Home » Divorce
Category Archives: Divorce
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.
Divorce Industry “Honest Services Fraud”: Kickbacks, Referrals, Bribery, and Extortion. California Coalition’s Expanded Racketeering Complaint Details the Crimes
Last week California Coalition for Families and Children filed its
Amended Racketeering and Civil Rights complaint in federal court, adding City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, Assistant City Attorney Emily Garson, Judge Michael Groch, San Diego Superior Court Counsel Kristine Nesthus, and adding charges for obstruction of justice against a group of Superior Court judges led by the San Diego County Bar Association and its insurer, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, in thwarting California Coalitions’ Complaint in this action. It alleges numerous felonies under state and federal law, including extortion, bribery, fraud, false arrest, and civil rights crimes under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 241, 371—which are federal felonies by themselves.
The complaint also expanded on the details of the “honest services fraud” schemes operated by divorce lawyers. These schemes, which involve illegal kickback and behind the scenes dealing between attorneys, service providers, psychologists, and judges, are illegal under the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. § 1346.
“Many people think that fraud is a one-on-one transaction, such as when a consumer purchases counterfeit goods. But under federal law, fraud is defined much more broadly, to include any transaction in which the seller is somehow benefited from providing dishonest services.” Says Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition.
Honest Services Fraud under Federal Law
“Honest Services Fraud” includes transactions in which a seller is receiving a behind-the-scene “kickback”, or compensation of any kind for a referral that wrongfully influences the referrer.
If Company A sells you goods or services, then refers you to company B, you expect that referral to be unbiased—in essence Company A is representing to you that they’re recommending company B solely because Company B is a good company. However, if Company B is paying Company A for the referral, or offering something else of value–a “kickback”—as happens very often today—Company A must disclose that relationship to you as the buyer. If they don’t, they’ve committed fraud, and if you’re harmed by Company B, company A may be liable to you.
“These referral networks are vast and well-entrenched in the divorce industry.” Says Stuart. Because the industry is a ‘closed society’, competition by outsiders is artificially limited by referrals from lawyers to preferred accountants, to psychologists, to mediators. “The network is as vast as the divorce litigant’s bank account.” “Litigants usually don’t realize the services they’re being sold are entirely unnecessary or outright fraudulent until it’s too late. They come to a divorce lawyer angry at a spouse, greedy, or frightened—whatever blinding emotion at hand.” Says Stuart. For such litigants, the divorce lawyer remedy may be more deadly than the disease. “Divorce lawyers know litigants are vulnerable, but rather than save them, they walk them into the trap. It’s outrageous and its plainly fraud, but it happens every day.” Says Stuart.
California Coalition’s First Amended Complaint sets forth the Domestic Dispute Industry Honest Services Fraud in its Racketeering Counts. “You may recognize this pattern of referrals and “you scratch my back” cooperation—sometimes even between the adverse attorneys working to disadvantage their clients. If you do, you may have a racketeering claim against your attorney, your ex-spouse’s attorney, and maybe even your ex.” Says Stuart. “We suggest that divorce litigants check to see if these types of scenarios are happening to them-is your divorce lawyer telling you things like “that’s how it’s done” in divorce court, or “there’s nothing you can do?” Is he or she telling you the Constitution doesn’t apply?” Is she suggesting you go to a paid service provider for something you can get in court for free? If so, you’re in danger of being defrauded, and once you’re in it, there’s no easy way out.” Says Stuart.
“Black Hat” Operatives in the Domestic Dispute Industry Criminal Enterprise
On the other end many divorce lawyers promote themselves as ‘black hat’ operatives—those who can use the dysfunction to your advantage. “These are the bad guys we’re in process of exterminating.” Says Stuart. Hiring an attorney to sue for revenge or out
of any emotion including fear is extremely dangerous. “Backfire is common and always harmful, even deadly. Sadly, attorneys simply won’t stop you from hurting yourself, and you won’t know that you’re doing so until it’s too late.” Say Stuart. “We’re going to balance that equation out. As we move forward anyone, who has signed up a client to use illegal tactics that fall into our gun-sights, that lawyer just signed his own death warrant.” Says Stuart.
“Courts, institutions, and prosecutors have tolerated this illegal behavior for far too long. RICO empowers victims of fraud to fend for themselves, and offers enhanced damages of three times actual loss, plus costs and attorneys fees. We put those extraordinarily powerful statutes to work against bad lawyers and evil clients.” Says Stuart.
“These are crimes. These people belong in prison. The U.S. Attorney for this District Laura Duffy won’t do her job to enforce the criminal law. The District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis won’t do her job to enforce the criminal law. In my opinion, they probably belong in prison for tolerating such widespread and outrageous behavior damaging kids and families, but that’s not my business. They won’t put the industry under, we will. And with RICO’s injunctive remedies, we can. If we can recover some hardship money for parents and kids who’ve been injured along the way, even better. ” Says Stuart.
