Monday, September 8, 2014

Do a Child's Preferences About Which Parent He or She Wants to Live With Matter?

Parents engaged in a custody battle often focus on everything from rights to phantom "best interests" to tradition--and family courts seem willing to consider about everything under the sun.  But often the child's wishes in the matter are overlooked, or even if considered, minimized by an overcontrolling parent.  Though all courts will consider a child's preferences, few take the initiative to ask, and unless a child is assertive enough to speak up for him or herself, the child's will is often ignored.

What do the experts say about when a child can make a decision?  What arguments can a child or parent make that will persuade a court?  Here we collect some useful articles for parents or children encountering this often overlooked issue in reading the tea leaves of "best interests"

But what does the child want? 



More Useful Links:

http://www.divorcesupport.com/divorce/A-Child-rsquo-s-Preference-in-Custody-Case-130.html

http://farzadlaw.com/california-child-custody/childs-preference-custody-how-when-choose/

California Law on Child Preferences:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=03001-04000&file=3040-3049

Monday, August 4, 2014

Deep Dive from California Coalition v. San Diego County Bar Association: Emily Garson and Lynn (Lyndolyn) Stuart's Malicious Prosecution of Cole Stuart

Lynn Stuart, Emily Garson, Keith Slotter Team of Perjury
From WeightierMatter.com:

California Coalitions’ 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.

[More...]



Sunday, August 3, 2014

F.B.I. Investigating Child Custody Evaluators; San Diego Indictments Coming Soon?

San Diego child custody evaluators may have another opportunity to answer for their fraud and abuse of families soon.  The F.B.I has recently indicted leaders of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) in New York for tax evasion, fraud, ad a "kids for cash" kickback scheme in connection with their appointments to perform custody evaluations and mediations in state family courts.  Local disreputable professionals such as Stephen Doyne, Robert Simon, Lori Love, and our own family courts may soon be joining them in making appearances in federal courts--or federal prisons. Stay tuned.



Monday, July 28, 2014

What Happend To Make You and Mom/Dad Divorce? What to Say When Your Child Finds Out About the Affair...


Parents have to deal with a lot of tough questions from their children--"Why is red red?" "Why can't I have a car?" or (yikes!) "Where do babies come from?"  But maybe none is tougher than the one discussed in this article "Why did you break up my family?"  Parents who think they can give a one-sided explanation are probably in for a shock. Kids are smarter than you think, and the impact of that breakup on their trajectory could have impact much further or deeper than you'd like.  The article below shares that kids take breakups differently at different times, and depending on how well it is handled.  Researchers don't fully understand why or what factors are at play to determine how a child manages a breakup.  What is known, however, should cause you great concern if your a parent--or a child. 

Matthew Horsley, Lynn Stuart, Croix Stuart

Friday, July 25, 2014

What do you tell your child when she or he asks "Why?"

The terrifying truth about custody evaluators--from our friend Charlie Asher of UpToParents, below.




The frightening reality is that custody evaluations are not only unscientific, biased, acrimonious, and often harmful to parents and children, they're extraordinarily expensive.  So, having insisted (or been duped into) one, what do you tell your child when he or she asks for a video game you can't or won't afford? Or a bike? Or a special field trip at school?  Music lessons? A special sports event?

"Sorry, dear! I spent $20,000 wringing out my intense anger against your mom/dad with a quack psychologist who made things worse, so I can't buy you those guitar lessons."

"I know you want to go on that trip with your school that costs $1,000, but mom blew $300,000 on a divorce attorney and got nothing but misery. Sorry!"

"Well yes college is important and I know you want to go, but that can't happen now because I still owe my divorce lawyer $100,000 I can't pay, and can't get a job because I demolished my career, your mom's/dad's career, and pretty much everyone I used to know that could help me get a job is frightened of me now. But hey, you can take out low income loans and be in debt for the rest of your life just like mom and dad!"

The message? "Sorry, Mom's anger at Dad was more important than you, your needs, or your future."

Or how about "Somebody else made me do it"? Is that a better excuse?

