Home » Law

Category Archives: Law

RSS News From Weightier Matter Family Court Litigant Resources

San Diego Assistant City Attorney Emily Garson’s Prosecutorial Misconduct in People v. Stuart

Garson Enforcer

Emily Garson’s Prosecutorial Misconduct in People v. Stuart Explained

 

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.

[More from WeightierMatter.com…]

Advertisements

Weightier Matter Reports on California Coalition’s Racketeering Case: Next Wave

May 19, 2014—San Diego, CA—California Coalition For Families and Children, PBC announces filing of motions and oppositions in its Racketeering and Civil Rights lawsuit against Family Courts and the Divorce Industry.  The latest round of filings explains to the United States District Court the foundation for the lawsuit and request that the Court permit the case to move into discovery.

“Defendants filed an avalanche of almost two hundred pages of attacks on the First Amended Complaint on virtually every legal ground that could be imagined” says Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition.  “They threw the book at us, and we responded in kind.”

California Coalition’s opposition brief totaled 186 pages of analysis explaining the legal foundations of the Action. The motions were filed as part of an “Omnibus” round of briefing ordered by presiding District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.  In the filing, defendants joined forces and also filed separate “joinder” briefs on issues unique to each defendant.  “They pretty much ganged up on us in this round—we’re facing an army of lawyers representing lawyers–divorce law firms, forensic psychologists, family law judges, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Commission on Judicial Performance, even Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye” says Stuart.

The “Omnibus” filing challenged the legal foundation for California Coalition’s First Amended Complaint.  At this round of the litigation, no party can present evidence, but the District Court Judge examines the Plaintiff’s legal theories to determine if they state a cause of action recognizable under law.  If the Complaint states “cognizable claims”, the case goes forward. Defendants can also assert technical defenses, such as expiration of statutes of limitation, or jurisdictional issues.  Such defenses don’t adjudicate the merits of the claim—but only whether the complaint meets a checklist of technicalities.  It’s common for such motions to be raised at the outset of the litigation.  For many issues, the complaint can be “fixed” by simply amending to satisfy the technicalities.  In other cases, such as statute of limitations or jurisdiction bars, judicial or other immunities, and certain other “all-or-nothing” defenses, a court isn’t required to grant the plaintiff permission to amend if it’s apparent that even an amended complaint couldn’t go forward. The Omnibus brief filed by all defendants raised many of these “all or nothing” defenses.

[More at WeigtierMatter.com]

California Coalition Delivers Claim Against U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy to Attorney General Eric Holder

P1 Letter to Eric Holder-signed

CCFC’s Cover Letter to Eric Holder, Attorney General

  April 16, 2014—Today California Coalition delivers its Federal Tort Claims Act claim and demand package regarding the failure of Ms. Laura Duffy, United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, to protect families and children from abuse by Family Courts.  From the Holder letter:

Dear Mr. Holder:

            I write to alert you of a claim presented yesterday pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) regarding Ms. Laura Duffy, United States Attorney, Southern District of California.  I enclose a copy of the complete claim form and attachments.

            This claim is premised on violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).  Ms. Duffy and unknown attorneys and personnel within the United States Attorney’s Office are alleged to maintain policies and practices in violation of Claimants’ rights to equal protection under the Constitution and Laws of the United States.  Such policies and practices within the United States Attorney’s Office have and continue to cause, allow, or fail to prevent deprivation of the Claimants’ rights as members of each EQUAL PROTECTION CLASS defined in the Amended Complaint, causing injury therein.

[More at WeightierMatter]

CCFC Delivers Claim Against U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy Under Federal Tort Claims Act

P1 Completed SF-95 CCFC STUART-signed

California Coalition’s Federal Tort Claims Act Claim Package to U.S. Attorneys Laura Duffy

April 15, 2014—California Coalition today delivers a claim under the Federal Tort ClaimsAct to United States Attorney Laura Duffy for her failure to enforce federal civil rights laws preventing San Diego Family Courts and divorce industry professionals from violating civil rights of families and children.  The claim form summarizes the California Coalition’s Equal Protection allegations against Ms. Duffy for her creation and maintenance of policies depriving California families of Equal Protection of the Laws.  From the Claim Form:

This claim is pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1986 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).  Ms. Laura Duffy and unknown attorneys and personnel within the United States Attorney’s Office maintain policies and practices in violation of Claimants’ rights to equal protection under the Constitution and Laws of the United States. Such policies and practices within the United States Attorneys Office have and continue to cause, allow,or fail to prevent deprivation of the Claimants’ rights as members of each EQUAL PROTECTION CLASS defined in the Amended Complaint, causing injury therein.