If your attorney is recommending to do things you know are illegal—such as lie under oath, fabricate evidence, or exaggeration, you may be committing racketeering by cooperating. “We have a client whose lawyer advised ‘if you don’t do it to them, they’ll do it to you.’ That sadly is not uncommon, and the likelihood often begins the cycle that leads to a “messy divorce” and personal destruction. Nobody on the inside has the spine to stop it. We do.” Say Stuart. “We’re establishing precedents that enable clients who’ve been duped by their own attorneys or their spouse’s attorneys to fire back—with thermonuclear weaponry of federal law racketeering mail fraud, extortion, bribery, and honest services fraud charges. With the precedents established, other litigants can follow our path and use them to combat fraud in other jurisdictions. We hope the herculean efforts we’re undertaking in San Diego will benefit parents and divorce industry litigants nationwide.” Says Stuart.
California Coalition’s complaint details how the industry is entrenched, with government lawyers, prosecutors, and judges squarely in the divorce industry’s pocket. “We don’t expect to see real change industry-wide until heads roll. But that’s the kind of battle we enjoy most. We’re blessed to have capable minds, eager hands, and some extremely powerful federal laws to keep wind in our sails.”
RACKETEERING COUNT 2
18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), (d)
Honest Services Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1346
Against All RICO Defendants
1031. This is a Count asserting numerous Claims for relief under RICO section 1962 (c) and (d), based upon predicate crimes actionable under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 for Honest Services Fraud, against defendants as identified per Claim in this Count.
1032. All prior paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated as if set forth in full.
General Allegations to Racketeering Count 2
1033. Defendants engaged in one or more SAD by and in conjunction with the ENTERPRISES to deprive Plaintiffs of the intangible right of honest services.
1034. On information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, support and promote one another in perpetrating each SAD actionable fraud, bribery and/or kickbacks, wherein a quid pro quo (monetary, preferential referral, business referral, and/or some other form of benefit) is provided to or from each RICO defendant, and including such benefits to or from persons unknown to Plaintiffs, to assure that Plaintiffs in their PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES would be effectively punished, silenced, discredited, and rendered ineffective as an effectively competing alternative vehicle offering reasonable and realistic forms of professional quality services to counsel and advise individual parents and guardians addressing family law, child custody, and domestic relations issues.
1035. In the case of DOYNE and BLANCHET, these quid-pro-quo exchanges are backed up with use of one or another SAD, such as “that’s just how it is” or extortion such as “if you ever want to see your son again ….” which are enabled by the abuse of process tools of The Pit and DDIJO abstention/enforcement of illegal DVILS ORDERS. In STUART’S case, additional muscle was provided by SDCBA’S security guards, and ultimately the familial relationships between STUART ASSAULT COORDINATORS and CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS.
1036. The fraudulent quid-pro-quo ignores ethical PROFESSIONAL DUTIES of loyalty and zealous advocacy among putative opponent lawyers, and judicial officials who disregard their ethical duties enforce law. In doing so, Defendants effectively re-define their opponents to be their own clients, take those who should be their opponents as collaborators, and pursue the collaborators’ joint interests above their clients’.
1037. DDICE operatives do so by collaborating with opposing counsel and state interests under color of law to extort, defraud, and abuse their own clients, whom they refer to as “Litigants Behaving Badly” in a grotesque and reprehensible criminal enterprise conducted with full knowledge, consent, and contribution from public and private servants alike.
1038. Such conduct constitutes the deprivation of the intangible personal property right to receive ‘honest-services’ for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346.
1039. As an actual and proximate result, Plaintiffs have been damaged or injured in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.
The “Honest Services Fraud Scheme” of Sharon Blanchet, Ashworth Blanchet Christenson & Kalemkiarian, Jeff Fritz of Basie and Fritz, and Dr. Stephen Doyne
The kickback and extortion scheme between Sharon Blanchet, Ashworth Blanchet Christenson & Kalemkiarian, Jeff Fritz of Basie and Fritz, and Dr. Stephen Doyne is described elsewhere in the complaint:
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Cal. Const. art. I, § 26
Against DOYNE, DOYNE, INC., BLANCHET, ABC&K,
808. This is a Count alleging breach of contract, fraud, extortion, bribery and abuse of process centered on the actions of Defendants DOYNE (DOYNE TERRORISM) acting under color of law, and related deprivations of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Cal. Const. art. I, § 26 against DOYNE, DOYNE, INC., BLANCHET, ABC&K, WOHLFEIL, and SCHALL (DOYNE TERRORISM Defendants).
809. On or about April 10, 2008, Defendant WOHFEIL recommended and offered to oversee Defendant DOYNE to “mediate” custody issues in the Stuart Dissolution.
810. Concurrent with WOHLFEIL’S recommendation, BLANCHET also made representations and warranties regarding DOYNE and DOYNE INC. as set forth in Exhibit 14 and incorporated herein by reference.
811. Collectively, WOLFEIL and BLANCHET’S recommendations and referral communicated to STUART that DOYNE and DOYNE INC. DOYNE INC. was a trustworthy, competent mediator.
812. Based upon WOHLFEIL’S recommendation and agreement to oversee, and BLANCHET’S representations and warranties, STUART contacted DOYNE INC.
813. Between about April, 2008 and September 12, 2008, STUART and DOYNE, INC. conducted oral negotiations, entered agreements, and executed a written contract (STUART- DOYNE CONTRACTS).
