1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Colbern C. Stuart III E-Mail: Cole.Stuart@Lexevia.com 4891 Pacific Highway Ste. 102 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: 858-504-0171 Facsimile: 619-231-9143 In Pro Se Dean Browning Webb (pro hac vice) Email: RICOman1968@aol.com Law Offices of Dean Browning Webb 515 E 39th St. Vancouver, WA 98663-2240 Telephone: 503-629-2176 Eric W. Ching, Esq. SBN 292357 5252 Balboa Arms Dr. Unit 132 San Diego, CA 92117 Phone: 510-449-1091 Facsimile: 619-231-9143 Attorneys for Plaintiff California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 3:13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

DECLARATION OF COLBERN C. STUART IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Date: March 27, 2014 Time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom: 4C ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL Complaint Filed: August 20, 2013

I, Colbern Stuart, declare and state:

I am a Plaintiff in this action and President and founder of Plaintiff California

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Coalition for Families and Children, PBC. I have personal knowledge of the facts

stated herein and if called to testify would competently testify as follows:

1. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” are true and correct copies of cited portions of the

California Family Code, including the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of an article entitled

“Judge outlines reasons for domestic violence increase” by Ms. Elizabeth Marie

Himchak appearing in the Pomerado News, on about March 2, 2012.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” are true and correct copies of forms and

instructions designed, written, printed, maintained, distributed, and made

“mandatory” by Defendant JUDICIAL COUNCIL (“DV”-designated numbers),

and certain others prepared by Defendant COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (“SDSC”-

designated numbers). These include:

a. DV-100 (“Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order”);

b. DV-100-INFO (“Can A Domestic Violence Restraining Order Help Me?”);

c. SDSC Form #D-078 (“Instructions for Domestic Violence Restraining

Orders”);

d. DV-101 (“Description of Abuse”);

e. MC-020 (“Additional Page to Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other

Court Paper”);

f. DV-109 (“Notice of Court Hearing”);

g. DV-110 (“Temporary Restraining Order (CLETS-TRO)”);

h. SDSC Form #D-072 (“Order For Removal from Residence”);

i. CLETS-001 (“California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System

(CLETS) Information Form”);

j. DV-120-INFO (“How Can I Respond to a Request for Domestic Violence

Restraining Order?”);

k. DV-120 (“Response to Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order”);

l. DV-800 (“Proof of Firearms Turned In or Sold”);

m. DV-500-INFO (“Can A Domestic Violence Restraining Order Help Me?”;

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

n. DV-505-INFO (“How Do I Ask For A Temporary Restraining Order?”;

o. DV 520 (“Get Ready for Court Hearing”);

p. CR 6001-6001 (Santa Clara County INFO forms);

q. FM-1013 (“Declaration In Support of Ex Parte Application for Orders”).

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” are true and correct copies of pages from internet

websites operated and containing information by and about San Diego County

public agencies including the Superior Courts, Family Law Facilitators Offices,

county “self-help” centers for litigants, Internet websites, and cooperating

agencies such as the Legal Aid Society, Volunteer Lawyer’s Program, “restraining

order clinics” and classes, and county law libraries.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” are true and correct copies of pages from private or

quasi-private agencies such as Defendant ALLIANCE, the San Diego Family

Justice Center and entities such as domestic violence shelters, the YWCA, and

Center for Community Solutions.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit “F” are true and correct copies of pages from

cooperating public law enforcement entities such as the City of San Diego Police

Department and San Diego County Sheriff’s Department.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit “G” are true and correct copies of pages from the San

Diego City Attorney’s Office “Domestic Violence Unit” and the County of San

Diego District Attorney’s Office “Family Protection Division” and “victim

advocate” services therein. See also Defendant ALLIANCE “Resources” library

page relating to domestic violence at

http://www.familyjusticecenter.org/jdownloads.html; Battered Women’s Justice

Project “Resources” page relating to domestic violence at

http://www.bwjp.org/articles/article-list.aspx?id=11; Praxis International’s

“Library” page at http://praxisinternational.org/praxis_lib_advocacy.aspx.