[More at WeightierMatter]

California Coalition Files Motion to Enjoin All California Domestic Violence Restraining Orders as First Amendment Violation and Tool of Racketeering

California Coalition’s Motion to Enjoin Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

February 26, 2014—San Diego, CA—California Coalition for Families and Children today files a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in its ongoing civil rights and racketeering case against the Domestic Dispute Industry.  In their Motion, the Coalition  argues that the standard for invoking a domestic violence restraining order under the California Family Code—“abuse” –is an overbroad and vague content-based restriction on free speech, and therefore illegal. From the Motion:

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Domestic violence is a serious national concern.  United States Department of Justice statistics indicate that despite a decrease in frequency of intimate partner violence over the last twenty years, incident rates for nonfatal domestic violence remain at two tenths of one per cent of the population.[1]  Voluminous research, writing, and debate regarding the causes, nature, and appropriate means of eradicating this social malady have not resolved the controversy among researchers about how to eradicate the offensive persistence of domestic strife.

The solution legislated by the state of California and enabled by Defendant JUDICIAL COUNCIL is a courageous initiative consisting of a body of laws, regulations, policies, formwork, and practice standards guiding the behavior of social workers, criminal prosecutors, public and private civil attorneys, judges, court staff, administrators, and law enforcement animating unique oversight and restrictions on those most likely to be involved in domestic violence crimes: Families.[2]  Thousands of studies commissioned by state and federal governments have shown in abundance that families are statistically more likely to commit crimes of domestic violence.  One attorney for the United States Department of Justice recently explained that every domestic relationship is a potential “powder keg” warranting special government attention.[3]  Even more studies proving this clear point are ongoing, yet the final solution to how undesirable family discord will be fully exterminated remains illusive.  Stuart Decl. ¶¶ 34-34.

In pursuit of this end, state and local entities in California devote special attention to families in order to deter behavior which may lead to injury.  This Motion asserts that one embodiment of California’s scheme to eradicate domestic violence—preventive restraining orders—fails to properly observe constitutional boundaries.  Specifically, to what extent may police powers be deployed onto families to accomplish desirable goals of domestic violence deterrence without overstepping constitutional restrictions on the use of state-sponsored tools of coercion?

This Motion offers that California’s present scheme to eradicate domestic strife penalizes behavior that (1) is expressly protected by clearly-established fundamental state and federal constitutional rights, (2) violates no law, (3) causes no compensable injury, and (3) may not found any action in equity outside of the jurisdiction of domestic relations courts.  Among the wide array of appropriate tools available to the state of California in responding to undesirable behavior, California’s coercive intervention scheme has overstepped clear constitutional boundaries, is of unproven efficacy, is widely abused as a tool for fraud and extortion, and demeans the integrity and effectiveness of our civil and criminal justice institutions.  Based upon these deleterious consequences and the strong likelihood of prevailing on questions of law, Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining substantial ongoing illegal interference with the protected liberty interests of citizens of the United States and the State of California.

The complete story, pleadings, and analysis from Weightier Matter.

Assistant City Attorney Emily Garson’s Assault on Parents Seeking Family Court Reform Detailed by California Coalition

Garson Enforcer

Emily Garson-San Diego Assistant City Attorney and Point Woman for Jan Goldsmith’s Defense of San Diego Divorce Industry

California Coalition’s recently-filed Amended Complaint in its Racketeering lawsuit details the collaboration between the San Diego City Attorney’s Office and the San Diego Divorce Industry to silence parents affecting reform.  The Complaint details collaboration between the City Attorney, Jan Goldsmith who is a former family court judge, his wife, Christine Goldsmith, sitting family court jduge, Michael Groch, sitting family court judge, and Assistant City Attorney Emily Garson, the “point woman” prosecutor manufacturing evidence and comitting perjury to prosecute CCFC President Colbern Stuart.