814. During these negotiations and agreements, DOYNE and DOYNE, INC. made representations, promises, and warranties to STUART as follows:
A. That DOYNE was only authorized and would only act to “mediate”, and could not perform a custody evaluation, therapy, “forensic investigation” “analysis” or “evaluation” or act as a witness in court;
B. That DOYNE would not permit ex parte contact, and would take no action or recommendation except as authorized by the court or the parties;
C. That DOYNE would base his reasoning and actions on actual evidence and law;
D. That all parties would be afforded notice and opportunity to be heard before DOYNE took any action or made any recommendations regarding the matter;
E. That DOYNE INC. was an alternative to court and governmental intervention, safer, more private, and less expensive than court, but with the same procedural safeguards;
F. That DOYNE would “quickly” work toward 50/50 custody, that it would only take “a few sessions”, and that his fees and expenses would not exceed the initial $5,000 retainer;
G. That the DOYNE INC. mediation process would be completed in “a month or two”;
H. That DOYNE’s contact with the court would be in the form of a written report which both parties would have an opportunity to review, comment on, contest, supplement, and collaborate over before submission to the court;
I. That DOYNE’S had no authority to take actions or make judgments, but only to work toward cooperative solutions;
J. That DOYNE would not recommend any solution that would harm, burden, or obstruct any party, and that he was “honest, fair, and completely competent” to perform mediation services.
815. These representations were false when made.
816. As described more fully in Exhibits 22 and 23, DOYNE INC breached the contracts and representations by committing extortion, abuse of process, and by failing to abide by each of the above referenced promises, his PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, including duties of disclosure, loyalty, honesty, and good faith, as well as breaching one or more provision of the written contract.
A. DOYNE extended the mediation for months, insisting on weekly sessions to address issues he had not been authorized to “mediate”;
B. DOYNE was not only unable to resolve even minor issues successfully, he welcomed and encouraged both parties to bring up new issues unrelated to child custody, effectively attempting to insert himself as an arbiter for all disputes—real or imagined—between the parties; and by otherwise extended the mediation to increase his fees;
C. DOYNE refused to investigate STUART’s Claims and evidence that MS. STUART was abusing their son, Croix Stuart.
D. DOYNE exceeded his authority in filing false and misleading reports with San Diego County child protective services alleging that Plaintiff had “held his son upside down over a balcony” when DOYNE in fact knew and later admitted, that claim was untrue;
E. That San Diego County Child Protective Services had performed an investigation of DOYNE’s allegations against Plaintiff and found DOYNE’s allegation to be false;
F. Because of DOYNE’s false and misleading letters and report to San Diego Child Protective Services, DOYNE caused the removal of Plaintiff’s son Croix Stuart from Plaintiff’s shared custody and awarded sole custody to Petitioner Ms. Stuart;
G. That DOYNE repeatedly ignored or failed to follow up on Plaintiff’s concerns that Croix Stuart was being abused, manipulated, and alienated by Petitioner Ms. Stuart;
H. That DOYNE was forcing Plaintiff to pay for services of DOYNE which Plaintiff objected to, did not request, and were wasteful and unnecessary; and
I. That DOYNE effectively held Stuart’s son hostage, dangling his custody decisions between the couple, increasing adversarial hostilities, strife, and conflict, in order increase his fees in the case;
J. That DOYNE was in fact unauthorized to perform any work on the matter as he was ineligible, unqualified, and had failed to establish his eligibility by appropriate procedure; and
K. Further breaches of each representation elsewhere identified.
DOYNE, DOYNE, INC. Terrorism
818. In response to these breaches, in February or March 1, 2009, STUART terminated DOYNE’S services.
819. In addition to complaining to and firing DOYNE, Plaintiff also filed formal complaints with DOYNE’s landlord, Scripps Memorial Hospital, the State of California Board of Psychology, the FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS in the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE and FFRRESA. On information and belief DOYNE knew of these complaints.
820. A true and correct copy letters to and concerning DOYNE relating to these allegations are referenced as Exhibits 22-23.
821. In response to STUART’S objections and reports detailed above, DOYNE INC. retaliated against STUART by committing the following acts against STUART:
A. Committing perjury in a hearing relating to the STUART’S son, Croix Stuart;
B. Continuing to file false reports and encourage the (false) investigation of his initial report against STUART;
C. Continuing to demand STUART pay DOYNE and DONE INC. for services not rendered or fraudulently rendered;
D. Attempting to intimidate, distress, harm, defraud, extort, and rob Stuart;
E. Requesting a bribe; and
F. Participating in the STUART ASSAULT.
DOYNE’S Attempted Bribery and Extortion
822. In May, 2009, DOYNE telephoned STUART at home requesting that STUART pay DOYNE for services he falsely claimed to have provided.
823. DOYNE advised STUART that he had sent STUART several invoices which STUART had not paid; STUART had advised DOYNE previously that he would no longer pay DOYNE, INC.’S services or invoices.
824. DOYNE advised STUART that he “should come current” and that if he did so, DOYNE would “work with you” to “get more time with your son.”