How about "I had no choice! I'm a victim!" Does that end the discussion?

What answer could you possibly give that justifies blowing your child's present and future on YOUR shallow, short-sighted emotional narcissism or foolishness in hiring a fraudulent custody evaluator?

If this is you, mom or dad, you probably don't deserve to be near children, much less be a parent to one.

If this is your mom or dad, God bless you. You deserve much, much better.

Friday, July 4, 2014

San Diego Child Abuse Hotline: 858-560-2191

 If You're a Child or Caretaker for a Child and Suspect Child Abuse, Call San Diego Child Abuse Hotline: 858-560-2191The 24-hour Hotline is staffed by trained social workers who receive calls about child abuse, molestation and neglect. Each call is logged and evaluated as to the level of possible risk to the child. Neighbors, friends or relatives concerned about a child's safety, parents who are afraid they may hurt or neglect their child, and children who believe they are being abused should telephone the Hotline to discuss their concerns. Referrals to resources and additional help is given to any who have that need.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Outbound Links

Lynn Stuart's Betrayal of Her Family for Wealthy Financial Planner

Matthew Horsley, Lynn Stuart, Croix Stuart




Matthew Horsley, Serial Home-Wrecker/Cheater






Lynn Stuart's Pathological Behavior Explained to Dr. Stephen Doyne
Matthew Horsley, Lynn Stuart, Croix Stuart


Lynn Stuart's Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Substance Abuse 
Revealed in Divorce Proceedings

Matthew Horsley, Lynn Stuart, Croix Stuart



Photo of Cut to Croix Stuart's Face Caused at Lynn Stuart's Home
Photo of Cut to Croix Stuart's Eye While at Mother's Home



Matthew Horsley on Homewrecker Site with Lynn Stuart

Matthew Horsley, Lynn Stuart, Croix Stuart

Matthew Horsley and Lynn Stuart on Shesahomewrecker.com


Matthew Horsley, Lynn Stuart, Croix Stuart


Matthew Horsley--Serial Cheater/Homewrecker


Friday, April 25, 2014

April 15, 2010 Arrest of Stuart at California Coalition for Families and Children's Protest of Family Court Judges, Attorneys, and Psychologists

The January 9, 2014 Amended Complaint of California Coalition details the arrest of California Coalition for Families and Children's President, Colbern Stuart.  Narrative from the complaint and photos detailing the protest, protest boards, and arrest follows.

1.            CALIFORNIA COALITION is organized and dedicated to improving social, governmental, and justice system process concerning domestic relations, child rearing, parenting, constitutional law, child custody, and domestic violence. Many of CALIFORNIA COALITION’S members are mothers, fathers, and children who have withstood abundant hardship resulting from the current practices of what is generally described as the “Family Law Community.”  These injuries and insults include fraudulent, inefficient, harmful, and even dangerous services; an institutionalized culture of deliberate indifference to—indeed contempt for—“clearly-established” liberties; insults to the autonomy and dignity of parents and children; and extortion, robbery, and abuse founded upon such illegal color of law crime, delivered at the hands of eager institutional operators within the Family Law Community.

2.            CALIFORNIA COALITION has expressed its perception that the present-day suffering of so many parents and children has and is being wrought within a larger system characterized by a widespread institutional failure of the rule of law.  CALIFORNIA COALITION has endeavored to deliver the message that the present family law community increasingly ignores the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws of the United States in depriving U.S. Citizens within California of rights, privileges, and immunities under United States law. 

3.            California legal institutions such as family courts and the legal community, professional institutions such as the state bar and psychology boards, and criminal justice institutions have in the recent decade gradually combined to cultivate a joint enterprise forum in which widespread “family practice” exceptions to the rule of law are not only tolerated, but increasingly encouraged.  Professional behavior that would only a few years ago be recognized as unethical, illegal, or otherwise intolerable by American legal, psychological, law enforcement, or social work professionals has increasingly achieved acceptance—indeed applause—from institutional interests which benefit from a joint enterprise  enforcing the wisdom of “who you know is more important than what you know.” 