From the Complaint:

Prosecutorial Misconduct of Assistant City Attorney Emily GARSON

1.            On about March 24, 2010, on information and belief, San Diego Assistant City Attorney Ms. Emily Garson (GARSON), made out a perjurous complaining witness declaration based on falsified or altered evidence, causing STUART to be charged with several misdemeanor violations of Cal. Pen.C. § 653m(a) (harassing by electronic  communication) and (b) (repeated harassing by electronic communication), and one alleged misdemeanor violation of Cal.Pen.C. § 646.9(a) (stalking).  The case GARSON initiated is identified as People of the State of California v. Colbern Stuart, San Diego Superior Court Case No. M104094DV (“People v. Stuart”).

2.            The evidence of STUART’S crime has been kindly provided to this Court by counsel for Ms. Stuart at Doc. No. 48-14.  The emails therein are impolite, rude, and indeed contain vulgarities.  Yet unlike the sworn declaration that utilized those emails  to initiate a retaliatory criminal prosecution and solicit a sentence of four years, the emails are not, and cannot be, crimes.  See, U.S. v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012).

3.            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.

4.            Such behavior was intended to retaliate, obstruct, and deprive STUART of rights, privileges and immunities under state and federal Constitutions, constituting numerous misdemeanors under federal law.  STUART’S subsequent arrests, imprisonment, injury, and severe mental distress constitute numerous serious felonies under state and federal law, as detailed fully below.

5.            GARSON’S acts in investigating, manipulating evidence, witnesses, and the San Diego Superior Court, and initiating the  prosecution of the People v. Stuart matter constitute CULPABLE and UNREASONABLE breach of one or more PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, and have foreseeably resulted in deprivations of STUART’S clearly-established rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Such acts are not immune from criminal accountability, and those on which the Claims of this Count are based, are not immune from civil.

6.            These acts of GARSON will be referred to as GARSON PERJURY ONE.

7.            On about April 6, 2010, GARSON caused to be filed a second perjurous Declaration In Support of Arrest Warrant relating to People v. Stuart containing similar false statements and misrepresentations based upon the same purported evidence.  This documents is filed, though not authenticated, in this matter at Dkt#16-1, Ex. “A.”

8.            The acts of GARSON in relation to the Declaration in Support of Arrest Warrant shall be referred to as GARSON PERJURY TWO.

Jan Goldsmith–Manufactures Charges Against Family Court Reform Leaders to Arrest for Protest at County Bar; Claims “I’m a Libertarian”

9.            On information and belief, GARSON collaborated, agreed, affiliated, and conspired with her boss, San Diego City Attorney and former San Diego Superior Court Family Division judge Jan Goldsmith, and her boss’s wife, sitting Family Division judge, and instant Defendant Christine Goldsmith, in such activities.  On information and belief, C. Goldsmith and J. Goldsmith supervised, directed, encouraged, facilitated, and tolerated GARSON PERJURY ONE and TWO to interfere with and retaliate for Plaintiffs’ PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES and the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

10.       On information and belief, GARSON, J. GOLDSMITH, and C. GOLDSMITH did so with the knowledge and support of SCHALL and WOHLFEIL, all of whom acted with the specific intent to retaliate against STUART for the DDIJO COMPLAINTS I and II against them.

11.       Defendants C. GOLDSMITH, J. GOLDSMITH, GARSON, SCHALL, and WOHLFEIL will hereafter be referred to as “CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS.”

12.       Based upon GARSON PERJURY ONE and TWO, CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS caused STUART to be imprisoned without probable cause causing a false imprisonment for approximately 10 hours by agents of GORE.  At the time STUART was imprisoned by GORE, GORE knew or should have known of the perjurous and retaliatory nature of the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS’ acts (FALSE IMPRISONMENT 1).

13.       STUART became aware of the charges in the People v. Stuart matter in late April,

14.       STUART became intimidated, frightened, and oppressed as a result of CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS’ illegal activities, and refrained from pursuing the CLAIM AND DEMAND, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITES, and this Action.2010.  STUART perceived the charges to be illegal actions to retaliate for, deter, and oppress Plaintiffs from pursuing PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, the CLAIM AND DEMAND, and the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Prosecutorial Misconduct in People v. Stuart

15.       In about June or July, 2010, STUART appeared for arraignment on the above-referenced misdemeanor charges relating to People v. Stuart.