825. Given DOYNE’S pattern and history of professional incompetence, fraud, breach of contract, deprivation of rights, false CPS report, overbilling, and other CULPABLE conduct as alleged herein, STUART was horrified at what he regarded as predatory behavior and an extortive threat to commit further acts of perjury, abuse of process, and manipulation regarding custody of STUART’s son if STUART did not “come current.”
826. He was further extremely distressed that DOYNE then maintained a relationship with his Croix Stuart and Lynn Stuart as a therapist, and would inflict further harm or commit further facilitation of Ms. Stuart’s child abuse if STUART did not comply with DOYNE’s demand for a bribe.
827. STUART refused to pay DOYNE further, but was horrified, traumatized, and severely distressed as a result of DOYNE’S behavior.
828. Understanding that DOYNE remained as a witness in STUART’S family law matter, and based upon his past history of abuse of process, false testimony, and abuse of process, he could easily retaliate against STUART for any action he took regarding his conduct, STUART was intimidated, terrified, oppressed and under duress, prohibiting him from taking formal action on such conduct, constituting duress, fraud, and undue influence.
829. STUART was also defrauded by DOYNE and BLANCHET as elsewhere alleged in understanding the nature and extent of the enterprise and conspiratorial relationships between DOYNE, DOYNE, INC. and BLANCHET, CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS, and each STUART ASSAULT COORDINATOR, and their successive duress and undue influence also elsewhere alleged.
830. As a result of such fraud, duress, undue influence, breach of fiduciary and other PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, STUART has been oppressed, deterred, and unwillingly delayed to initiate this Action until August 20, 2013.
San Diego Divorce Attorneys Conduct the Orchestra
Sadly, the ringleaders of the show are the divorce attorneys—those who have the closest relationship to the clients. The sad fact is clients in divorce court are often not the sharpest tools in the shed. Add to that blinding emotion, and you have easy targets for mediocre lawyers to send their kids to Berkley. “It’s a reaper’s field for every Aesop’s fable you’ve ever heard. This is what Sunday School was supposed to prepare you for. Sadly, most people must not have been listening.” Say Stuart.
“The solution is easier than most people realize.” Says Stuart. “But for some it’s tough. It starts with a big dose of humility. We sow the seeds of our own destruction by enabling the deadly sins—avarice, pride, greed, animus—it sounds old fashioned but its even more relevant today. If you come to divorce court with the intent of getting rich by duping someone, or ruining someone’s life, your evil motives are just as likely to destroy you.” “Divorce litigants are blind to the costs of the process—they regularly pay thousands of dollars for some “control” victory. If you’re the aggressor here, you’re the problem, and soon enough your problem will devour you.” Say Stuart. “Once you start with your own fallibility, you can forgive others–including your ex-spouse. Once you forgive, you clear your head from much of the emotion, and can hopefully make better decisions by avoiding the deadly sins that lead to your demise, and divorce lawyer riches.”
We Loved It! DivorceCorp Documentary Shows Why Parents Knew What They Were Talking About All Along–Finally!
Major thanks and congratulations to Director Joe Sorge, Producers Philip Sternberg and James Scurlock, and the rest of the DivorceCorp production team for an outstanding premier of DivorceCorp last night. “They’ve said for parents and children what has been ignored for decades. They system is very, very broken, and the fault lies squarely at the feet of judges, attorneys, and psychologists who profit from it.” Says Cole Stuart, President of California Coalition. “We’re grateful that Mr. Joe Sorge and his talented team lent their skill, intelligence, and credibility to a cause of those who’ve been maligned for doing nothing more abnormal than experiencing a rough breakup. We’re hopeful that now finally the message of parents and children will be heard.”
The film tackles an immensely complicated social pestilence, woven by strands of intensely-personal human drama, with what seems like ease. The film poignantly captures the individual building blocks of personal tragedies by those cast into the maze of horrors that is divorce court, and constructs them for us to prove the true culprit–an edifice of institutionalized sin. From the perspective Sorge and his team provide, we can “step back” from the personal experience to see that the source of our and our family’s and friends’ personal tragedies goes far deeper than a crooked divorce attorney or two, or a “mom vs. dad” “he said/she said” or “feminists vs. father’s rights” conflict, but a very well-executed plan designed by lawyers, judges, and erstwhile psychologists driven by greed, power, and a stunningly blind arrogance.
DivoreCorp explains how litigants fall prey to that system by buying into those stereotypes; how, by seeking to “win” a divorce, litigants guarantee their own failure, and usually the failure of those around them–except of course those who dug the pits and provided the tools of foolish self-destruction. It’s been said that a couple in divorce, “either wins together or loses together. There is no in between” DivorceCorp shows why, and, and how our own human faults feed a larger system geared to devour those who exhibit them. DivorceCorp is at once a relentlessly entertaining first-class documentary, and bone-chillingly real B-Movie horror film.
Congratulations to the DivorceCorp team for putting the powerful medium of film up to a task for which it is far too-infrequently used, and filling movie theaters with horror, laughter, tears, understanding, and a message, for a critically important, and very non-fiction, cause.
