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 Lawyers 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 Sheriffs Department.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit G are true and correct copies of pages from the San
Diego City Attorneys Office Domestic Violence Unit and the County of San
Diego District Attorneys 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 Womens Justice
Project Resources page relating to domestic violence at
http://www.bwjp.org/articles/article-list.aspx?id=11; Praxis Internationals
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 Californias 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 Pita 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. Karps 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 perpetrators estate by
asserting any number of allegations limited not by veracity, but only by a
practitioners 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 spouses separate property assets.
22. Mr. Karps 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 couples
homeowners insurer, separate liability insurance, employers, and assets of the
spouses 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. Karps counsel to use the threat of an implied cause of action for the
violation of a criminal statute is quite ingenious. Its 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 perceptionongoing
in this lawsuitthat 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 Plaintiffs
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. Its 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. Doynes 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 familys
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 Californias 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