4.            In this lawless behavior’s most crass infestation, California Superior Court Family Division judges are regularly heard to announce, in open court, “I am the law” and proceed to act accordingly with impunity, indifference, and without shame.

5.            The effect on parents and children seeking social support within this coalescing “family law” forum has not been as advertised by courts and professionals—a new healing—but instead a new affliction: an “imposed disability” of de rigueur deprivation of fundamental rights in the name of “therapeutic jurisprudence” coercively subsidized by converting college funds into a bloated ministry of the bar, leaving families and their children with mere crumbs of their own success.

6.            Plaintiffs have organized to confront the State of California’s dispossession of law and reason by engaging those within the Domestic Dispute Industry who administer the decay—family court judges: An astonishingly vast judicial administrative bureaucracy directing and collaborating with Domestic Dispute Industry attorneys, psychologists, and other professionals whose deliberate indifference to the creeping deprivations of parental rights is leaving the family cupboard nearly bare.

7.            Plaintiffs’ efforts on behalf of parents and children have included increasing public and governmental awareness of family rights, representing and supporting parents and children in exercising and enforcing such rights, lobbying state and federal policymakers to improve protections for federal rights under state law, and undertaking litigation, complaints, or other formal and informal engagements with state and federal authorities to assert, exercise, communicate regarding, educate, inform, establish and defend such rights with the goal of enabling parental autonomy and empowerment through reforming state of California domestic dispute laws, practices, and institutions.  (“ENGAGEMENT”). CALIFORNIA COALITION Federal Engagement: CALIFORNIA COALITION organizers and affiliates have become involved as witnesses and potential parties in reporting violations of the Civil Rights Criminal and Civil Statutes to several FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  

In August, 2011, Dr. Tadros spoke with Ms. Laura O’Farrell of the Federal Bureau of Investigations to report possible deprivations of the Family Federal Rights described more fully in the attached exhibits.  In 2007 Ms. Eileen Lasher began interacting with Assistant United States Attorneys Mssrs. Jason Forge and Michael Wheat of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California regarding allegations of racketeering operation of the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, specifically including RODDY, ALKSNE, and other Family Division judges, for intentionally abusing process and extorting funds from families in state family court proceedings in violation of the Civil Rights Criminal and Civil Statutes.  Ms. Lasher has provided detailed information to these LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS regarding bribery, extortion, fraud, abuse of process, and deprivation of
  civil rights pursuant to the Civil Rights Criminal and Civil Statutes and California State bribery and extortion statutes.  In 2004 Ms. Lasher provided similar details to Officer John McCahal of the NYPD Federal Task Force in three separate meetings.  Officer McCahal referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whereupon Ms. Lasher personally and through her attorney provided details to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York regarding similar crimes.  Dr. Tadros has also met with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Ms. Laura O’Farrell regarding similar issues. civil rights pursuant to the Civil Rights Criminal and Civil Statutes and California State bribery and extortion statutes.  In 2004 Ms. Lasher provided similar details to Officer John McCahal of the NYPD Federal Task Force in three separate meetings.  Officer McCahal referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whereupon Ms. Lasher personally and through her attorney provided details to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York regarding similar crimes.  Dr. Tadros has also met with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Ms. Laura O’Farrell regarding similar issues.

Ms. Lasher has met with Deputy District Attorney for the County of San Diego, Mr. Damon Mosler and Mr. Brian Ahearn of the San Diego Police Department Internal Affairs Office to provide similar information regarding the violation of the Civil Rights Criminal and Civil Statutes criminal activity described above.  Plaintiffs have assisted, represented, advised, and advocated on behalf of CALIFORNIA COALITION affiliates in these and many similar FFRRESA Engagements.  



The SDCBA ENGAGEMENT


1.            As part of Plaintiffs’ PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY, Plaintiffs have sought opportunities to ENGAGE Family Law Community professionals and clients to raise awareness of the ongoing unsafe, inefficient, and illegal activity and harm to clients being caused by the Family Law Community, and to influence Defendants toward adoption of safer, more efficient, and legal “white hat” alternatives to Family Law Community practices such as those advanced by PLAINTIFFS.  In furtherance of those goals Plaintiffs have initiated and/or coordinated numerous ENGAGEMENTS with Family Law Community members, including Defendants. 

