1 Colbern C. Stuart III Email: Cole.Stuart@Lexevia.com 2 4891 Pacific Highway Ste.

102 San Diego, CA 92110 3 Telephone: 858-504-0171 Facsimile: 619-231-9143 4 In Pro Se 5 Dean Browning Webb (pro hac vice pending) Email: ricoman1968@aol.com 6 Law Offices of Dean Browning Webb 515 E 39th St. 7 Vancouver, WA 98663-2240 Telephone: 503-629-2176 8 Attorney for Plaintiffs California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC, and 9 Lexevia, PC 10 11 12 13 CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR 14 FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al. 15 16 v. Plaintiffs, Case No. 13cv1944-CAB-BLM Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo DECLARATION OF COLBERN C. STUART IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO THE SUPERIOR COURTS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; F.R.C.P. RULE 11(b) Date: December 19, 2013 Time: 3:30 p.m. Courtroom:4C ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL Complaint Filed: August 20, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17 SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, et al, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I, Colbern Stuart, declare and state: 26

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

27 Coalition for Families and Children, PBC, and Lexevia, PC. I have personal 28 -1STUART DEC. ISO OPPO TO MTN SANCTS 3:13cv1944 CAB (BLM)

1 knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called to testify would competently testify 2 as follows: 3 1. As President and co-founder of Plainitff California Coalition for Families and

4 Children, PBC, CEO of Lexevia, PC, and as a practicing lawyer since 1995, I have 5 obtained experience and conducted extensive investigation and research relating to 6 each of the factual and legal allegations of the Complaint over a period of many 7 years. I have contributed to the drafting of the Complaint based on that personal and 8 professional knowledge and experience. See Compl. 102-106 for details. 9 2. I am not a divorce lawyer. As a lawyer licensed and practicing in California

10 state courts for over a decade I am familiar with California state practice and 11 procedure generally applicable in all California Superior Courts. 12 3. I have experienced the State of California Family Court practices through my

13 own dissolution litigation and in assisting dozens of similarly-situated parents 14 enduring modern family court malfeasance, fraud, and abuse. 15 4. I founded Plaintiff California Coalition for Families and Children to address

16 those common concerns and provide a vehicle for domestic dispute industry reform, 17 education, and engagement toward those ends. My experience in civil rights 18 scholarship, activism, commercial and pro bono representation in state and federal 19 courts nationwide permits him an uncommon perspective to family court practices. 20 Complaint paragraphs 71-75, 77-99, 100-101, 110, 113-123. 21 5. I have not brought the claims of the Complaint to harass defendants or for any

22 improper purpose. My purpose is to remedy injury caused during the course of my 23 and my co-Plaintiffs reform efforts, and to cure the systemic affliction which 24 Defendants have proven incapable or unwilling to cure for themselves. 25 6. I, my co-Plaintiffs, and the parent community we support have undertaken

26 extensive efforts prefacing the filing of this lawsuit to effect reform by other means 27 but such efforts have been resisted by Defendants, and even met with violence. 28 Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a press release issued shortly after this -2STUART DEC. ISO OPPO TO MTN SANCTS 3:13cv1944 CAB (BLM)

1 litigation was filed describing the frustrated efforts many parents and divorce industry 2 litigants experience while engaging in family court litigation. The injuries leading to 3 this lawsuit occurred to me and my co-Plaintiffs while we were engaging Defendants 4 in precisely those reform efforts. 5 7. My co-Plaintiffs and I have not chosen litigation as a firstbut perhaps as a

6 lastresort, having exhausted every state-level remedy we are capable of. We have 7 consistently been met with the explanation that thats just how it is in Family 8 Court. As any educated citizen or lawyer could conclude, You know how it is is 9 oftentimes corrupt, unethical, or illegal. So it is here. 10 8. The inclusion of the home addresses of certain Defendants in the Complaint

11 was not intended to harass, but to satisfy requirements of pleading venue where a 12 defendant "resides" or "may be found under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). In preparation for 13 filing this lawsuit, I have performed ordinary due diligence in obtaining information 14 regarding the residence and business whereabouts of each defendant, including 15 Defendants Schall, Trentacosta, Wohlfeil and others, as they were readily available 16 from phone books, online records, online skip-trace searches, or other public 17 resources. Obtaining such information is part of every pre-litigation investigation I 18 have ever undertaken, numbering in the hundreds. I am unaware that any of the 19 information I disclosed is private or otherwise confidential. 20 9. The Superior Courts motion alleges, without reference to any evidence, that I