Thousands more exist.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit “H” are true and correct copies of pages from

Defendants SDCBA, BIERER, and the law offices of Thomas Huguenor

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

describing their services relating to obtaining domestic violence restraining orders,

including online instructions, classes, referrals, and advice.

9. Online videos detailing these forms and restraining orders are available at the

following locations: A “official” PowerPoint Audio/Video created by a state entity

is available at http://wp.me/p4aG7J-I8. A video explaining the process by the San

Diego Legal Aid Society at http://youtu.be/2Mx4Ol3Jdyw. A San Diego private

law firms’ explanation is available at http://www.sandiegolawfirm.com/family-

law/domestic-violence-restraining-orders/, and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtYrNHRdJ44, and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpkB6mX-_Nk.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit “I” are true and correct copies of relevant portions of

the California Penal Code.

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit “J” are true and correct copies of publications of

JUDICIAL COUNCIL, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, ALLIANCE, and the National

Domestic Violence Hotline defining “abuse” and “domestic violence” from

Domestic Dispute Industry organizations.

12. The term “batter” is associated with meanings in the Domestic Dispute Industry

that are distinct from the definition of the term “battery” in California Penal Code

section 243(e)(1). Attached hereto as Exhibit “K” are true and correct copies of

definitions and explanations of concepts related to the term “batter.” Pages

P3432-3433 provide definitions and descriptions of the crime “domestic battery”

under Cal. Pen.C § 243(e)(1).

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit “L” is a true an-d correct copy of an article by Herma

Hill Kay entitled An Appraisal of California's No-Fault Divorce, 75 Cal. L. Rev.

291 (1987) discussing California’s pre-1970 “fault” divorce law and the post-“no

fault” law and analyzing the change.

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit “M” is a true and correct copy of a 1991 article by

Lynn D. Wardle entitled No-Fault Divorce and the Divorce Conundrum, 1991

BYU L. Rev.79 (1991) available at

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1725&context=la

wreview.

15. I have personal knowledge of the policies, customs, and practices of several

Defendants herein through years working with or against them in various

capacities in my own matters, and in assisting hundreds of moms, dads, and

children in similar matters nationwide as a founder and current President of

California Coalition for Families and Children. My experience is supplemented

by thirteen years practicing law and in litigating dozens of matters in state and

federal courts nationwide.

16. I hereby incorporate by reference Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Complaint, Doc.

No. 90, paragraphs 946-977 describing “The Pit”—a tool empowered in part by

the Domestic Violence Restraining Orders this Motion seeks to enjoin. The Pit is

one pillar for the extortion, fraud, and abuse of process exploited by the Domestic

Dispute Industry Criminal Enterprise (DDICE) to perpetrate the crimes described

in the First Amended Complaint.

17. To illustrate how domestic violence restraining orders are exploited by the

DDICE as part of “The Pit” to defraud and extort Domestic Dispute Industry

Litigants, I attach hereto as Exhibit “N” a true and correct copy of a 1999 article

written by Leonard Karp and published in The Journal of the American Academy

of Matrimonial Lawyers (“AAML”).

18. The AAML is an “invitation only” Domestic Dispute Industry organization

consisting primarily of elite Domestic Dispute Industry lawyers. See, AAML

profile of Defendant Sharon Blanchet describing Ms. Blanchet as “a Certified

Family Law Specialist with 24 years of experience. She is a Fellow in the

invitation-only American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (President of the So

Calif Chapter 2011) and the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.”

http://www.aaml.org/divorce-lawyer-san-diego-california-sharon-blanchet.

19. In Mr. Karp’s AAML Journal article, he counsels:

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Almost every divorce case carries with it some form of domestic tort, and thus,

the filing of such a claim must be considered in all divorce cases. When a

marriage turns sour, spouses frequently engage in offensive and sometimes

violent behavior towards each other, and many times towards their children.

Thus, the filing of the tort usually, as in any other tort case, is weighted by

considerations of your client's damages and the chances of recovery. Only

when there is a serious physical or psychological injury, and a source of

recovery, should a practitioner consider pursuing a separate tort action. The

source of recovery, however, need not be limited to the perpetrator's estate

alone. Damages may be sought from third parties who may share in the

responsibility for the injured spouse's damages, or from insurance coverage.