2.            One such ENGAGEMENT occurring on April 15, 2010 at the San Diego County Bar Association building at 1333 7th Avenue, San Diego, California is a central subject of this litigation.  In February, 2010, CALIFORNIA COALITION members learned of a Seminar to be hosted by SDCBA for various San Diego Family Law Community professionals. The Seminar was advertised to thousands of Family Law Community professionals and was to feature a panel of speakers including Family Court Division judicial officials ALKSNE, C. GOLDSMITH, WOHLFEIL, LOWE, McADAM, McKENZIE, Family Law Community legal industry professionals C. BALDWIN, L. BALDWIN, CHUCAS, HARGRAEVES, LEVIN, and STOCKS, Family Law Community behavioral sciences professionals CORRIGAN, DOYNE, GRIFFIN, LOVE, and, as well as numerous other domestic dispute industry professionals (“SDCBA SEMINAR”). 


3.            The advertising brochure announcing the Seminar and soliciting attendees identified the Seminar theme as “Litigants Behaving Badly—Do Professional Services Really Work?” is attached hereto as Ex. 26.4.            Though startled by the Family Law Community’s attack on its own client base, CALIFORNIA COALITION thought they had some answers to the Family Law Community’s question, and viewed the Seminar as an opportunity to engage key members of the Family Law Community and their clients to offer answers.  CALIFORNIA COALITION saw the SDCBA SEMINAR as an excellent opportunity to raise awareness of CALIFORNIA COALITION’S FFRRESA, the Federal Family Civil Rights, ongoing violations of the Family Federal Civil Rights and rights of action under the Civil Rights Criminal and Civil Statutes, promote CALIFORNIA COALITION alternatives to what it regarded as illegal, harmful business practices of the Family Law Community, and continue CALIFORNIA COALITION’S PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES.


5.            Plaintiffs determined to use the SDCBA SEMINAR to engage the Family Law Community to advance CALIFORNIA COALITION’S PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES.  Plaintiffs and their affiliates sought to communicate one of CALIFORNIA COALITION’S central messages that the Family Law Community, including judges, blame “Litigants Behaving Badly” (their own clients) for harms enabled—indeed largely manufactured—by the Family Law Community’s own longstanding commercial practices of abusing process, their loved ones, and even themselves—in perfect compliance with certain Family Law Community professionals’ instructions. 

6.            CALIFORNIA COALITION saw the “Litigants Behaving Badly” theme as part of the self-delusional propaganda engaged in by Family Law Community members who, rather than recognizing the harm they themselves enable instead blame their own clients for following instructions.


7.            To communicate an answer to the DDI’s question “Do Professional Services Really Work?”, CALIFORNIA COALITION adopted a Counter-theme:  “JUDGES BEHAVING BADLY—IF YOU DON’T FOLLOWTHE LAW, WHY WOULD WE?”  CALIFORNIA COALITION created promotional pamphlets and exhibits to distribute, and large poster-sized signage to display, and organized volunteers to participate in the SDCBA ENGAGEMENT.  True and correct copies of the signage are attached as Ex. 28.

8.            CALIFORNIA COALITION scheduled the ENGAGEMENT to coincide with the SDCBA SEMINAR in front of the SDCBA Bar Building to enable maximum impact for the JUDGES BEHAVING BADLY MESSAGE, and continue developing knowledge, networks, contacts, and intelligence to advance CALIFORNIA COALITION’S FFRRESA and BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT with key Family Law Community members.




The STUART ASSAULT 

11.       CALIFORNIA COALITION members arrived early to the Engagement with signs and brochures.  
(Exs. 28, 29)  As attendees arrived, including family court judges, attorneys, industry professionals, and clients, they could easily see CALIFORNIA COALITION members peacefully carrying signs, walking on the sidewalks in front of the SDCBA building and through the crosswalks intersecting 7th and B. Streets.