16.       STUART requested his attorney to discuss the case with the prosecutor representing the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS to determine the basis for the charges.  STUART’S attorney approached the Assistant City Attorney prosecuting the matter, on information and belief Ms. GARSON, to initiate discussions.

17.       After a few minutes of discussion, STUART’S attorney returned and explained to STUART to the effect that GARSON was “really pissed off on this one.”  He stated that GARSON was angry for “something you did at a bar association meeting.”   STUART recognized this as the STUART ASSAULT and the same “criminal trespass” charge that SDCBA’S insurance carrier had made.  STUART explained the circumstances of the STUART ASSAULT to his attorney, who was unable to draw any conclusions.

18.       STUART’S attorney advised that the GARSON stated she was intending to add more charges. Based on his conversation with GARSON, he surmised and advised STUART that GARSON was intending to “bump it up to a felony.”  STUART’S attorney advised STUART to the effect of “they’re going to throw everything they can at you on this one.”  STUART understood the “everything” to mean charging STUART for a felony relating to ENGAGEMENT based on the same charge that CHUBB had made as “criminal trespass.”  A further status conference was scheduled to permit GARSON to amend the criminal complaint with more charges.

19.       Sensing that the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS were using the threat of a felony or “criminal trespass” charge as an intimidation tactic retaliate against STUART for his CLAIM AND DEMAND, the DDIJO COMPLAINTS, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, on two occasions between about May 1, 2010 and February, 2011, STUART contacted GARSON by telephone, requesting that GARSON drop all charges in exchange for STUART’S backing off of the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, the CLAIM AND DEMAND, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES.  GARSON refused to return STUART’S telephone overtures.  On information and belief, GARSON’s notes or other documents related to the People v. Stuart matter will reflect these communications.

20.        At a subsequent status conference STUART was arrested immediately upon appearing in court illegally and without probable cause as a foreseeable consequence of the GARSON PERJURY ONE and TWO, causing a false imprisonment for approximately 12 hours in the custody of GORE, who knew or should have known of the malicious and retaliatory nature of the prosecution and arrest (FALSE IMPRISONMENT 2).

21.       After he was illegally imprisoned, STUART’S attorney conferred with GARSON about the case and charges.  He advised STUART, who was in custody, to the effect of “They’re adding more charges for stalking and harassment” and that the charges related to “something about the bar association.”  He had few details but asked STUART to explain his understanding of the email exchanges and bar association events.

22.       STUART summarized the events of the “annoying email” exchanges between him and his ex-wife, and the SDCBA ENGAGEMENT and SEMINAR, including the CLAIM AND DEMAND and the CHUBB “criminal trespass” threat. The attorney indicated to the effect that “653m is unconstitutional” but that prosecutors “still charge it to get you to agree to a protective order.”  He advised that “they never seek jail time on these.”

23.       After further conversations with GARSON, the attorney returned to advise STUART that the City Attorney’s Office was taking an unusually hard line on the case.  He advised GARSON would be seeking to add new stalking charges as a felony.

24.       STUART understood the “new charges” to relate to the threat of a “criminal trespass” and/or “felony stalking” “CounterClaim” originally made by CHUBB.  Because he was under ongoing prosecution for an illegal charge against protected speech, and threatened with additional illegal charges STUART was intimidated and frightened to take any action to assert the CLAIM AND DEMAND, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, or further PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY.

25.       On information and belief, while STUART was in custody GARSON requested and received leave to add several additional misdemeanor charges, but no felony stalking charge.

26.        In or about December, 2010-January, 2011, Stuart attended a pre-trial conference in the People v. Stuart matter.  He was once again arrested immediately upon appearing.  The arrest was without probable cause and a foreseeable consequence of the GARSON PERJURY ONE and TWO, causing a false imprisonment for approximately 10 hours in the custody of GORE, who knew or should have known of the malicious and retaliatory nature of the prosecution and arrest (FALSE IMPRISONMENT 3).