Family Court Racketeering Suit Expands to Name San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith for Use of City Prosecutors to Protect Local Divorce Industry Abuse
January 9, 2014—San Diego, CA—Today California Coalition for Families and Children expands their Racketeering lawsuit in federal court to detail San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith’s use of City Attorney’s Office’s resources to prosecute critics of the divorce industry. The federal complaint details Goldsmith’s and Assistant City Attorney Emily Garson’s misconduct in criminal proceedings against the Coalition and it’s President, Colbern Stuart, jailing him on false charges.
Assistant City Attorney Garson’s behavior is simply criminal-far beyond what prosecutors are permitted. The City’s own documents show she manufactured evidence and testimony.” Says Coalition President Colbern Stuart. Stuart was arrested while protesting with other parent members of the Coalition at an April, 2010 family law seminar hosted by the San Diego County Bar Association.
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith is a former Family Court judge, and his wife, Christine Goldsmith, is a sitting judge and Defendant in the Coalition lawsuit. “Goldsmith’s prosecution of the case reeks of conflict of interest. He staffed the case with a young prosecutor who apparently didn’t understand the depth of the illegal conduct she was being asked to perform. Obstruction of justice by a prosecutor is a serious felony—a clear and egregious violation of law and ethics rules.” says Stuart. “There’s no excuse for such behavior. She’s breaking the law to protect ravenous divorce lawyers. It’s simply disgraceful.”
“At the very least, it shows extremely poor judgment, but more accurately widespread disregard for the law among those sworn to up hold the law in the City Attorney’s Office. God save us when this egregious misconduct becomes tolerable behavior.” says Stuart.
From the Amended Complaint:
GROCH’S Order and GARSON’S numerous acts of punishment and prosecution of protected speech commentary against the City Attorney, and GARSON’S perjury and subornation of perjury constitute deprivations of STUART’S rights secured under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and related provisions of the Constitution of the State of California. Whether shielded from civil accountability or otherwise, the felonies represent a deplorable pattern of contempt of law. They are also RICO predicate crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A) and (B), as detailed below.
GARSON lacked probable cause to initiate the People v. Stuart matter. Her sworn declarations as a complaining witness in doing so are crimes—felonies under federal law—several and severe. STUART has endured years in persecution as a result of such outrageous behavior. He re-appears today to redress those acts for himself and, he prays, thousands of others who have suffered similar and even more outrageous insults, violations, deprivations, and injuries under the indecency of those who today occupy offices of honor, yet who regularly debase those offices while driven by motives no one, perhaps not even they themselves, could honor.
That failure, combined with [The Commission on Judicial Performance’s] impotence to swiftly punish the same in deterrence, makes the act of entrusting a complaint to BATTSON and SIMI at outrageous risk of constitutional injury by county judicial officers behaving as a steerage-fare gallery of feckless petit-tyran, perversely immunized under the honor of patriots to indulge frolic, whimsy, and caprice. What shame a profession of reason today endures.
Under BATTSON and SIMI’S habituated tolerance for judicial misconduct, disregard of ethical canons and constitutional restrictions on abuse of authority, the mere act of identifying a litigant in an investigation subjects her to jeopardy by officer complained of or the officer’s colleagues acting in lockstep sympathy.
More at WeightierMatter.com
CCFC Announces Partnership with Carpe Dicta and Weightier Matter for 2013 Judicial Election Resrouce
What’s Wrong With Family Court?
You be the Judge!
December 12, 2013–San Diego, CA–CCFC today announces a partnership with Carpe Dicta, the online resource for news, reviews, commentary, and analysis of public servants, attorneys, and judges, to provide coverage and in-depth analysis of the 2014 Judicial Elections on June 3, 2014. From Weightier Matter:
CCFC, Weightier Matter, and Partner Carpe Dicta Announce June 2014 Judicial Election Voter Resources and Coverage
December. Christmas shopping, holiday parties, parking nightmares, and a celebration of what’s most near and dear to us: Family and tradition. But while most people take the holiday off to celebrate, spend time with loved ones, relax, and feast, for some December is an important time to start working. December 27, 2013–The official end of Christmas shopping season, is also the official beginning of Election Season for 2014 candidates statewide, and in America’s Finest City. And if you’re a judge, this election race–if you’re in it at all–is a sprint.
Your Opinion Matters to Us!
At CCFC we’re always seeking feedback from parents to pass along to the divorce industry and courts. We’ve prepared a brief poll seeking parent input about your impression of child custody evaluators before and after you hired them. If your divorce involved a paid child custody evaluator, what was your impression before and after your experience? Your answers are anonymous, so please feel free to comment as well as respond with as many choices as are true for you. Instructions: Pick as many answers as apply, or add your own to “Other.” There is no right/wrong answer–we’re only interested in your subjective impressions. THANK YOU!
Results will be posted in two weeks. Visit CCFC online at our Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/ccfconline
Yelp, or Gulp? Yelp’s “Recommended” Reviews–Why Knowing What Reviews Aren’t “Recommended” is More Telling than the Reviews that Are
The Power, and Unforeseen Truth, of the Internet
Say these words ten years ago and what would the reaction be?
“He’s a Blogger”
“It’s good Netizenship”
“I heard on Twitter”
Today, those words are not only universally understood, the listener knows that whatever is about to follow the phrase is so important that millions have already tuned in.