21 refused to take any steps to correct their violationreferring to my response to Ms. 22 Nesthus demands that I remove the original Complaint from the Internet and the 23 Court files including PACER. This Courts own files, including my Declaration in 24 support of Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Harassment Protective Order, 25 directly refute this baseless allegation. Redacted Complaint, Dkt#8; Plaintiffs Ex 26 Parte Motion for Temporary Harassment Restraining Order, Dkt#4. 27 10. After Ms. Nesthus August 25, 2013 letter to me, I immediately undertook

28 extensive efforts to work with her to redact the Complaint, remove unredacted -3STUART DEC. ISO OPPO TO MTN SANCTS 3:13cv1944 CAB (BLM)

1 versions of the Complaint from CCFC-controlled computer servers, alert others who 2 had posted the unreacted Complaint from their servers, and re-file a redacted copy of 3 the Complaint with the Court. As I obviously have no control over the Courts 4 PACER system or Court files, I could not cause the removal from PACER Ms. 5 Nesthus demanded. The Superior Courts claims that I was anything other than 6 reasonable are false, outrageous, ungrateful, and insultingbut unfortunately 7 consistent with a pattern of HARASSMENT AND ABUSE Ms. Nethus employers 8 have demonstrated habitually toward the litigants they serve. 9 11. The number of times the Complaint had been viewed on the Internet, that the

10 Complaint also included home addresses of other Defendants which have not 11 objected and are not represented by The Superior Court or its counsel, and this 12 Courts courteous, yet not required, sealing of the original and redacted Complaints 13 to which no plaintiff objectsare not consistent with an intent to harassthey are 14 the ordinary and expected behavior of civil rights plaintiffs publicizing their efforts to 15 a nationwide community of similarly-situated domestic dispute industry professionals 16 and victim-litigants closely watching this case as an augur of the future of reform. 17 12. Further, even after I undertook efforts to accommodate The Superior Courts

18 bellicose demands, I was confronted with a half dozen alerts from CCFC members, 19 partners, and affiliates who were contacted by San Diego Sheriff Department 20 Deputies and Detectives who issued take-down demands to remove the Complaint21 -coerced threats without warrant or probable cause. These legally-indefensible 22 threats of state police power have caused significant disruption in our parent network, 23 and themselves constitute further illegal deprivation of Plaintiffs rights of free 24 speech, due process, and access to courts. I intend to raise these issues by appropriate 25 means through this or related channels. 26 13. One purpose in bringing this action is to enjoin the rampant disobedience to

27 the rule of law which present defendants and their collaborators have violently and 28 collusively refused to observe for themselves. This action is directed in part to -4STUART DEC. ISO OPPO TO MTN SANCTS 3:13cv1944 CAB (BLM)

1 conforming insubordinated criminal practices of courts, judges, lawyers, social 2 workers, and mental health professionals with existing and longstanding principles of 3 state and federal commercial, health and welfare, and constitutional law. 4 14. I respectfully submit that any sanction award against Plaintiffs in this case

5 would be unjust. Plaintiffs are a public benefit corporation and their members and 6 advocates which, in the course of attempts to facilitate the reform of voracious 7 criminal enterprises, have fallen victims to the illegal tactics of those very enterprises. 8 15. It would be difficult to exaggerate the devastating impact to date of

9 Defendants illegal activities on the resources available to Plaintiffs to continue their 10 reform efforts, including this litigation. CCFC is not a commercial operationit has 11 no revenue other than donations and the generous goodwill of many dedicated 12 volunteers. It is a community of victims of these very defendants heinous acts of 13 fraud and abuse, who have formed to recover their losses, but more importantly to 14 prevent that same harm from befalling others unaware of the maze of horrors that 15 awaits them once they step behind Defendants doors. 16 16. The Complaint details our efforts in seeking attention and assistance to remedy

17 and reform an industry few fail to recognize as a dystopia, yet almost none have the 18 knowledge, concern, or courage required to attend. To my and my co-Plaintiffs 19 dozens of overtures, government agencies, politicians, and the commercial and pro 20 bono legal community have universally respond yes, its a mess, but we dont know 21 how to fix it. 22 17. As the intended benefactors of that dystopiaparents and childrenwhove

