162 objections to request for judicial notice

5/25/2018 162 Objections to Request for Judicial Notice

1/8

1PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS

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

Colbern C. Stuart IIIE-Mail: [email protected] Pacific Highway Ste. 102San Diego, CA 92110Telephone: 858-504-0171Facsimile: 619-231-9143In Pro Se

Dean Browning Webb (pro hac vice)Email: [email protected] Offices of Dean Browning Webb515 E 39th St.Vancouver, WA 98663-2240Telephone: 503-629-2176

Eric W. Ching, Esq. SBN 2923575252 Balboa Arms Dr. Unit 132San Diego, CA 92117Phone: 510-449-1091Facsimile: 619-231-9143

Attorneys for Plaintiff California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COALITION FORFAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY BARASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants

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

PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TODEFENDANTS REQUESTS FORJUDICIAL NOTICE FILED WITHOMNIBUS, JOINDERS

Date: June 6, 1014Time: 2:00 p.m.Courtroom: 4C

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL

Complaint Filed: August 20, 2013

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 162 Filed 05/20/14 Page 1 of 8


2/8


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

Plaintiffs hereby object and move to strike the following documents submitted

by Defendants in support of the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Complaint and certain

Defendants joinders thereto.

I. AUTHORITYFacts subject to judicial notice are those which are either (1) generally known

within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). A court may not take judicial notice of a matter that is in dispute.

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir.2001). The party requesting

judicial notice has the burden of persuading the court that the particular fact is not

reasonably subject to dispute and is capable of immediate and accurate determination

by resort to a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. In re Tyrone

F. Conner Corp., Inc., 140 B.R. 771, 781 (E.D.Cal.1992); Rodriguez v. Unknown-

Named disciplinary Hearings Agent, 209CV02195FCDKJNPS, 2010 WL 1407772

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2010).

II. OBJECTIONSA.Lucas Declaration/Request for Judicial Notice

(Doc. No. 131-2, 131-3)

Exhibit 1: Document entitled Declaration In Support of Arrest Warrant

signed by Defendant GARSON on April 5, 2010. (GARSON Declaration). The

document is also filed at Exhibit B to BIERERS Request for Judicial Notice. Both

submissions are objectionable for the following reasons.

a. Objection: Relevance.The GARSON declaration is irrelevant to any issue in the Omnibus or any

joinder. It is referenced gratuitously in the Omnibus (Doc. No. 131-1, 12:26-13:3)

and the BIERER Joinder (Doc. No. 135-1, 3:26-27) as follows:

In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider material not

attached to the complaint if their authenticity is not contested, the plaintiffs'



3/8


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

complaint necessarily relies on them, and may consider matters of public

record.Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-689 (9th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, filed here in the Request For Judicial Notice are records showing

there was an arrest warrant issued for Stuart before the SDCBA seminar.

Neither BIERER nor the OMNIBUS tie the exhibit to any relevant issue.

Omnibus asserts merely that the Court may consider the exhibits without

explaining why the Court should do so. BIERER purports to assert its relevance to

establish a non-issue: Plaintiff Stuart is disgruntled over his prior arrests, convictions

in state court and ensuing prison sentences. BIERER Doc. No. 151, 2:8-9. As

explained in the Plaintiffs Opposition to the Omnibus and Joinders (Doc. 161), A

plaintiffs motives in bringing a lawsuit are irrelevant to a Twomblyplausibility

analysis. Instead BIERER must identify an alternative explanation for her own

behavior other than, for example, knowingly furthering the STUART ASSAULT by

alerting SDCBA DOE 1 and SDSD of STUARTS location at the SEMINAR Doc.

No. 161, 98:4-6.

The Exhibit is gratuitous, scurrilous, impertinent material, and therefore also

objectionable under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 as its (non-existent) probative

value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair

prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or

needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 403.

b. Objection: Lacks FoundationControverted Facts:A request for judicial notice may be submitted only on noncontroversial facts.

Federal Rules of Evidence 401. The Garson Declaration appears to be based on

falsified documents cited therein, and contains numerous false statements under oath.

Specifically, that GARSON a San Diego City Police Department official reports

contained 26 obscene and threatening emails between Plaintiff Stuart and his ex-

wife.



4/8


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

c. Objection: HearsayThe documents are inadmissible under any circumstances as they are multiple

hearsayout of court statements presently offered for the truth of the matters

therein asserted; The declaration is hearsay to this action, referencing a file, itself

hearsay to the criminal action and this action, containing hearsay statements or other

foundationless matter by a San Diego City Police Department officer, relating to

emails, further hearsay, containing obscene and threatening language, also

potentially hearsay.

Exhibit 2: Ex Parte Minutes form (CRM-177) relating to a misdemeanor

criminal case.

a. Objection: Relevance.As with Exhibit 1, it has no relationship to any issue before this Court.