12.       The ENGAGEMENT was peaceful.  Pamphlets were distributed as attendees entered the building, establishing professional relationships valuable to CALIFORNIA COALITION and LEXEVIA’s commercial interests.  Numerous contacts were added to CALIFORNIA COALITION’S network, ideas and business contact information exchanged.  No conflict, disruption, obstruction, or breach of the peace occurred.





13.       STUART did not participate in the ENGAGEMENT, but did attend SDCBA SEMINAR.  His intent on attending the SEMINAR was to focus on gaining knowledge in order to advance Plaintiff’s PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY.  STUART was then a member of SDCBA and regular attendee at SDCBA events.  A week prior to the SEMINAR he purchased admission through SDCBA’S online store as an SDCBA member in the way he has numerous times before (STUART-SDCBA CONTRACT).14.       STUART entered the Seminar as a normal attendee, signed his name where it was pre-printed on a form at the “pre-registration” table at the front door and received a pre-printed name badge.

15.       STUART entered the SDCBA’s “Daniel Broderick Room” where nearly one hundred prominent San Diego divorce lawyers, judges, psychologists, and service providers were gathered, chose a seat and awaited quietly for the Seminar to begin.  He maintained a normal professional demeanor—he was not seeking and did not exercise FFRRESA at the Seminar, but only to gather information about how the judges, attorneys, and professional service providers conducted their affairs, marketed services, formed and maintained relationships, and made money in support of the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY.  He was dressed professionally, spoke to no one, and attended the Seminar like any other attendee.

16.       Also in attendance at the Seminar were approximately fifteen uniformed armed Sheriff’s Deputies spread in a uniformly-spaced perimeter along the walls of the room (SDSD DOES 1-15).  Shortly after STUART selected his seat, the Sheriff’s Deputies changed their perimeter to positions nearer to STUART along the walls, effectively surrounding STUART.  Each deputy was watching STUART closely.

17.       The Seminar began with introductory remarks by Family Law Division supervising judge ALKSNE.   However, after only about two minutes of speaking, ALKSNE announced an abrupt break, apologizing that she needed a break “so we can straighten something out.”  One or more of the SDCBA Defendants had signaled or otherwise drew the attention of Defendant ALKSNE to alert her of STUART’s presence and that the plan to eject STUART (described below) was underway.


18.       ALKSNE left the podium, walked to the back of the conference room, and began speaking in a huddle of several other defendants, including several Sheriff’s Deputies, two ODO employee security guards, and two or three other persons who appeared to be SDCBA agents or Seminar attendees.


19.       The group conferred for several minutes, looking in STUARTS’ direction and referencing his presence with nods, glances, and gestures.  It was apparent that the group was discussing STUART.  STUART remained seated quietly during the unscheduled break.


20.       After consulting with ALKSNE and others, two employees of defendant ODO (ODO DOES 1 and 2) and two Sheriff’s Deputies (SDSD DOES 1 and 2) approached STUART where he was seated.  One of the men, ODO DOE 1, asked STUART if he was “Colbern Stuart.”  STUART acknowledged his identity.  The man then asked STUART to accompany him to leave the Seminar. 


21.       STUART declined and inquired why he was being asked to leave. The man reiterated that the SDCBA wanted him to leave.  STUART again refused, stating that he had purchased a ticket and was intent on attending the entire Seminar.  STUART asked if he was breaking any laws or interfering with the Seminar in any way. The man replied “no.”  STUART politely again expressed his desire and intent to remain attending the entire Seminar.


22.       The man then informed STUART that if he did not leave voluntarily that they would forcibly eject him.  STUART objected, again stating that he intended to remain.  The four men then returned to where the others were “huddled” several feet away.  The group again conferred with similar references and gestures toward STUART.