And one word that’s achieving that level of authority—Yelp. There are many recent articles on Yelp’s content, star ratings, features, and the effect it can have on a business, but few have probed the boundary lines that Yelp itself imposes on reviews. Yelp describes the goal of “filtering” reviews–to make the published reviews that go into its “star” rating more reliable by filtering out “unreliable” reviews. Yelp itself explains its own policies in a simple video below. We suggest viewing it before proceeding with this article.
We’ve experimented with this new “recommended” policy and here share what we’ve learned. It’s very revealing, but not revealing in the way Yelp probably intended. The reviews Yelp’s software filters as “recommended” may, or may not, be in fact more reliable. But it turns out that Yelp’s policy about deleting, or hiding certain reviews as “not recommended’ speaks volumes more.
We’ve posted information regarding several family court professionals who we’ve become familiar with, both from personal experiences and by learning from the experience of others. Yelp’s reaction has been insightful not only about our reivews, but about the others it “removes” to “not recommended.” In other words, Yelp promotes, or “yelps,” some reviews, and swallows, or “gulps” others.
Take, for instance, Dr. Stephen Doyne—the notorious “Dean” of the San Diego Family Law industry. If you’ve viewed our site before you know that CCFC has filed a lawsuit in United States District Court in the Southern District of California accusing Doyne, among many others of his family court colleagues, of criminal racketeering, fraud, and abuse of his family court clients. Our parent members have been vocal about Doyne and several others across the Internet—both good experiences and unfortunately many bad ones. Our parents have been eager to share those experiences with others who, like we were at one point—enter family court thinking it behaves like any other professional services industry—regulated by laws and professional standards.
What we learned is that family court psychologists, attorneys, and judges are not subject to ordinary professional oversight and regulation—they’s entirely virtually free from oversight by appellate courts, civil courts, professional ethics boards and disciplinary committees. We’ve written letters, reports, complaints, and campaigned to every authority with potential jurisdiction over the industry, and virtually all have taken a “hands off” attitude toward family court operations and professionals. “Family Court is a closed society” they respond. “If you have a problem, take it up with the judge.”
We learned, far to late for some, that most of the assumptions that parents carry into family court are simply very, very naive. As a result of the lack of oversight, professionals such as Doyne and others are free to extort, defraud, and abuse parents and children once they become trapped in the family court system. Your attorneys? Well aware of this trap, yet fail to warn you–in some cases even lead you into it, then blame you once ensnared.
And the judges who oversee it? Willfully ignorant to the abuse, which is not only permitted, but encouraged.
Hence our lawsuit, but that’s a different story.
One venue we attempted to use to explain the fraud and abuse parents face in hiring family court professionals was Yelp. Many sites such as CitySearch, local news agencies such as Channel 10 and The Reader, and private boards such as “The Public Court” or “FixFamilyCourts” and “Angiemedia” have articles and discussion boards gathering opinions, but Yelp has, by far, the most sophisticated standards for choosing which reviews are “recommended” and which are not.
Here’s what our experience shows.
Yelp does not like reports of lawsuit activity. We posted the following review on Yelp (Click through-images to enlarge):
Within 48 hours Yelp “‘gulped”, and replaced it with this:
We thought the review was important enough to keep up, and re-posted it, with the following alert to Yelp about exactly what we were doing (Click to enlarge):
This review stayed up long enough to attract about sixty “votes” from users rating is “helpful” “cool” or “funny”—clearly Yelp’s users liked it. Yelp, did not. Within days Yelp again removed the post, and even sent an email stating the post didn’t conform to the terms of services. We looked at Yelp’s terms and no where did we see anything identified as objectionable content. We asked Yelp to explain, they declined.
Today, when you navigate to Yelp’s page for Stephen Doyne, you’ll find this (click to enlarge):
Still all bad reviews, but what’s even more telling is what Yelp filtered out. Navigate deeper to the gulped “not recommended” links and you’ll find more—much more… (click to enlarge)
The “Cole S.” reviews about the CCFC lawsuit are gulped—for violating content terms and restrictions–presumably Yelp thinks we’re “ranting”. While we disagreed about my post about a lawsuit by Doyne’s former clients violating Yelp’s terms of service, but we were also curious about why the five positive reviews were also filtered out—surely they couldn’t be accused of “ranting” or “repeat negative reviews”—what’s up with the filtering of positive reviews?
Simple—according to Yelp’s video (see above link), their software identifies reviews that are “suspicious”—“suspicious” positive reviews include almost exclusively reviews with a “conflict of interest”—in other words, reviews by the business itself, or entities the business has paid to review it. In other words—DOYNE IS POSTING POSITIVE REVIEWS ABOUT HISMSELF ONLINE.
See it for yourself–Yelp’s software has identified the “positive” reviews about Doyne to be, in fact, by Doyne. And his self-promotion isn’t limited to Yelp–the same deceptive reviews also appear prominently in CitySearch’s results–CitySearch’s filters aren’t as sophisticated as Yelp, meaning the fraud identified by Yelp is continuing to deceive consumers at CitySearch (click to enlarge):
It gets better. We tested the theory with another family court warrior–Marilyn Bierer. As you can see below, Marilyn Bierer is also deep into the business of self-promotion.
Our review of Bierer (click to enlarge):
Yelp gulped it. But what else appears as “not recommended”?