23 instead of benefiting from that system have fallen victim to it, I and my co-Plaintiffs 24 have valuable input of what is wrong and how to fix it. Yet our wealth of 25 experience, knowledge, and suggestions is not equaled by a wealth of material 26 resources to implement them. Like most family court litigants, I and my fellow 27 CCFC members left family courts with little more than harrowing nightmares and a 28 very bitter taste in our mouths which, though highly motivating, are accompanied by -5STUART DEC. ISO OPPO TO MTN SANCTS 3:13cv1944 CAB (BLM)

1 a debilitating fear of further legal reprisal or financial victimization by the very 2 defendants present here. 3 18. Defendants have effectively monopolized or blockaded all venues for

4 effecting reform through state-level machinerycourts, judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, 5 and psychologists collaborate to police a poisonous toll-based maze they themselves 6 built which outrageously extracts wealth from unsuspecting families by artifice, trick, 7 and deceit. 8 19. That wealth and power, initially earned by the honest hands and brows of

9 parents working to provide for their children, has by trick and device been converted 10 into the hands of some of San Diegos strongest law firms, hired to defend the 11 schemes that pay their billsand today returns to a new scene to pick those pockets 12 yet again, by means of new rules in a new courthouse. 13 20. Any award of sanctions against Plaintiffs in this case would be devastating,

14 and only further the perpetration of what will be proven to be a shameful and 15 fraudulent abuse of knowledge of public processes and institutions, public police 16 power, and tainted wealth by those operating under a public license, oath, and duty to 17 protect those in their care. Sanctions would deplete our meager resources, and most 18 disturbingly be a blow to the courage, dignity, and public spirit of parents and 19 children nationwide, who have barely the means to defend themselves. 20 21 DATED: December 5, 2013 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6STUART DEC. ISO OPPO TO MTN SANCTS 3:13cv1944 CAB (BLM)

By: /s/

Colbern C. Stuart, III

Colbern C. Stuart, III, President, California Coalition for Families and Children PBC in Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have 3 4 5 court's CM-ECF system per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b )(2)(E). Any other 6 counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail this 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1STUART DEC. ISO OPPO TO MTN SANCTS 3:13cv1944 CAB (BLM)

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

5th day of December, 2013.

By: /s/

Colbern C. Stuart, III

Colbern C. Stuart, III, President, California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC in Pro Se

California Coalition for Families and Children, et al v. San Diego County Bar Association, USDC SDCA Case No. Case No. 13cv1944-CAB-BLM
Declaration of Colbern C. Stuart in Support of Opposition to Motion for Sanctions

Exhibit A

California Parents File Federal Racketeering Lawsuit against Family Court Judges; Charge Criminal Extortion, Bribery, Abuse of Office
August 20, 2013 -- San Diego, CA In its continuing campaign to end the harassment, fraud, and abuse rampant in California State Family Courts, a parents rights group, the California Coalition for Families and Children, has filed a lawsuit today in federal court charging the San Diego County courts, social workers, divorce attorneys, and psychologists with federal criminal racketeering. The abuses of parents and children by Family Courts, social workers, and family law attorneys have harmed parents and children for far too long. We intend to end that abuse. says CCFC President Colbern Stuart. Family court is designed by its makers to be probably the most dangerous life event parents and children can endure. It enables and profits from every inhumane instinct known to man greed, hate, resentment, fearresulting in abundant cash flow for the divorce industry and a fallout of parent and childrens misery. And behind the curtain of this machine of misery weve uncovered its causethe multi-billion dollar divorce industry, populated by judges, attorneys, and a machinery of tax-dollar fed judicial administrators, social workers that George Orwell would marvel at. Weve been delivering that message kindly for years now, yet the tide keeps rising on families in crisis. Weve appealed to the county courts, state and local politicians, state judicial oversight bodies, United States Representatives, and just plain old human dignity, but the harassment and abuse of parents and children has only increased. A resort to federal court intervention in the widespread criminal collusion in state government was the next logical step. Its time to recognize Family Court for what it isa corporate crime ring raiding parents and children of financial and psychological well-being, and devouring our childrens futures. And its not just divorce lawyersits judges, judicial administrators, psychologists, cops and prosecutorspeople we should be able to trustin a modern day criminal cabal using county courtrooms and sheriffs deputies as the machinery of organized crime. Say Stuart. Since state officials hands are too deep into the cookie jar to stop their own abuse, were seeking the assistance of federal oversight. CCFC has been active in past years uncovering fraud and abuse of families and children in state courts, including the consumer fraud case of Dr. Stephen Doyne, the most notable child custody evaluator in San Diego. They not only let Doyne run wild for years, they actively protected his abuse of parents and children. In my mind, the industry is a godless abomination says Stuart. One of our parents who challenged Doyne and lost was orderedby the same court that employs Doyneto pay Doynes attorneys feesover $380,000for calling out his undisputed fraud. Its outrageous, and its going to stop. CCFCs Complaint details both civil and criminal charges. Weve alleged over 34 specific federal crimes in the complaint, and were turning our evidence over to the F.B.I. and U.S. Attorney for further investigation. Says Stuart. The Complaint is available online through CCFCs Facebook page at www.facebook.com/ccfconline. Quotes:

