Family Court Litigants’ Guide to Filing a Federal RICO Lawsuit Against Family Courts, Attorneys, Psychologists
California Coalition is grateful that the materials we’ve made available at Weightier Matter have been well-received by so many families and children who have been harmed by Family Court professionals.
Among the hundreds of emails and phone calls we receive each month, the most common question is “how can I file a RICO action in my jurisdiction?” It’s a great question, and we’re eager to help, but unfortunately the answer is complex and depends greatly on factors unique to each jurisdiction. Therefore, our ability to give firm guidance is usually limited.
However, there are some common suggestions we can pass along to you based on our experience to date. What can you do to bring a RICO action in your jurisdiction? Here are a few tips.
While any individual can bring a RICO lawsuit, we suggest that potential RICO litigants consider finding other like-minded families within your jurisdiction (i.e., state or county) who can help with the grass-roots work. RICO and civil rights conspiracy cases are enormously complex, requiring pleading detailed facts to support claims describing the inner-workings of your jurisdiction’s Family Courts, lawyers, psychologists, social workers, and other related professionals. We have seen many parents attempting to fight alone fail. Organizing with others has many benefits that help you avoid common pitfalls.
Every jurisdiction has dozens of harmed litigants, yet it is likely that each individual who has been harmed has only seen
one facet of the Family Law Community. By reaching out to others to form groups, litigants can “share notes” to find common illegal practices, bad actors, veiled relationships, and systemic behaviors that support RICO elements of enterprise, scheme to defraud, quid-pro-quo, and conspiracy. Litigants’ pooled knowledge can enable collection, analysis, and recordation of the foundation of a viable lawsuit.
February 6, 2015—San Diego, CA—California Coalition today announces filing of its Reply and Response Brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In its brief, California Coalition responds to the fourteen Answering Briefs of Family Court judges, psychologists, divorce lawyers, social workers, and others within the Domestic Dispute Industry.
California Coalition’s Reply Brief sets forth seven main themes:
1. Establishing fundamental federal rights to familial association which the Family Court judges have attacked;
2. Attacking immunity of family court judges—providing the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a detailed historic analysis of the immunity doctrine that is required under the recent United States Supreme Court case of Rehberg v. Paulk;
3. The leading Ninth circuit case granting a broad judicial immunity–Ashelman v. Pope–is abrogated law and should be overturned;
4. Commission on Judicial Performance is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity;
5. Ninth Circuit cases applying ancient “code” and “form” pleading are abrogate, yet still cited improperly, and should be overturned;
6. The California Public Records Act section prohibiting publication of state officials’ home addresses is unconstitutional; and
7. Family Court judges and others filed improper “cross-appeals” that should be dismissed.
Details of California Coalition’s analysis in its Opening Brief is here.
Details on WeightierMatter here.
It’s been over two years since the SEC report came out, detailing the overreach and the wastefulness of the AOC/Judicial Council staff. The report’s authors concluded that the organization “must refocus on providing service to the courts; that a fundamental restructuring of the organization is needed; that the AOC must be down-sized to correspond with its core functions; and that its internal processes need to be improved.” Our leaders “took ownership” of the report and promised change. Said Justice Douglas Miller of the Executive and Planning Committee, “We are fully committed to this report and our process, and take full responsibility for preserving its integrity.” His remarks are documented here.
So did anything happen?
Not much. Not nearly enough. We’ve now had a day to read the California State Auditor’s detailed review of how the Judicial Council staff handles the money entrusted to it. The Alliance thanks Assembly Member…
View original post 1,248 more words
Today, the Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters, dean of the state’s political reporters, released a brief video commentary on the State Auditor’s review of Judicial Council/AOC spending. He lays out in direct language that what the Alliance has been saying for years is correct: The bureaucracy is bloated, its employees are overpaid, and the Judicial Council has failed to do its job. For those of you with problematic browsers, a transcript of his remarks follows.
As the Governor releases his budget and members of the Legislature begin the task of making decisions on how judicial dollars should be spent, our message is clear: Without significant and systemic reform, the AOC will continue to siphon off the dollars we desperately need to keep our local courts running. At a minimum, and until the statutory or constitutional changes necessary for real reform can be enacted, we call on our sister branches of government…
View original post 246 more words
You will recall that the Alliance of California Judges proposed an audit of the Judicial Council, which was requested by Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer, and which was unanimously approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee in the last legislative session over opposition from the Judicial Council. The State Auditor released her report today, and it is available for your review here. We will let you draw your own conclusions about the report, but we offer these highlights from the Executive Summary of the report:
(1) The Judicial Council did not adequately oversee the AOC in managing the judicial branch budget, which allowed the AOC to engage in questionable compensation and business practices. The AOC:
- Provides its staff with generous salaries and benefits—the AOC pays eight of its nine office directors more than the governor and many other high-ranking executive branch officials receive.
