SAD and ENTERPRISES that run them, further facilitating this pernicious fraudon DDIL in violation of Judicial Canon 2 to ensure rights, PROFESSIONALDUTIES, of all parties, and in defiance of the rule of law.

336. RICO DEFENDANTS engage in the following racketeering activity, asthat term is defined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1961(c) (RACKETEERINGACTIVITY). RICO DEFENDANTS RACKETEERING ACTIVITY ascommitting, aiding and abetting, or conspiring to commit, tens of thousands ofviolations of the following laws within the past ten years, including:

A. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents,

authentication features, and information: 18 U.S.C. 1028;

B. Mail Fraud: 18 U.S.C. 1341

C. Wire Fraud: 18 U.S.C. 1343


27/33



D. Bank Fraud: 18 U.S.C. 1344

E. Intangible Personal Property Right Deprivation: Title 18 U.S.C. 1346.

F. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally: 18 U.S.C. 1503;

G. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees: 18USC 1505;

H. Obstruction of Criminal Investigations: 18 U.S.C. 1510;

I. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant: 18 U.S.C. 1512;

K. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant: 18 U.S.C. 1513;

L. Peonage; obstructing enforcement: 18 U.S.C. 1581,M. Enticement into slavery; 18 U.S.C. 1583;

N. Sale into involuntary servitude: 18 U.S.C. 1584;

O. Seizure, detention, transportation or sale of slaves: 18 U.S.C. 1585;

P. Service on vessels in slave trade: 18 U.S.C. 1586;

Q. Possession of slaves aboard vessel: 18 U.S.C. 1587;

R. Forced labor: 18 U.S.C. 1589;

S. Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forcedlabor: 18 U.S.C. 1590;

T. Unlawful conduct with respect to documents in furtherance of trafficking,peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor: 18 U.S.C. 1592;

U. Benefitting financially from peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons: 18U.S.C. 1593A;

V. Conspiracy, attempt to commit acts of peonage, slavery, proscribed: 18U.S.C. 1594;


28/33



W. Interference with commerce by threats or violence: 18 USC 1951;

X. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeeringenterprises: 18 U.S.C. 1952;

Y. Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity: 18 U.S.C. 1959

Z. Principal and Aider and Abettor, Attempt, Conspiracy Liability: Title 18U.S.C. 2(a) and (b).

337. DEFENDANTS, having affiliated with one or more ENTERPRISE anddevising or intending to devise one or more SAD for obtaining money or

property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,delivered invoices, accountings, billing statements, letters, reports, and other

correspondence into the U.S. mails, email, telephone facsimile to STUART.345. DEFENDANTS engaged in one or more SAD by, through, and inconjunction with the ENTERPRISES to deprive PLAINTIFFS of the intangibleright of honest services.

346. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, supported and promoted one anotherin perpetrating each SAD actionable fraud, bribery and/or kickbacks, wherein aquid pro quo (monetary, preferential referral, business referral, and/or some otherform of benefit) was provided by the RICO defendants to persons unknown to

plaintiffs to assure that PLAINTIFFS in their PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES

would be effectively punished, silenced, discredited, and rendered ineffective asan effectively competing alternative vehicle offering reasonable and realisticforms of professional quality services to counsel and advise individual parentsand guardians addressing family law, child custody, and domestic relationsissues. Plaintiff alleges that such conduct constitutes the deprivation of theintangible personal property right to receive honest-services for purposes of 18U.S.C. 1341, 1343, and 1346.

Against Defendants Simi, Batson, SDCBA, ODO, SAC

348. DEFENDANTS, by the STUART ASSAULT, corruptly, or by threats orforce, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavored to influence,

intimidate, or impede STUART in performance of his FFRRESA, or corruptly orby threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences,obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede,PLAINTIFFS from continuing in their cooperation with the FEDERAL LAWENFORCEMENT OFFICERS in pursuing the due administration of justice.



29/33



350. DEFENDANTS corruptly and by force or threat of force in the STUARTASSAULT endeavored to and did influence, obstruct, or impede PLAINTIFFSFFRRESA and the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE before theFEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, and the due and properexercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is

being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any jointcommittee of the Congress of the United States pursuant to PLAINIFFSSFFRRESA before the Representatives of the United States.

351. In so doing, DEFENDANTS SDCBA, ODO, SDSO, and SAC kidnaped,assaulted with a dangerous weapon, committed assault resulting in serious bodilyinjury upon, or threatens to commit a crime of violence to PLAINTIFFS inviolation of the laws of any State or the United States, or attempted orCONSPIRED so to doin exchange for (i) consideration, a promise oragreement to pay, pecuniary value, from the ENTERPRISES, or (ii) the purpose

of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in theENTERPRISES.