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 ofindeed contempt forthe rule of law.

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 widesprea d 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 acceptanceindeed applausefrom institutional interests which benefit from a joint enterprise enforcing the unwritten law of who you know is more important than what you know. In this lawless behaviors 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. The effect on parents and children seeking social support within this coalescing family law forum has not been as advertised by courts and professionalsa new healingbut instead a new affliction: an imposed disability of de rigueur deprivation of fundamental rights in the name of therapeutic jurisprudence funded by converting college funds into a bloated ministry of the bar leaving families and their children with mere crumbs of their own success.

The case centers on the April 15, 2010 assault of CCFCs President, Cole Stuart, at the San Diego County Bar Association meeting of family court judges and attorneys. Stuart was attending the meeting of family court judges and attorneys on behalf of CCFC. SDCBA recognized Stuart as the President of the Parents Rights group and ordered fifteen armed bar association security to tackle him, handcuff him, and throw him out. According to Stuart, around ten CCFC parents and children attended the seminar to advance their reform efforts and send a message of doctor, heal thyself. The San Diego County Bar Association meeting of judges and attorneys chose a theme critical of their own clients: calling them Litigants Behaving Badly. CCFC chose a counter-theme: CCFC parents and children carried signs stating JUDGES BEHAVING BADLY; if YOU dont follow the law, why would WE? Judge Judy may be entertaining daytime television for some, but that indignity has no place in our justice systemeven in what they consider to be low-brow family court. Yet many family court judges regularly administer such obnoxious renegade justice every day, in open defiance of the rule of law. Sober as a judge these days has a whole new meaning. Says StuartIve been a successful lawyer for 18 years and seen both excellence and failure, but I ve never been ashamed of my profession until the days I walked out of family court. I decided then that this lawless rolling train wreck of shame to my profession and harm to my community must stop. And for that inspiration, they sent me to jail. CCFC and Stuart are suing SDCBA and the dozen judges and lawyers who organized the seminar. They were well aware of our intent to be present at the Seminar--and had fifteen Sheriffs Deputies and a paddy wagon waiting to welcome us when we arrived. We had been in court to seek sanctions against them in the morning, then they assault me that very evening. According to the CCFC Complaint: Family Courts, including judges, blame Litigants Behaving Badly for harms enabledindeed largely manufacturedby the Domestic Dispute Industrys own longstanding predatory commercial practices. CCFC saw the Litigants Behaving Badly theme as p art of the self-delusional propaganda engaged in by so many [divorce industry] members who, rather