In other words, according to Yelp, the two reviews of Bierer from “Steve B” are reviews by Marilyn Bierer or her “conflict-of-interest” colleagues. I took a capture of the reviews when they were still posted. Here is Steve B.:
Very flattering–if she might, and did, say so herself.
Now why is that important? If you’re a coffee shop trying to drum up business in a new neighborhood, shame on you, but you’re not breaking the law. But for professionals such as psychologists and lawyers, it’s illegal to promote yourself in any deceptive way, its’ illegal to reveal client details, and its’ illegal to commit fraud on future clients. To put it bluntly, Yelp’s “neutral software” has identified strong evidence that Stephen Doyne and Marilyn Bierer have committed fraud, on their clients, fraud on consumers, violated client trusts, and breached numerous ethical rules of their profession. As bad as the evidence we’ve gathered against them already is, this could be the most damning.
Stay tuned as we use Yelp’s automated software review “gulper” to uncover other fraudulent “self-reviews” detected by others of our family court friends.
If you haven’t already closed the book on family court professionals’ attempt to pose as legitimate enterprises, here’s another reason to do so. They will eagerly and flagrantly disregard rules of ethics, professional regulations, and law designed to protect you, in order to propagate their treachery harming your family, and possibly ruining your life.
Don’t make the same mistakes we did. Avoid these frauds at all cost–or cost you it will.
Stay tuned—as our lawsuit unfolds we’ll be the first to report on the depth of the criminal enterprises operating in Family Court.
Visit our Facebook Page at https://www.facebook.com/CCFCONLINE
The Soft Eugenics of Dark Hearts and Low Minds: Highly Educated, Wealthy Family Court Elites of the Domestic Distpute Industry Criminal Enterprise: Shaping a Future Safe-for Their Crime
CCFC’s recently filed federal RICO lawsuit
details allegations of a racketeering crime ring harming parents and children throughout California. The perpetrators? Not pin-stripped gangsters, ponzi backroom scams, or heady leathered street thugs, but a gang of thugs nonetheless. Prominent members of our own communities; Lawyers, psychologists, and even our own judiciary. The letters below, based on the Alksne template, detail the bigotry, fraud, discrimination, and rampant lawlessness occurring under the noses of San Diego Superior Court judges. CCFC has called the criminal behavior to their attention, to the attention of the District Attorney and the United States Attorney for this federal district. None have responded, leading CCFC to file a civil rights lawsuit in US District Court for the Southern District of California. CCFC’s August 21, 2013 press release details further allegations here.
Its All About the Kids
Oddly, Family Court is set aside for the “sensitive issues” it handles; parent-child relationships, careers, often sanity, and sometimes even lives. Those assigned to the court are expected to execute a special level of care, compassion, and concern. For that reason women are disproportionately represented, under the impression that they are “kinder” and “gentler.” The court has at least one gay male–perhaps for the same bizarre rationalization.
But their performance is anything but kind–parents are regularly subjected to a highly invasive judicial microscope of “soft eugenics”–Judges probing to reward or punish the existence or absence of arbitrary parental behaviors and personalities a given judge likes or dislikes–virtually all of which have nothing to do with even the lowest test of “legitimate state interests.” A parent is wealthy? Great! Cash machine. Unusually neat? Sounds: A: irrational obsessive-compulsive or B: responsible law abiding citizen. (Check only one please). Parent is just like me? Parent of the Year! She gets everything.
We Know the Law About Families
And who’s making those studied, well-researched, virtually certain stare decisis judgments of the values and behaviors of others they’ve barely met? Former prosecutor-types who couldn’t make it throwing virtually defenseless California criminals in jail. Banished to Family Court, they appear more successful. Just don’t tell them that the prey in family court have even fewer defenses from arbitrary judgment, punishment, and “kinder” scorn. Unleash the talents of a hangman to a waiting room of patients awaiting brain surgery–Why would we be surprised that we end up with a post-op piled with bloodied corpses?
Just…. Be More Like Us!
The rank and file judges–often not even parents themselves–are plagued with horrific personality defects of their own far more serious than any parent in their courtroom–personal and professional misconduct, multiple divorcees, serious domestic violence perpetrators, addicts, some near perversions, financial misdealing, abundant disregard for the rule of law–and disdain for anyone who disagrees. Good old fashioned thuggery by a rogues gallery of unethical lawyers, judges, and psychologists in what has become a free-for-all crime ring.
As detailed in our lawsuit and soon to come to light, the “special forum” of family court has become “special”–for criminals intent on taking advantage of vulnerable, unsophisticated legal consumers in turmoil, strife, and now even more serious jeopardy.
And how do they regard parents in crisis? “They’re all animals” says one notable family court psychologist, Stephen Doyne.
“As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.”