27.       STUART’S attorney, Mr. Solomon Chang, advised consistent with prior attorneys that the City Attorney’s Office and GARSON were taking an unusually hard line in the case, and still seeking to add additional charges.  Mr. Chang indicated the additional charges would include what he described as “felony stalking” charges.  STUART understood these charges to relate to the bar association false “criminal trespass” theory.

28.       STUART’S attorney inquired if GARSON would be willing to negotiate to dismiss the charges in exchange for backing off the CLAIM AND DEMAND, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES.  Mr. Chang advised he would speak with GARSON.  He did so, and returned, advising “no way” and to the effect “they want you to serve time on this one” and “you really made them angry.”  He asked for more details about the ENGAGEMENT, and STUART ASSAULT.  STUART shared the details, and Mr. Chang advised caution—to “wait and see” whether the City Attorney would be adding felony charges, or leaving the charge as several misdemeanors.

29.       STUART was released from imprisonment the following day.  He thereafter remained in fear that the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS would add manufactured charges based upon the “criminal trespass” and “bump it up” to a charge for “felony stalking.”

30.       On the first day of the People v. Stuart trial in late February, 2010, before jury selection the assigned trial judge Michael GROCH placed STUART under “house arrest” illegally and without probable cause as a foreseeable consequence of the GARSON PERJURY ONE and TWO, causing a false imprisonment of approximately one week (FALSE IMPRISONMENT 4).  STUART was not charged, arraigned, or prosecuted for any crime.

31.       GROCH ordered that STUART could avoid being jailed through trial only if he rented a hotel room in downtown San Diego and did not travel beyond the hotel and the downtown County courthouse.  GROCH denied STUART’S request to return to his home in Los Angeles during the week-long trial to gather clothing and toiletries.  GROCH did not advise STUART of any charges or violation of law.  Such acts, though possibly immune from civil suit, constitute “monstrous” felony criminal violations of STUART’S rights relating to SEARCH AND SEIZURE, PROCEDURAL and SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, and CRUEL AND/OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.

32.       Mr. Chang failed to object or seek hearing on the illegal arrest, explanation of charge, or other remedy for STUART’S arrest and “house arrest” sentence, advising only to the effect “I told you, they’re pissed.”  STUART immediately purchased a hotel room for the entire week, and was forced to purchase several suits, shirts, ties, undergarments and toiletries to last through the week-long trial.

33.       On information and belief, the People v. Stuart matter was GROCH’S first trial since being appointed from the District Attorney’s Office four months earlier, and also on information and belief his last.  GROCH was transferred to the Superior Court’s Family Law Division shortly after the People v. Stuart criminal matter, where he remains.

34.        On the first day of trial, before jury selection, Mr. Chang again advised to the effect that Assistant City Attorney GARSON was “holding” additional charges for felony stalking relating to the “bar association.”

35.        STUART advised Chang that he could testify as to the bar association events to prove they were not “stalking” but free speech activity.  Chang told STUART “you can’t testify in this case,” explaining that they City Attorney would be able to elicit testimony relating to the ENGAGEMENT and bring more serious charges accusing such acts as a pattern of “felony stalking” in addition to whatever charges the City Attorney was then “holding.”

36.       STUART protested that such charges would be unfounded. Chang politely agreed, but advised “they might still bring the stalking charges as a felony” and that STUART would “have to take your chances with a jury and on appeal” and “you’re looking at a lot more time for a felony.”  As a result of the fear of being charged with “felony stalking”, STUART did not testify at trial on his own behalf.

37.       Each charge for “annoying or threatening electronic communications” under Cal. Pen.C. § 653m(a) and (b) carries a maximum sentence of six months in County jail.  The statute prohibits “electronic communications” that use “obscene language or address to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person.”  Cal. Pen.C. § 653m(a).

38.       GARSON apparently charged each email sent by STUART in the exchange between STUART and his ex-wife from September, 2009 and February, 2010 as a separate misdemeanor offense.  According to GARSON’s closing argument at trial, if STUART used a “curse word” in his email, GARSON charged the email as an “obscene language” under the statute.  STUART used several “curse words” which were clearly insults, though clearly not threatening or “obscenity” under controlling United States Supreme Court and Supreme Court  of the State of California precedent.  GARSON also charged the entire group of emails as a single misdemeanor “stalking” charge under Cal. Pen.C. § 646.9 (stalking).  Doc. No. 48-14.

