72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

19
 -1- STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO MTN TO STRIKE 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 III Email: [email protected] 4891 Pacific Highway Ste. 102 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: 858-504-0171 Facsimile: 619-231-9143 In Pro Se Dean Browning Webb (pro hac vice pending) Email: [email protected] Law Offices of Dean Browning Webb 515 E 39th St. Vancouver, WA 98663-2240 Telephone: 503-629-2176 Attorney for Plaintiffs California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC, and Lexevia, PC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al. Plaintiffs, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, et al, Defendants. Case No. 13cv1944-CAB-BLM Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo DECLARATION OF COLBERN C. STUART IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE MATTER IN MOTION TO DISMISS Date: December 19, 2013 Time: 3:30 p.m. Courtroom:4C ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL Complaint Filed: August 20, 2013

Transcript of 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

Page 1: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 1/19

 

-1-STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO

MTN TO STRIKE MTN TO DISMISS3:13cv1944 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 OF REPLY INSUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKEMATTER IN MOTION TO DISMISS

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

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTEDSUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL

Complaint Filed: August 20, 2013

Page 2: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 2/19

 

-2-STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO

MTN TO STRIKE MTN TO DISMISS3:13cv1944 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

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 Chief Executive Officer of Lexevia,

PC. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called to testify would

competently testify as follows:

I. Discovery Requested Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 56(d):

If granted leave as requested in the Motion to Strike, I intend to conduct

discovery on the following issues and exhibits presented in Defendants Motion to

Dismiss:

A. Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt#16-2)

1. RJN Exhibit “A”: The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to the

Declaration in Support of Arrest Warrant made by San Diego City Attorney’s Office

Deputy City Attorney Ms. Emily Garson attesting under oath to facts as follows:

a. That Deputy City Attorney Garson “read and reviewed” the contents of San

Diego City Police Department “official reports” containing 26 “obscene and

threatening emails” between Plaintiff Stuart and his ex-wife, Lynn Stuart,

apparently gathered in a misdemeanor criminal investigation;

 b. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to the claim that based

upon the 26 “obscene and threatening” emails between Stuart threatening

messages via email despite criminal pending criminal action against him.” In

the Declaration Ms. Garson requested issuance of a warrant for Plaintiff’s

arrest based upon her sworn representations as to the criminal nature of the

“obscene and threatening” emails contained in the “official reports” of the San

Diego City Police Department. Ms. Garson’s execution of the same.

Page 3: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 3/19

 

-3-STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO

MTN TO STRIKE MTN TO DISMISS3:13cv1944 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

 

c. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to the April 6, 2010

signature of San Diego County Superior Court Judge Krauel, and the language

“Declaration read; probable cause to arrest found; warrant to issue”.

2. RJN Exhibit “B”: The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to the

“Ex Parte Minutes” form (CRM-177) relating to a misdemeanor criminal case. The

form references issuance of a misdemeanor warrant and bears a stamp “Roger

Krauel”, is dated April 14, 2010, but bears no reference to the Garson Declaration,

does not identify for whom the warrant was issued, the scope of the warrant, and does

not identify any agency receiving a warrant.

a. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to the materiality or

 pertinence of this exhibit to any issue in this litigation.

 b. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to the claim in Defendants’

MTD based on this exhibit that after March 24, 2010, I “continued to send

obscene and threatening messages.”

c. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to the “file” referenced in

the Garson Declaration, which appears itself to contain allegations or evidence

relating to a San Diego City Police Department investigation or officer relating

to emails, further hearsay, containing “obscene and threatening” language, also

 potentially hearsay.

 Related Allegations in the MTD:

a. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to Defendants’

Page 4: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 4/19

 

-4-STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO

MTN TO STRIKE MTN TO DISMISS3:13cv1944 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

representations that “Contrary to his allegations, at the time of the seminar,

there was an outstanding warrant for Stuart’s arrest in connection with a

criminal action” (MTD 3:22), and that “Stuart was arrested pursuant to the

outstanding warrant” (MTD 4:3).

3. RJN Exhibits “D,” “F,” and “G”: Printouts of Internet Pages at

“http://members.calbar.org”, ”http://www.azbar.org”, and “www.nvbar.org:”

a. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to these printouts of pages

from internet websites purporting to reflect proceedings and matters within the

State Bars of California, Arizona, and Nevada.

 b. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to Exhibit “D” insofar as

they contain the same misrepresentations contained in the Garson Declaration.

4. RJN Exhibit “E ”: Unsigned “Decision and Order of Inactive Enrollment”: 

The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to this document, which purports to

 be evidence of state bar proceedings within the State Bar of Nevada, including all

testimony or evidence contained therein.