Defendants appear to proffer it as relating to Exhibit 1 but the face of the document

does not support such a conclusion.

In addition, the form references issuance of a misdemeanor warrant and bears a

stamp Roger Krauel, is dated April 14, 2010, but bears no facial reference to the

Garson Declaration, does not identify for whom the warrant was issued, the scope of

the warrant, and does not identify any agency receiving a warrant. Plaintiffs do not

acknowledge the document, and without more foundation which Defendants do not

and cannot offer at this stage, it is irrelevant.

b. Objection: Foundation.The document bears a stamp rather than a signature. Plaintiff contests the

authenticity of the stamp as authenticating or a legitimate means of issuing an order

under any circumstances. See Motion to Conduct Early Discovery.



5/8


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

Exhibit 3: Printed page from Delaware Secretary of State regarding California

Coalition for Families and Children, PBC.

Defendants reference this exhibit in support of the proposition that California

Coalition isnot a law firm or otherwise licensed to practice law and did not even exist

until one day before the complaint was filed. Defendants apparently assert this as a

fact supporting their request to dismiss the Lanham Act Count (COUNT 15).

Omnibus Doc. 131, 15:11-17. The line of cases on which Defendants rely has been

abrogated inLexmark v. Static Controls(See Opposition to Omnibus). Because

standing to bring suit under the Lanham Act does not require competition, the

document is irrelevant. California Coalition, PBC is a successor in interest to

California Coalition, Inc. and Lexevia, PC. Plaintiffs have separately requested leave

to amend to plead these facts.

Exhibit 5: Decision and Order re: Inactive Enrollment

This document bears no signature, date, filing stamp or other indicia of official

or business record foundation.

a. Objection: Relevance:The document is referenced only in support of Defendants argument that STUART

cannot maintain a Lanham Act claim because As a matter of public record, Stuart

has been disbarred or suspended from practicing law in every 14 state where he was

admitted. (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.) Omnibus Doc. No.

131, 15:11-17. STUARTs present status as a member of any bar is irrelevant to any

issue properly before the Court. California Coalition, Lexevia, and STUART each

are within the zone of interest to satisfy Article III standing under the Lanham Act.

b. Objection: Lacks Foundation:The document bearing no signature, date, filing stamp or other indicia of official or

business record foundation.



6/8


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

Exhibit 6: Order Entering Default and Order Enrolling Inactive

a. Objection: RelevanceThe Exhibit is referenced in support of Defendants Omnibus arguments which are

irrelevant to the zone of interest determination. It is irrelevant for the same reasons

set forth above.

b. Objection: FoundationThese documents purport to assert facts based upon the perjury and false evidence

on which Exhibit 1the GARSON Declarationis based. They are objected to as

controversial and lacking foundation.

Exhibits 4, 7-10: Printed documents and printed pages relating to STUARTS

status with the State Bars of California, Nevada, and Arizona.

a. Objection: Relevance, Lacks Foundation:For the same reasons as Exhibit 6 is irrelevant to the sole issue of Lanham Act

Standing, these documents are irrelevant.

B.Objections to DOYNE Request for Judicial Notice(Doc. No. 143-2, 3)

RJN 143-3 Exhibit A to RJN; 2 Documents, One entitled Findings and Order

After Hearing and a second entitled Attachment to Findings and Order After

Hearing.

a. Objection: Lacks Foundation, Controversial:The exhibit appears to be a fraudulent attempt to combine two separate

documents. The first page appears to be a form Findings and Order bearing an

unrecognizable signature dated August 8, 2008 apparently filed the same date. It is

not signed by counsel as approved as conforming to Court Order.

The second document is an unsigned pleading on Basie & Fritz caption entitled

Attachment to Findings and Order After Hearing. It is stamped received dated



7/8


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

June 16, 2008, which is not coordinated with the first page it is submitted with.

Though it is submitted by Defendant DOYNE it bears the initials SB,

corresponding to Defendant Sharon Blanchet. It thus appears to have been created by

DOYNE from filed owned by Plaintiff STUART, in possession of Defendant

BLANCHET, maintained for the benefit of Plaintiff STUART.

It is not stamped as filed with any court.

This document appears to be a falsification of records. The event of filing

falsified documents in this action is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1512(c) and

will be added as an independent predicate crime in due course. For the time being the

exhibit is objected to as lacking foundation, irrelevant, and controversial.

DATED: May 20, 2014 By: /s/

Co ern C. Stuart, III, Pres ent,California Coalition for Families andChildren, PBCin Pro Se

Colbern C. Stuart III



8/8

-1-PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO

OMNIBUS

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

20th day of May, 2014.

By: /s/

Co ern C. Stuart, III, Pres ent,

California Coalition for Families andChildren, PBCin Pro Se

Colbern C. Stuart III