39.       STUART requested that Chang move to dismiss the criminal complaint on grounds that the statute it is brought under imposes unconstitutionally overbroad and vague restrictions on free speech, as “annoying” communications may not be criminalized.  STUART also requested that Mr. Chang move to dismiss the case on the grounds that the email conversations were protected speech as they were neither threatening nor obscene under clearly established U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, and that a motion seeking judgment as a matter of law on the uncontested evidence would be appropriate.  See, U.S. v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012).

40.       Mr. Chang agreed, and advised STUART he would make such a motion.  Yet thereafter Mr. Chang failed to do so, instead raising the arguments—arguments on a question of law—in closing argument to the jury.  GARSON successfully objected to the tactic.  Mr. Chang failed to make a further motion to the Court, and the constitutional issues were not adjudicated.

41.       Mr. Chang’s failure to properly assert the constitutional defense is inexplicable behavior for faithful, competent counsel.  On information and belief, GARSON unduly influenced Mr. Chang, then a junior attorney on information and belief in his first trial, to forbear on asserting the constitutional defenses in order to impose duress, intimidation, and fear to impede and delay STUART’S CLAIM AND DEMAND and DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and this Action.

10-17-2013 10-58-13 AM

42.       On information and belief, GARSON collaborated, agreed, affiliated, and conspired with her boss, City Attorney and former family division judge Jan Goldsmith, other STUART ASSAULT COORDINATORS, and other ENTERPRISE PERSONS, including Mr. Goldsmith’s wife, sitting Family Division judge, and instant Defendant Christine Goldsmith, in such activity.


Malicious Prosecution Within California State Bar

1.            Shortly after his release from illegal imprisonment in May, 2011, STUART was contacted by the State Bar of California regarding an action that had been initiated relating to his law license.  STUART contacted the State Bar and spoke with a State Bar investigator assigned to the case, Case No. 10-C-03559, one Mr. Radigan.  Mr. Radigan advised STUART that GARSON had contacted the State Bar to report STUART for misconduct.

2.            The State Bar investigator shared details of his conversations with GARSON, advising STUART to the effect that “you’ve really stirred up some anger down there” and that GARSON demonstrated unusual animus toward STUART.  He advised that GARSON had claimed that STUART was “harassing judges” referring specifically to the SDCBA ENGAGEMENT and the DDIJO COMPLAINT I regarding SCHALL.  Mr. Radigan repeated Ms. GARSON’S use of a number of extremely derogatory insults, epithets, and vile language inappropriate for repetition here.  He was oddly delighted with Ms. GARSON’S vitriol and rather perversely intrigued at what had enlivened her so.

3.            Mr. Radigan stated that GARSON had pressed him aggressively to invoke disciplinary proceedings, but that she was the only complaining witness.  He stated that Ms. Stuart was not a complainant and would not be a witness.  He stated to the effect that because of GARSON’S involvement in the criminal prosecution and lack of any attorney-client relationship injury, GARSON was “not the best witness,” but that she was nevertheless insisting that the State Bar pursue discipline.

4.            STUART explained the details of the SDCBA ENGAGEMENT, STUART ASSAULT, PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, and the email exchanges with his ex-wife to Mr. Radigan.  Mr. Radigan indicated he had read certain relevant emails and read or heard details about the STUART ASSAULT, ENGAGEMENT, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES.  He indicated that he personally didn’t believe any of the activities warranted discipline, but that GARSON’s aggressive pursuit of the matter compelled him to continue the matter.  He advised STUART, “put something on file and this should go away.” On information and belief, Mr. Radigan’s notes, from which he read to STUART during their telephone conversation, will reflect these conversations, including Ms. GARSON’S defamatory, perjurous, and insulting statements.

5.            STUART on about October, 2011, delivered a written response to the State Bar

Judge Chiristine Goldsmith–Wife of Jan Goldsmith–A Powerful Team to Protect Family Court From Criticism and Reform

explaining his political activity, the STUART ASSAULT, the email exchanges, giving his defense, and requesting dismissal of all charges.  STUART did not receive a further response from the State Bar.