5. RJN Exhibit “H”: “Order Of Temporary Suspension”:

a. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to this document.

6. RJN Exhibits “C” and “I”: 

a. The foundation of these documents.

Page 5: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 5/19

 

-5-STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO

MTN TO STRIKE MTN TO DISMISS3:13cv1944 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

B. Nesthus Declaration (Dkt#16-3)

For many of the same reasons, Plaintiff requests discovery relating to the

foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to Nesthus Declaration insofar as it

 proffers evidence, testimony, foundation, or other matter, including but not limited to

the following:

1. The events by Ms. Nesthus’ after she became aware of the Complaint— 

calling around to parties and counsel requesting withdrawal of the Complaint,

“demands” to “remove” home addresses from the on-file Complaint, hearsay

representations regarding Ms. Nesthus’ conversations with Mr. Webb about details of

his representation of Plaintiffs.

2. Her knowledge of any party’s involvement in the pattern of HARASSMENT

AND ABUSE identified in the Complaint and the Motion for Harassment Temporary

Restraining order (Compl. ¶¶ 188, 202, 203, 228, 276, 279-80, 294, 386-391; Dkt#4).

3. Her knowledge of the foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to All

Immunity Affirmative Defenses

4. The knowledge, or the knowledge of any Superior Court Defendant, of the

foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to MTD sections C, D, and E the

substantive affirmative defenses of absolute judicial and sovereign immunities. Such

defenses are evidentiary, and the foundations for them are the proper subjects for

discovery.

5. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to the letter dated August

23, 2013 from Ms. Kristine Nesthus, Court Counsel for Defendant Superior Court of

the County of San Diego (SCSDC), including Ms. Nesthus’ representation to write on

 behalf of Defendants TRENTACOSTA, ALKSNE, WOHLFEIL, and SCHALL; that

she and/or one or more of the defendants she writes on behalf of have received the

Summons and VERIFIED COMPLAINT, and/or became aware of its existence in

this Court’s PACER electronic filing system and on the Internet. Ms. Nesthus’

objection to the VERIFIED COMPLAINT existing in such locations; Ms. Nesthus’

Page 6: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 6/19

 

-6-STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO

MTN TO STRIKE MTN TO DISMISS3:13cv1944 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

representation that she writes on behalf of other, unnamed parties which she variously

identifies as “other judicial officers of the Court” and “all defendants.”

6. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to Ms. Nesthus’ assertion

that publication of the VERIFIED COMPLAINT containing Defendants’ places of

residence is a violation of Cal. Gov’t C. § 6254.21(c)(A) and (E) (the “California

Public Records Act” or CPRA),

7. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to Ms. Nesthus’ demands

that I “IMMEDIATELY”

A. Remove “from the above websites, and the internet generally, any and all

information concerning the residential addresses and telephone numbers of the

aforementioned judges…”

B. Remove the same for “any other judicial officers of the Court;”

C. Remove the same from PACER “because the complaint is available on

PACER, Government Code section 6254.21 requires you to take immediate

steps to remove this information from PACER.” and

D. That “you are hereby advised that you are prohibited from further

transmitting this information ‘to any other person, business, or association,

through any other medium.”

8. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to Ms. Nesthus’ statement

that I “Be assured that the Court will take all necessary legal actions to remedy this

situation and ensure the safety of its judicial officers.”

9. The legal foundations for Ms. Nesthus’s demands above.

Page 7: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 7/19

 

-7-STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO

MTN TO STRIKE MTN TO DISMISS3:13cv1944 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

  10. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to Ms. Nesthus’

understanding and interpretation of The California Government Code section cited

above and in Ms. Nesthus’ letter, Cal. Gov’t C. § 6254.21 purports to prohibit speech

 based on content (the address and phone number of public officials), including its

constitutionality.

11. The factual and legal foundations and circumstances relating to Ms.

 Nesthus’ assertion that her clients’ personal privacy interests as expressed in the

CPRA are superior to First Amendment rights regarding public officials.

12. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to Ms. Nesthus’ assertion

that the act of filing the COMPLAINT including the addresses of judges Trentacosta,

Wohlfeil, Alksne, and Schall “constitutes a serious threat to their safety as well as

their family members.”

13. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to any Defendants’

understanding of the validity, scope, and enforceability of the CPRA.

14. The legal foundation relating whether the CPRA proscription against

disclosure “on the internet” is the “least restrictive means” for protecting the privacy

interest asserted.