353. DEFENDANTS, by the STUART ASSAULT, CULPABLY used physicalforce, including confinement and physical action, against STUART, and thethreat of physical force against PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates, at the SDCBASEMINAR, and attempted to do so, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent thetestimony of PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates, in their FFRRESA in THE DUECOURSE OF JUSTICE.

Against Defendants Simi, Batson, SDCBA, ODO, SAC355. DEFENDANTS, by the STUART ASSAULT, CULPABLY caused orinduced PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates to CHILL, and hindered, delayed, and

prevent PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates FFRRESA to a FEDERAL LAWENFORCEMENT OFFICER.


357. DEFENDANTS, by the STUART ASSAULT, CULPABLY used andattempted to use intimidation, threatened, and corruptly persuaded PLAINTIFFSand their affiliates, to

(1) influence, delay, or prevent PLAINTIFFS FFRRESA in the DUE COURSEOF JUSTICE;

(2) cause or induce PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates to CHIILL, and


30/33



(3) hinder, delay, or prevent PLAINTIFFS FFRRESA communications toFEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, the Grand Jury, or a Judge ofthe United States District Court for the Southern District of California the DDIJOComplaints, Doyne Complaints, and other violations of the CRCCS.

Against Defendants Simi, Batson, SDCBA, ODO, SAC359. DEFENDANTS, by the STUART ASSAULT, CULPABLY corruptlyobstructed, influenced, or impeded the DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE andattempted to do so.


361. DEFENDANTS corruptly and CULPABLY obstructed, influenced, orimpeded the DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE and attempted to do so.

362. DEFENDANTS acted corruptly in making the fraudulent statementsattributed to them above, thereby acting with an improper purpose to obstruct,thwart or mislead STUART into diverting his contact with the U.S. Attorneys

Office, F.B.I, and other FFRRESA would be handled appropriately, fully, andcompetently by the CJP, thereby causing STUART to continue ENGAGEMENT

primarily with the CJP rather than primarily pursuing the matter in federaldistrict court, thereby obstructing, influencing, or impeding the DUE COURSEOF JUSTICE and attempting to do so.

363. DEFENDANTS false, misleading, deceptive, concealing, or destroyingbehavior included;

A. That the DDIJO COMPLAINT allegations would be fully and fairly

investigated;

B. That the CJP has no jurisdiction over DEFENDANT DOYNE INC. becausehe is not an elected or appointed judicial official;

C. That the DDIJO COMPLAINTS would be maintained in confidence and notdisclosed to DDIJO DEFENDANTS;

D. That STUART need not pursue the `DDIJO COMPLAINT I in federal courtas the CJP process was the first step in the chain of obtaining relief from a

federal court.364. In fact, the CJP is not an unbiased organization as it largely ignorescomplaints by litigants when compared with attention paid to complaints by

prosecutors and judges. The CJP takes action in less than 2% of all complaintsby the public, allowing tens of thousands to go without response. A true andcorrect copy of CJPs 2011 Annual Report is attached at Exhibit 39; a chart


31/33



corroborating these allegations is in DEFENDANTS possession and isreferenced as part of Exhibit 39 as if set forth at length herein.

365. As such, the CJP largely misrepresents itself as a legitimate supervisor ofjudicial misconduct, creating a false sense of public confidence in the CJP

investigative an disciplinary process, tying up litigants who would otherwiseseek relief in federal court, placing them in a years-long maze of investigationuntil the time for filing a complaint in a legitimate forum has expired. As such,the CJP misrepresents itself as a legitimate dispute resolution body when in factit operates as a dead letter office to hinder, delay, thwart, obstruct, and misleadSTUART and other citizens, effectively depriving STUART of rights to due

process, access to courts, right to trial by jury, and other rights, privileges andimmunities.


367. DEFENDANTS CULPABLY by the STUART ASSAULT harassed

PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates thereby hindering, delaying, preventing,dissuading PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates from FFRRESA, and THE DUECOURSE OF JUSTICE, seeking further FFRRESA with the intent to arrest orseek the arrest of DOYNE INC., ALKSNE, SCHALL, WOHLFEIL, and otherDDIJO entities identified herein.