John F. Kennedy
We’re Only Trying To Help You
If you’re in family court, be aware that it’s anything but family friendly. Parents had no input–no input whatsoever–in it’s creation, rules, and operation. It was created and operated by divorce lawyers and Sacramento professional bureaucrats with a jobs agenda–theirs instead of yours or your children’s. If you’re lucky enough to be the beneficiary on the political side of their agenda–yes, political agenda in a family court–that strongly favors women, feminists, gays–you may take some comfort that the killing machine is working for you. That is, until it comes for you. CCFC’s membership is replete with mothers, sisters, and daughters who’ve been duped into trusting, and then outright raped by those who claim to be acting in their interest. Our Cease and Desist letter examines the history, writings, and workings of the court and its supporters such as the Family Justice Center, and the evidence is stunning. Exhibit “B” to the Family Justice Center letter sets the evidence forth in graphic detail.
We Can Assure Your Safety
The only safe move–we suggest avoiding it altogether if possible. Free resources like UpToParents and TransParenting are far more effective, safe, and free. If your attorney doesn’t offer it, or suggests you’ll “do better” fighting, get ready; you’re the next meal on their table.
Some doubt the safety of encouraging cooperative resolution of domestic disputes, arguing that its “risky” trying to bring a feuding couple together lest the man “returns to his abuse.” For a very few men and women–perhaps. But the question to ask is “riskier than what?” The Alliance’s track record with heavy-handed family court judges in San Diego alone is storied with murdered spouses, children, suicides, exacerbated addictions, serious violence, death threats, false arrests, manipulation of police and child welfare agencies, physical attacks, theft, and character/career assassinations–the question is, Alliance: “If fostering domestic cooperation out of strife is risky, then how would you describe fostering its warfare?”
What’s going wrong here?
How have we reached a point at which entrusted officials, sworn to oaths to exercise their power only as it is delegated to them; to check themselves and others in its improper use; to enforce the law equally without regard to friend or foe; to obey the law themselves first and foremost, have been led so astray? Knowledge of how to prohibit the inevitable abuse of power and the decay it inevitably results in, goes stale while the blood of victims overflows its cup? Duties to abide by oaths to restrain the power of government are uttered in mocking tones once power is secured behind the hoods and robes of immunity from law? How is it that those entrusted with enforcing laws on themselves and others in power so regularly cast themselves as the most notorious criminals in the courthouse? How is it that intelligent people, taught the law, learned in the history of tyranny and oppression our nation was founded to temper and diffuse, schooled in ethics and moral philosophy, of innate human dignity, equal opportunity, and the terror to which power, politics, and greed can quickly devolve into, so blithely ignore what they’ve so well learned?
We’re Judges–We Know Better About
Your Kids Than You
Given the trust and power to protect those liberties, expand opportunities, develop tolerance, and grow the common wealth, how do such people so quickly convert those powers to condemn, restrict, and oppress the very communities they’re entrusted to support? How have they become converted from a deep awareness of the values and wisdom of “equality” into proponents of rampant partisanship, nepotism, lawlessness, and short-sighted gain for a cherished constituency?
What forces intelligent, learned, experienced people like Lorna Alksne, Michael Groch, Lisa Schall, Stephen Doyne, Casey Gwinn, Jan Goldsmith, and so many others in our community to revert to pre-American rogue-like abuse of the “accidents of birth”; sycophancy and bluster begetting pedestal vanity, mantle entitlements, and their companion piqueish egos?
If We Can’t Do Something Right… What The Hell-Let’s See What Happens!
How have they forgotten the age-old Hippocratic Oath to “above all else, do no harm?” We hire prosecutors for specific purposes–to punish criminals, but in civil and family court, how is that instinct relevant? How is it anything other than a defect? The result–the incompetent’s lack of necessary problem-solving mentality, negotiation skills, and real-client experience is converted into your crime. “Do it our way or else.” Now that’s legal talent!
They learned such skills in law school and have had opportunities to develop them, but they chose blunt force objects of handcuffs and an elaborate boudoir of King’s clothing. Have the skills gone rusty from disuse? No need to negotiate when you have all the guns. Have they forgotten–perhaps the tax-subsidized educations they were bought have betrayed them. Yet they’re educated at some of the world’s finest institutions. Desperation to earn a living? Not unless earning more than 95% of Americans makes you destitute. How can so many so easily turn their back on what they know to be their duties, making choices that reflect so poorly on the opportunities to expand for others the blessings they’ve been so fortunate to enjoy? Are they secretly on the take? Psychopathology? Just plain evil?
“Any man can withstand adversity. If you really want to test a man’s character, give him power.” ~Abraham Lincoln
What’s going wrong here?
Good questions, and as our lawsuit progresses, we’re likely to have some very specific answers to share with you right here, so stay tuned. The hangman wears a hood of anonymity–the judge wears a robe of immunity. Unhooded, uncloaked, and no longer protected by the manufactured fiction of inability to sin, the real person stands before God and woman to answer for her crime. The verdict on sin will await a higher court.
~- Mark Twain Following the Equator
In the meantime we encourage your feedback and attention to these critical issues affecting parents and children throughout California and our nation. Please feel free to join us in demanding more–much, much more–from your elected judiciary, paid legal representatives, non-profit public welfare agencies, and those entrusted with the care and well-being of our entire community–not just those they want to win. Your liberties, the liberties of those you know and love, and perhaps even one day the liberties of your own children and grandchildren hang in the balance. Don’t allow them to slip.
Good luck parents.
Visit our Facebook Page at https://www.facebook.com/CCFCONLINE