15. The foundation, facts, and circumstances relating to any assertion that the

address, telephone, and even email contact information for Judges Trentacosta,

Schall, Wohlfeil, and Alksne are not available from numerous sources, including the

county registrar of voters, online election campaign financing forms, online and hard-

copy phone books, public address databases, credit records, public campaign funding

filings, tax records, and a wide variety of other publically-available sources.

16. Ms. Nesthus’ knowledge, awareness, or participation in any events or

allegations in the Complaint, including but not limited to the STUART ASSAULT,

the HARASSEMENT AND ABUSE, the DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE.

17. All communications by Ms. Nethus with any party, counsel for any party,

any San Diego County Sheriffs’ Department officer or employee, or any other person

Page 8: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 8/19

 

-8-STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO

MTN TO STRIKE MTN TO DISMISS3:13cv1944 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

relating to the events described in the Ex Parte Application for Emergency

Harassment Restraining Order.

18. The legal foundation, facts, and circumstances relating any Defendants’

understanding, awareness, enforcement, or communication relating to the Court’s

General Order 550.

19. Any alleged burdens on any defendant in the granting a HARASSMENT

TRO under 18 U.S.C. § 1514 on all parties are insignificant as Defendants have no

legitimate interest to further HARRASSMENT AND ABUSE and obstruction of the

DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE.

20. The entirety of Ms. Nesthus’ and any Defendant’s communications with

Mr. Webb, court personnel, as well as her other post-filing activities described in the

 Nesthus Declaration and elsewhere, including her or any other entity’s involvement

or coordination of San Diego Sheriff’s Department Deputies and perhaps other

authorities to communicate with any entity to request that they alter the availability of

Plaintiff’s Complaint from any location.

D. Other Discovery

1. All facts and circumstances relating to any claim that The STUART

ASSAULT was “pursuant to warrant” or otherwise authorized under law.

2. All facts, documents, witnesses relating to allegations in the Complaint

relating to THE STUART ASSAULT, the STUART ASSAULT COORDINATORS,

SDCBA ENGAGEMENT, CHILLING, DDIJO Complaints I, II, the DOYNE INC

Complaints I-IV, the DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE, and each related Count or Claim

for Relief in the Complaint.

II. Lexevia’s Revival

A. I am the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Lexevia, PC. Due

substantially to the events described in the Complaint, Lexevia has been hobbled

Page 9: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 9/19

 

-9-STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO

MTN TO STRIKE MTN TO DISMISS3:13cv1944 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

from operating as a going concern.

B. As a result of my failure to file a Statement of Information with the

Secretary of State in 2011, Lexevia’s corporate status was placed in suspension.

C. I am in process of curing that suspension. On November 28, 2013, I filed

the required Statement of Information. Ex. “A” hereto is a true and correct copy of

that document. On December 6, 2013, I filed a Petition to Revive with the Secretary

of State and Franchise Tax Board. Ex. “B” hereto is a true and correct copy of that

document. I believe that those documents are all that are required to revive Lexevia’s

status to good standing.

D. I am informed and believe that the process of revival takes the Secretary of

State and Franchise Tax Board some time to process. I am optimistic that I can

achieve revival of Lexevia by February 28, 2014. I continue to work diligently to

achieve this result.

III. Corporate Plaintiffs’ Counsel Mr. Dean Browning Webb

A. Dean Browning Webb is counsel for Lexevia, PC and California Coalition

for Families and Children, PBC (“Corporate Plaintiffs”). I retained his services in

connection with Corporate Plaintiffs in this litigation on or about August 1, 2013. He

agreed to represent both Corporate Plaintiffs, but advised he is not admitted to

 practice in this District Court. We agreed that I would proceed to identify local

counsel admitted to this Court to sponsor Mr. Webb, whereupon Mr. Webb would

formally appear as litigation counsel.

B. Since hiring Mr. Webb, I have continued to work diligently to retain local

counsel in order to achieve Mr. Webb’s pro hac vice admission. However, because

of the conflict profile of this case and complex legal issues involved, there are a

limited number of firms capable of accepting representation as local counsel.

Further, CCFC’s litigation budget in this matter limits the pool of counsel who would

otherwise be willing to accept a local counsel engagement.

Page 10: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 10/19

 

-10-STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO

MTN TO STRIKE MTN TO DISMISS3:13cv1944 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

C. I have personally contacted dozens of counsel, none of whom could

overcome the many challenges to reaching an agreement toward representation as

local counsel to sponsor Mr. Webb.

D. Mr. Webb’s ability to participate in this litigation has also been hindered by

Defendants’ actions. As detailed in the Ex Parte Application for a Temporary

Harassment Restraining Order (Dkt#4), Ms. Kristine Nesthus contacted Mr. Webb

shortly after she became aware of the filing of this action. Ms. Nesthus made certain

statements to Mr. Webb which Mr. Webb took to be accusations of wrongdoing

 based upon his representation.