In other cases, when the damages are not as significant, or when a "deep

pocket" defendant cannot be found, the threat of a domestic tort, along with a

well prepared strategy to proceed, can be a bargaining chip for a larger share of

the marital estate, or higher spousal maintenance payments at the negotiation

table.

In drafting the cause of action, a practitioner is limited only by his or her

imagination. As a starting point, common legal theories that have been used as

a basis for pleading a domestic tort case include: negligence, negligent

infliction of emotional distress, negligence per se, defamation, deceit and

fraudulent misrepresentation, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of

emotional distress, wrongful death, assault and battery, and implied cause of

action for the violation of a criminal statute, including sexual assault. Thus, the

causes of action available, coupled with the lesser burden of proof in a civil

case for a victim, plus the absence of the constitutionally protected rights of the

perpetrator and evidentiary rules protective of criminal defendants, make the

filing of a domestic tort a realistic option for a victim to redress abuse.

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Leonard Karp, “Federal Law and Domestic Violence: The Legacy of the Violence

Against Women Act” 16 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

174 (1999) available at

http://aaml.org/sites/default/files/federal%20law%20and%20domestic%20violence-

16-1.pdf. (Ex. “N” hereto).

20. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers thus conveys the logic of

seeking a “deep pocket” that is “in addition to the perpetrator’s estate” by

asserting any number of allegations limited not by veracity, but “only” by a

practitioner’s “imagination.” Mr. Karp also counsels Domestic Dispute Industry

practitioners that there exists an “absence of the constitutionally protected rights

of the perpetrator and evidentiary rules protective of criminal defendants” in

Family Court.

21. Mr. Karp counsels that this “absence” of constitutional and procedural protections

makes assertion of an “implied cause of action for the violation of a criminal

statute” or “negligence per se” or “negligent infliction of emotional distress” a

“realistic option” to increase the pool of recoverable “damages” in a dissolution

proceeding. He counsels that by such action a dissolution petitioner may expand

the pool of recovery to include not only the community property over which the

dissolution court has jurisdiction, but also a spouse’s separate property assets.

22. Mr. Karp’s article “counsels, commands, induces or procures” (18 U.S.C. § 2)

AAML members to assert an “implied cause of action for the violation of a

criminal statute” against not only the other party to the dissolution proceedings,

but also to pursue other “deep pockets” such as the dissolving couple’s

homeowner’s insurer, separate liability insurance, employers, and assets of the

spouse’s relatives to leverage a “bargaining chip for a larger share of the marital

estate, or higher spousal maintenance payments at the negotiation table.”

23. Mr. Karp’s counsel to use the threat of an “implied cause of action for the

violation of a criminal statute” is quite ingenious. It’s also quite illegal.

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24. 18 U.S.C. § 1951 provides:

(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the

movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion

or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to

any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in

violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more

than twenty years, or both.

(b) As used in this section—

(1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal

property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by

means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or

future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or

the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his

company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

(2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with

his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or

fear, or under color of official right.

Cal. Pen.C. § 518 provides:

Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the

obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of

force or fear, or under color of official right.

Cal. Pen.C. § 519 provides:

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either:

1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the

individual threatened or of a third person; or,

2. To accuse the individual threatened, or a relative of his or

her, or member of his or her family, of a crime; or,

3. To expose, or to impute to him, her, or them a deformity,

disgrace, or crime; or,

4. To expose a secret affecting him, her, or them ….

25. This obscene exploitation of “The Pit” “counseled, commanded, induced and

procured” by the AAML is multiplied by the manufactured perception—ongoing

in this lawsuit—that there exists a “domestic relations exception” to the laws of

the United States and the State of California.

26. For example, counsel for Defendant Dr. Stephen Doyne, Mr. Christopher Zopatti,

has deployed such a perpetration before this Court at Doc. No. 67-1, pp. 16-17.

Mr. Zopatti argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

federal law claims because the parties or events have a relationship to prior

domestic dispute litigation in state court.