6.            On information and belief, GARSON alone initiated the State Bar proceeding and illegally induced Mr. Radigan and possibly other State Bar employees to pursue a groundless investigation and prosecution of STUART within the State Bar to retaliate, intimidate, harass, and oppress him relating to the CLAIM AND DEMAND, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY.  On information and belief, GARSON collaborated, agreed, affiliated, and conspired with each CITY ATTORNEY Defendant in such activity.

7.            Because of the pending charges from the State Bar being aggressively pursued by MS. GARSON, the looming four year “suspended sentence”, the vague DVILS ORDERS, GARSON’s connection to them and demonstrated willingness to commit felony crimes to persecute STUART, after his first conversation with Mr. Radigan STUART was further intimidated and fearful of reprisal from CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS.   He refrained from pursuing the CLAIM AND DEMAND, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITES under the additional fear of jeopardizing his law license.

MORE from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint available at WeightierMatter.

California Coalition for Families and Children Delivers Letters to U.S. Representatives Requesting Assistance in Combating Familiy Court Fraud and Abuse

p1 Letter to Barbara Boxer-signedJanuary 31, 2014—San Diego, CA—Today California Coalition for Families and Children delivered letters to United States representatives requesting assistance in the investigation and arrest of San Diego Divorce Industry professionals accused of illegally defrauding California Families.  The letters delivered to Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Congresswoman Susan Davis, and Congressman Duncan HunterJuan VargasScott Peters, and Darrell Issa detail the ongoing criminal violations of federal civil rights and racketeering laws among the San Diego divorce industry.  [More…]

California Coalition Delivers Demand Letter and Evidence to FBI, Demands Arrest of Family Court Officials

P1 CCFC Letter to Daphne Hearn

CCFC Demands Investigation and Arrest by FBI Special Agent in Charge Daphne Hearn

January 30, 2014–SAN DIEGO, CA–Today California Coalition for Families and Children calls for an investigation and arrest of San Diego Divorce Industry leaders.  The Coalition delivered their demand letter to Ms. Daphne Hearn, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Ms. Laura Duffy, United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, detailing the San Diego Family Court racketeering allegations, and providing thousands of pages of evidence.   The letter identifies numerous violations of federal laws including 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 241, and 371 (civil rights and fraud against the United States government) as well as racketeering charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 for mail and wire fraud, honest services fraud, extortion, bribery, and obstruction of justice by divorce lawyers, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Family Courts.

“The crimes we’ve uncovered are very serious, and include violations of equal protection of the laws against parents and children by predatory divorce lawyers and their co-conspirators in the City Attorney’s Office and Family Court.”  Says Colbern Stuart, President of the California Coalition.  “We’ve been in contact with Ms. Hearn and Ms. Duffy previously on similar matters.  This demand package contains evidence and allegations which they had previously indicated was missing.”  California Coalition is calling for an investigation and arrest of the accused defendants.

[More…]

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

P1 89 - CCFC FAC v 7 FINAL signed

Amended Racketeering and Civil Rights complaint in federal court, adding City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, Assistant City Attorney Emily GarsonJudge 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

Bierer Big

Marilyn Bierer, “Black Hat” Domestic Dispute Industry Operative

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.”

 From California Coalition’s Amended Complaint:

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:

COUNT 11
DOYNE TERRORISM
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Cal. Const. art. I, § 26
Against DOYNE, DOYNE, INC., BLANCHET, ABC&K,
WOHLFEIL, SCHALL

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).

Common Allegations

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.

817.   Specifically:

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.

Sharon Blanchet, Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen & Kalemkarian, Facing Racketeering Charges, Fraud, Extortion

Sharon Blanchet-Ringleader of Doyne, Fritz, Honest Services Fraud

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.”

Family Court Racketeering Suit Expands to Name San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith for Use of City Prosecutors to Protect Local Divorce Industry Abuse

P1 89 - CCFC FAC v 7 FINAL signed

The COALITION’S Amended Complaint Expands to Include Jan Goldsmith and Emily Garson for Prosecutorial Misconduct

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