E. As a result, Mr. Webb’s ability to zealously advocate for the Corporate

Plaintiffs has been chilled, making the process of proceeding on behalf of the

Corporate Plaintiffs even more difficult.

F. I continue to pursue retention of local counsel on behalf of the Corporate

Plaintiffs, and am hopeful to achieve the same as expeditiously as possible.

G. Though I cannot appear as counsel or on behalf of any Corporate Plainitff,

as President and Chief Executive Officer of Lexevia, PC and California Coalition for

Families and Children, I respectfully request the Court’s permission to continue to

 pursue local counsel to sponsor Mr. Webb, and permission to continue my efforts to

revive Lexevia’s corporate status as indicated above, without being dismissed from

the case while I do. Up achievement of these goals, Lexeiva and CCFC intend to

continue this litigation to pursue remedies for past injury and to protect and promote

the interests parents and children nationwide.

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

foregoing is true and correct.

DATED: December 12, 2013 By: /s/

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

  Colbern C. Stuart, III 

Page 11: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 11/19

 

-11-STUART DEC ISO REPLY ISO

MTN TO STRIKE MTN TO DISMISS3:13cv1944 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

 

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

12th 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 

Page 12: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 12/19

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

Exhibit A

Page 13: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 13/19Page 1 of 1

 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 specif

officer 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 on

director. Attach additional pages, if necessary.) 

10. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE

11. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE

12. 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.

DATE TYPE/PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM TITLE SIGNATURE

SI-200 (REV 01/2013) APPROVED BY SECRETARY OF STA

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

4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

COLBERN C STUART 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

COLBERN C 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

4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMIL

11/28/2013 COLBERN C STUART CEO

Page 14: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 14/19

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

Exhibit B

Page 15: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 15/19

STATE OF CALIFORNIAFRANCHISE TAX BOARD Notice Date:PO BOX 942857SACRAMENTO CA 94257-2021

Application for Certificate of Revivor – Corporation Entity Number:

FEIN:

SOS Number:

Before the California Franchise Tax Board

In the matter of the application for certificate of revivor of:

Entity Name:

Address:

I request relief from suspension or forfeiture for this entity

 

. I previously submitted or I am enclosing all required

payments, returns, or documents.

Print Name _____________________________________ Title ________________________________

Signature ______________________________________ Date ________________________________

Daytime Phone Number ___________________________

Those who can sign this application on behalf of an entity (domestic or foreign) include:

  Any stockholder, creditor, member, general partner, or officer.  Any person having an interest in relief from suspension or forfeiture.

Domestic entities can also have a majority of the surviving trustees or directors sign on their behalf.

FTB 3557 BC (REV 07-2013)   355747071371

San Diego, CA 921104891 Pacific Hwy Ste 102   C3195397Lexevia PC

Lexevia, PC

4891 Pacific Hwy Ste 102

Colbern Stuart President

12/3/13

San Diego CA 92110

858.504.0171

Page 16: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 16/19

Page 17: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 17/19

Page 18: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 18/19

Page 19: 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of  Reply to Mtn to Strike

8/13/2019 72 -1 CCFC Stuart Declaration In Support of Reply to Mtn to Strike

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/72-1-ccfc-stuart-declaration-in-support-of-reply-to-mtn-to-strike 19/19

 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD PO BOX 942857SACRAMENTO CA 94257-0540

Entity Status Letter

Date:

ESL ID:

 According to our records, the following entity information is true and accurate as of the date of this letter.

Entity ID:

Entity Name:

1. The entity is in good standing with the Franchise Tax Board.

2. The entity is not in good standing with the Franchise Tax Board.

3. The entity is currently exempt from tax under Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Section 23701

4. We do not have current information about the entity.

The above information does not necessarily reflect:

•  The entity’s status with any other agency of the State of California, or other government agency.

•  If the entity’s powers, rights, and privileges were suspended or forfeited at any time in the past, or the entitydid business in California at a time when it was not qualified or not registered to do business in California:o  The status or voidability of any contracts made in California by the entity at a time when the entity was

suspended or forfeited (R&TC Sections 23304.1, 23304.5, 23305a, 23305.1).o  For entities revived under R&TC Section 23305b, any time limitations on the revivor or limitation of the

functions that can be performed by the entity.

Internet and Telephone Assis tance 

Website: ftb.ca.gov Telephone: 800.852.5711 from within the United States

916.845.6500 from outside the United StatesTTY/TDD: 800.822.6268 for persons with hearing or speech impairments

LEXEVIA PC

6887862313

12/9/2013

.