27. This proposition is clearly false. This matter is brought under the constitution and

laws of the United States, and no Plaintiff asserts state domestic law. To the

extent that any Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of state policies, practices,

regulations, or laws under Title 42 of the United States Code, such matters are

expressly within the public health and welfare jurisdiction of United States courts

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

28. In Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 693 (1992) the United States Supreme

Court defined the “Domestic Relations Exception” to exist only within federal

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It’s inapplicability to federal

question jurisdiction has been recently confirmed in a case originating out of our

neighboring Central District of California, Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293,

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

305 (2006). Further contemporary analysis is available. Attached hereto as

Exhibit “O” is a true and correct copy an article by Emily J. Sack entitled The

Domestic Relations Exception, Domestic Violence, and Equal Access to Federal

Courts, 84 Wash. U.L. Rev. 1441 (2006).

29. Dr. Doyne’s attempt to deceive this Court is foolishly ambitious, yet not entirely

surprising given the success with which he has been able to deceive or collude

with state courts to perpetrate the deception on family court litigants. Unlike the

Court and at least some present counsel, the citizens who entrust their family’s

welfare to Dr. Doyne and thousands of his ilk are rarely so sophisticated. Indeed,

when aware litigants assert federal rights in state family court procedure, the

Domestic Dispute Industry has been less than welcoming. See, e.g., STUART

ASSAULT, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,

CIVIL RIGHTS, RACKETEERING Counts in Plaintiffs’ First Amended

Complaint.

30. Yet thousands of county superior court judges throughout the state of California

oversee perpetration of the fraud daily in their courtrooms, and even extend the

courtesies of the State of California’s police powers to enforce illegal domestic

violence restraining orders such as those challenged in Plaintiffs’ Motion. See

Exhibit “T”

31. Attached hereto as Exhibit “P” is a true and correct copy of the Report of United

States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Intimate Partner

Violence in the U.S.”

32. Attached hereto as Exhibit “Q” is a true and correct copy of the transcript of oral

argument before the United States Supreme Court in the proceedings for the

matter entitled United States v. Hayes, Doc. No. 07-608, available at

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_608.

33. Attached hereto as Exhibit “R” is a true and correct copy of the transcript of oral

argument before the United States Supreme Court in the proceedings for the

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

matter entitled United States v. Castleman, Doc. No. 12-1371, available at

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1371.

34. Notwithstanding the abundant attention devoted to the issue of domestic violence,

there exists remarkable disagreement among many researchers as to the nature,

cause, and solutions to the problem. Attached hereto as Exhibit “S” is a

publication entitled “The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project.” This article

states “Over the years, research on partner abuse has become unnecessarily

fragmented and politicized.”

35. It is my professional opinion as a lawyer of fifteen years, father, and family court

reform advocate that much of this confusion and fragmentation has been caused

by ill-advised drafting, interpretation, and enforcement of domestic violence laws,

leading to confusion, and enabling parties such as the present defendants to

manipulate vague laws and standards such as “abuse” “harass” “domestic

violence” and the like for inappropriate ends. Such laws enable not merely

confusion, but coercion, fraud, and extortion of domestic dispute industry litigants

en masse, leading to the racketeering, civil rights abuse, obstruction of justice and

deplorable malicious profiteering from such chaos.

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36. I have personally been subjected to deprivation under three Temporary

Restraining Orders issued by Defendant C. GOLDSMITH on JUDICIAL

COUNCIL Form DV-110 and by the processes identified above. I am presently

restrained by a Domestic Violence Restraining Order based on Form DV-130,

issued in about May, 2010 by un-named judicial official Edward Allard, which is

effective until about May or June, 2015.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: February 26, 2014 By: /s/ Colbern C. Stuart, III, President,

California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC in Pro Se

Colbern C. Stuart, III

-1- STUART DEC. ISO MTN FOR PRELIM INJ

3:13-cv-1944 CAB BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have

consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the

court's CM-ECF system per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b )(2)(E). Any other

counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail this

26th day of February, 2014. By: /s/ Colbern C. Stuart, III, President,

California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC in Pro Se

Colbern C. Stuart, III