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.