369. DEFENDANTS CULPABLY threatened, attempted to, engaged in theSTUART ASSAULT thereby causing bodily injury with intent to retaliateagainst PLAINITFFS for PLAINTIFFS role in FFRRESA and the DUE

COURSE OF JUSTICE.Against Defendants Simi, Batson, SDCBA, ODO, SAC371. DEFENDANTS CULPABLY, with the intent to retaliate, committed theacts ascribed to them in the STUART ASSAULT, thereby causing DAMAGESto PLAINTIFFS and their affiliates, their lawful employment, PUBLICBENEFIT EFFORTS, for FFRRESA and the DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE.


373. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, CULPABLY conspired with eachother DEFENANT to commit each act described above.

FICRO COUNTS 1-34:

376. This is an allegation that Defendants in committing the acts alleged inCounts 1-21 and RICO Claims for Relief 1-13, above, concurrently committedone ore move deprivations of PLAINTIFFS rights, privileges, and immunities inviolation of 18 U.S.C. 242, 241, and 371. These allegations are relevant toDEFENDANTS ENTERPRISE, conspiracy, and racketeering activity, and arethe basis for PLAINTIFFS claims for prospective relief under 28 U.S.C. 2201.


32/33



As such violations are indictable federal offenses, and shall hereinafter bereferred to as FEDERAL INDICTABLE CIVIL RIGHTS OFFENESES(FICRO).

377. As part of their ongoing CIVIL and CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES to

deprive PLAINTIFFS and others similarly situated of FFR, CFC, FFRRESA,and other civil rights, DEFENDANTS have CULPABLY committed each countand claim for relief alleged herein in furtherance of the conspiracies allegedhereinabove, establishing the existence of the crimes, conspiracies, andenterprises alleged herein.

378. DEFENDANTS activities described herein constitute a conspiracy tocommit one or more violations of the FFR, CFR, actionable under the CRCCS(FICRO CONSPIRACY). The purpose of the FICRO CONSPIRACIES is todeprive PLAINTIFFS and those similarly situated of their rights, privilege, andimmunities under the Constitution of United States by committing, causing, or

contributing to, or ratifying each of the acts alleged against each DEFENANT.379. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, acted with specific knowledge ofPLAINTIFFS FFRRESA and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES.

380. On information and belief, upon learning of each fact relating toPLAINTIFFS PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, DEFENDANTS coordinatedefforts, shared knowledge, and shared a common purpose with one or more ofthe other DEFENDANTS so as to be the agents of on another in FICROCONSPIRACY to retaliate against, disparage, harm, injure, PLAINTIFFS

because of the same.

381. In carrying out the FICRO CONSPIRACY, DEFENANTS committed,were aware of, acquiesced to, intended, and ratified each act and/or the actsand/or omissions of each and every other DEFENDANT.

382. DEFENDANTS are or were co-workers, collaborators, co-owners, co-operators, affiliates, colleagues, members of one anothers personal and

professional networks of one or more other of DEFENDANTS.

383. Defendants C. GOLDSMITH and unnamed entity Mr. Jan Goldsmith alltimes identified herein, were husband and wife, common parents of children,former co-workers / Judges of the Superior Court of the State of California,cohabitants, friends, collaborators, and formerly common parties to a martial

dissolution proceeding.384. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in committing or conspiring to committhe acts ascribed to them CULPABLY acted in furtherance of the CRIMINALCONSPIRACY, including the ENTERPRISES, entities, color of law,misfeasance and malfeasance ascribed to them herein.


33/33

29

388. DEFENDANTS have undertaken a course of conduct to harass, interferewith, intimidate, harm, and retaliate for PLAINTIFFS protected activities, andcontinue to do so.

393. Specifically, PLAINTIFFS, by virtue of their FFRRESA detailed herein,

have asserted, and DEFENDANTS, by virtue of their acts the acts and operationsCRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES and ENTERPRISES with which they areaffiliated, including their illegal, abusive, retaliatory, depriving, and obstructive

behavior toward PLAINTIFFS and others described herein have contested anddenied, the following FFRRESA rights:

A. FFR Rights detailed at Table 1.0;

B. CALIFORNIA FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS; and

C. The Supremacy of the constitution and laws of the United States to the laws ofthe State of California.

394. Further, by similar means, DEFENANTS have asserted, and PLAINTIFFShave denied, that certain laws of the State of California which have or pose aclear and present danger of injuring, inhibiting, depriving, interfered with,PLAINTFFS FFRRESA are valid and enforceable:

A. The DVILS;

B. The DVILS ORDERS;

C. The processes, procedures, rules, customs, and practices of the FL-IACE andtheir offices statewide;

D. The processes, procedures, rules, customs, and practices of Child CustodyEvaluations and Evaluators.

57-x Ccfc Stuart Decl Table x.c Ex c

Documents

Transcript of 57-x Ccfc Stuart Decl Table x.c Ex c