- Employs over 70 contractors and temporary employees…
View original post 584 more words
December 30, 2014–San Diego, CA–California Coalition today announces opening of its Crowdfunder equity offering campaign for investors interested in participating in California Coalition’s groundbreaking reform, parent resource, and professional network. California Coalition is offering 100,000 shares of AA voting stock at par value of $1.00 per share. The subscription period is from December 30, 2014 until January 31, 2015
From the Letter to New Investors by Colbern Stuart, California Coalition’s President:
Dear California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC Shareholder:
Thank you for participating in our family law reform enterprise. By purchasing equity in California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC, you have made a critical contribution to what we believe is a history-making achievement in the improvement of outcomes for families and children throughout the United States in the crisis of a domestic dispute. Our litigation, online resources, and professional network is a major advance in the evolution of family law, judicial accountability, and legal ethics. We are honored to have you as a shareholder, colleague, and partner in our journey.
California Coalition Challenging Family Court Judicial Immunity in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Today
October 23, 2014—San Diego, CA—California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC, today announces filing of its Opening Brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California Coalition for Families and Children v. San Diego County Bar Association, Case No. 14-56140. In the appeal, California Coalition asks the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse rulings of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California made in July of this year.
California Coalition is advancing three arguments critical to families in domestic disputes.
1. Limiting Judicial Immunity For All Judges
California Coalition is asking the Court of Appeals to reexamine a critical 1986 case that extended broad judicial immunity to judges accused of wrongdoing in office. The case, Ashelman v. Pope—under which family court judges today receive absolute immunity for any act done in their “official capacity”—was decided inconsistently with a prior 1978 United States Supreme Court case, Stump v. Sparkman. California Coalition offers the Court of Appeals a meticulous analysis of the history of judicial immunity from the seminal 1872 case of Bradley v. Fisher, and its Twentieth Century progeny of Pierson v. Ray, Monroe v. Pape, and Pulliam v. Allen, explaining that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ashelman betrayed the Supreme Court’s instructions to examine whether a judge was performing a “judicial act” that was immune as of 1871—when the Civil Rights Act was passed into law by Congress.
October 3, 2014–San Diego, CA–A United States District Judge this week issued a “blistering” Order against San Diego County Child Protective Services workers, and their employer, the County of San Diego, for CPS’s unwarranted removal of the two children of Joanna and Steven Swartwood from their home for two days. Excerpts and analysis from the order granting summary judgment in the case by Judge Thomas Whelan:
“Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit after D.S. and R.S. were removed from their home without a warrant and subjected to medical exams, which included a urine test and examination of their genitalia, without notice to Steven or Joanna.”
“Plaintiffs contend Defendants’ conduct in removing the children, continuing to detain the children, and conducting the medical exams violated their Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights and are suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [and state law.]”
Advice for Parents Considering or Involved in a Custody Dispute: The Chaos of Courts, Lawyers, and Psychologists Exposed
From California Coalition’s litigation library this week we bring you the inside word on custody evaluations from judges, lawyers, and evaluators themselves. When is a custody evaluation legal? When is it appropriate? When should it be ordered? What is the policy of courts in making these decisions?
Three Los Angeles Family Court practitioners explain their policies and practices at the 2012 10th Symposium on Child Custody Evaluations in Phoenix. The audio is linked below.
If you’ve been told or otherwise believe child custody evaluations are well-studied, regular processes–like an operation or physical therapy–what you’re about to learn will amaze you.
California Coalition’s complaint in its racketeering lawsuit against the San Diego County Bar Association and its divorce lawyer subsection details the collaboration between San Diego divorce lawyers and the City Attorney’s office in prosecuting critics. Below we excerpt sections of the complaint detailing the prosecutorial misconduct of Assistant City Attorney Emily Garson, under supervision of City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, in their illegal prosecution of Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition.
The City Attorney spent tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting Stuart, an accomplished civil litigator having worked for major international law firms in federal court trials and appeals for nearly two decades, for a speech misdemeanor: “annoying electronic communications.” Stuart was charged for “annoying” his ex-wife by attempting to set up phone contact times with his son.
The City Attorney’s prosecution was largely a failure–Stuart was acquitted for most of the charges, convicted only for emails in which he “cursed” in frustration at his ex-wife’s obstructive behavior.
To prosecute Stuart, Garson and Goldsmith extended themselves to commit perjury, prosecutorial misconduct, and racketeering in retaliation for Stuart’s activities in leading California parents against divorce lawyers, psychologists, and judges which Stuart and California Coalition claim are defrauding and harming parents and children. The lawsuit alleges Garson and Goldsmith pursued Stuart’s bar license, costing him a lucrative career as a federal court litigator. Stuart’s lawsuit claims over ten million dollars in damages.
Defending the lawsuit alone will cost city taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the city’s exposure for a share of the damage to Stuart and California Coalition is staggering. “How anyone could have imagined a criminal prosecution for cursing in an email benefited anyone is a mystery” says Stuart. “Garson and Goldsmith destroyed my career, my ex-wife’s career, our son’s future, California Coalition’s momentum that we had achieved since 2008, and countless lost opportunities to help parents and children facing the enormously harmful treachery of divorce lawyers nationwide. Garson and Goldsmith are not merely foolish, they’re evil” says Stuart.
The case is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Hearing expected in late 2014.