23.       Within moments, ODO DOES 1 and 2 and SDSD DOES 1 and 2 again approached STUART, who continued to sit quietly awaiting the resumption of the Seminar.  ODO DOE 1 again asked STUART to leave. STUART again refused.  ODO 1 and 2 then forced STUART to stand, grabbed his arms, forced his hands behind his back, and handcuffed him.  They searched his person, emptied his pockets, and seized his property, consisting of a notebook, reading glasses, a mobile phone, pen, spare change, CALIFORNIA COALITION and LEXEVIA business cards, and a wallet. 

24.       ODO DOES 1 and 2 forcibly led STUART out of the SEMINAR in front of dozens of STUART’s professional colleagues including one of his law partners, fellow bar members, lawyers, judges, professional service providers, clients, employees, and law enforcement officers.


25.       ODO DOES 1 and 2 released STUART outside of the SDCBA building and informed him he was not free to return. 


26.       The Seminar re-convened immediately after STUART’S removal.  According to Plaintiffs’ witnesses present at the SEMINAR, several SDCBA panel speakers joked during the Seminar “I guess he got what he asked for” and “let’s see if that gets them any publicity.”  They made puns about STUART and CALIFORNIA COALITION as “THE Litigants Behaving Badly”, calling STUART and CALIFORNIA COALITION a “bunch of borderlines” “crazy parents” and stating “that’s why we have to do what we do.”


27.       At all times relevant hereto, STUART behaved REASONABLY (to be defined as “lawfully, with due care, dutifully, with probable cause”), was unarmed, calm, and did not pose a disturbance of the peace, or threat of death or injury to Defendants or other attendees.


28.       STUART was unarmed, non-threatening, rightfully present, and in compliance with all laws at all times. 


29.       Prior to the STUART ASSAULT, no Defendant possessed a search or arrest warrant for STUART.


30.       Defendants had no probable cause to believe STUART was armed, dangerous, carrying contraband, or in possession or evidence of a crime, and upon the illegal search found that he was not. 


31.       Prior to the STUART ASSAULT, STUART had violated no laws in any Defendant’s presence, and no Defendant had any knowledge of STUART’S having violated any law in or out of their presence.


32.       Defendants collaborated before and during the SEMINAR to coordinate the STUART ASSAULT with the ENGAGEMENT in order to retaliate for the DDIJO COMPLAINTS, the DOYNE COMPLAINTS, maximize the intimidating and terrorizing effect of the assault of CALIFORNIA COALITION’S leader on CALIFORNIA COALITION members, the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, and FFRRESA.  




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

1.            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.
Common Allegations
INC., BLANCHET, ABC&K, WOHLFEIL, and SCHALL (DOYNE TERRORISM Defendants).

2.            On or about April 10, 2008, Defendant WOHFEIL recommended and offered to oversee Defendant DOYNE to “mediate” custody issues in the Stuart Dissolution.
3.            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.
4.            Collectively, WOLFEIL and BLANCHET’S recommendations and referral communicated to STUART that DOYNE and DOYNE INC. DOYNE INC. was a trustworthy, competent mediator.
5.            Based upon WOHLFEIL’S recommendation and agreement to oversee, and BLANCHET’S representations and warranties, STUART contacted DOYNE INC.
6.            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).
7.            During these negotiations and agreements, DOYNE and DOYNE, INC. made representations, promises, and warranties to STUART as follows:

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.

8.            These representations were false when made.

9.            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.

10.       Specifically:

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;

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;

K. Further breaches of each representation elsewhere identified.





DOYNE, DOYNE, INC. Terrorism
1.            In response to these breaches, in February or March 1, 2009, STUART terminated DOYNE’S services.

2.            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.

3.            A true and correct copy letters to and concerning DOYNE relating to these allegations are referenced as Exhibits 22-23.

4.            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.
Dr. Stephen DOYNE’S Attempted Bribery and Extortion
5.            In May, 2009, DOYNE telephoned STUART at home requesting that STUART pay DOYNE for services he falsely claimed to have provided. 

6.            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.


7.            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.”

8.            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.”


9.            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.  

10.        STUART refused to pay DOYNE further, but was horrified, traumatized, and severely distressed as a result of DOYNE’S behavior.


11.       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.


12.       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.

13.       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.



More At WeightierMatter.com.