than recognizing the harm their industry enables and healing themselves, instead blame their own clients, who, quite true, do regularly abuse process, their loved ones, and even themselves in perfect compliance with [divorce industry] instructions. The lawsuit alleges that divorce lawyers illegally conspire with judges to steal from parents as part of a racketeering criminal enterpriseand brings over 30 claims of federally-indictable crime. Civil rights violations, fraud, and obstruction of justice are federal crimeseven for judges. The lawsuit seeks to hold judges and courts personally responsible for overseeing the crime committed by the attorneys and social workers in their courtroom. Judges have a legal and ethical duty to ensure rights under the judicial canons of conduct. Its just not possible that intelligent lawyers like judges dont understand exactly what goes on in their courtrooms, yet they allow it to continue. In CCFCs opinion, this judicial collusion is far more serious crime than even the fraud of divorce attorneys themselves says Stuart. CCFC has filed a motion for a protective order preventing the San Diego Defendants from harassing them Since theyve known about CCFC and its reform toward the more humane family dispute resolution solutions we offer, theyve treated us as enemies of the state. When we thought wed be welcomed, or at least heard, weve instead become targets of prosecution and terrorist threats--They assaulted me, harassed our members including threatening gun cock and death threat late night phone calls, attacked our businesses, professional licenses, and threatened to jail and extort us with further crime. Its outrageous that our own government allows this to happen, and were asking the federal court to protect our members as we pursue the civil and criminal charges against the courts. A complete set of filings and exhibits is available from CCFCs Facebook page at www.Facebook.com/ccfconline

About: CCFC is a nonprofit organization of parents-both men and women-who have experienced marital dissolution proceeding in San Diego, Orange, or Los Angeles Counties, Our members are professionals or others who are highly motivated to improving governmental and justice system process addressing domestic relations, parentage, custody, and abuse. CCFC seeks to promote the health and success of all families--parents and children equally and alike. We perceive that parents and children presently lack effective and independent advocates within government and the civil and criminal justice system, and as such their rights and interests are regularly compromised in favor of the institutionalized interests of others, including government, private attorneys and professional service providers, and the enormous domestic dispute industry. CCFC organizers, officers, and affiliates are professionals dedicated to improving social, governmental, and justice system processes concerning domestic relations, child rearing, parenting, constitutional law, child custody, and domestic violence. Many of CCFCs 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 indifference to clearly-established liberties; insults to the autonomy and dignity of parents and children; extortion, robbery, abuse, and more, delivered at the hands of eager operators within the divorce industry.

California Coalition for Families and Children, et al v. San Diego County Bar Association, USDC SDCA Case No. Case No. 13cv1944-CAB-BLM
Declaration of Colbern C. Stuart in Support of Opposition to Motion for Sanctions

Exhibit B

State of California
Secretary of State
Statement of Information
(Domestic Stock and Agricultural Cooperative Corporations)

S
EV34288

FEES (Filing and Disclosure): $25.00. If this is an amendment, see instructions.

IMPORTANT READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM
1. CORPORATE NAME

FILED
In the office of the Secretary of State of the State of California

LEXEVIA, PC

NOV-28 2013

2. CALIFORNIA CORPORATE NUMBER

C3195397
No Change Statement (Not applicable if agent address of record is a P.O. Box address. See instructions.)
3.

This Space for Filing Use Only

If there have been any changes to the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State, or no statement of information has been previously filed, this form must be completed in its entirety. If there has been no change in any of the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State, check the box and proceed to Item 17.

Complete Addresses for the Following (Do not abbreviate the name of the city. Items 4 and 5 cannot be P.O. Boxes.)
4. 5. 6. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA, IF ANY MAILING ADDRESS OF CORPORATION, IF DIFFERENT THAN ITEM 4 CITY CITY CITY STATE STATE STATE ZIP CODE ZIP CODE ZIP CODE

4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

7.

EMAIL ADDRESS FOR RECEIVING STATUTORY NOTIFICATIONS

Names and Complete Addresses of the Following Officers (The corporation must list these three officers. A comparable title for the specific officer may be added; however, the preprinted titles on this form must not be altered.)
7. 8. 9. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ SECRETARY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ ADDRESS ADDRESS CITY CITY CITY STATE STATE STATE ZIP CODE ZIP CODE ZIP CODE

COLBERN C STUART

4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

COLBERN C STUART
COLBERN STUART

4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

ADDRESS

4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

Names and Complete Addresses of All Directors, Including Directors Who are Also Officers (The corporation must have at least one
director. Attach additional pages, if necessary.)
10. NAME ADDRESS CITY CITY CITY STATE STATE STATE ZIP CODE ZIP CODE ZIP CODE

COLBERN C STUART
11. NAME 12. NAME

4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

ADDRESS ADDRESS

13. NUMBER OF VACANCIES ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IF ANY:

Agent for Service of Process If the agent is an individual, the agent must reside in California and Item 15 must be completed with a California street
address, a P.O. Box address is not acceptable. If the agent is another corporation, the agent must have on file with the California Secretary of State a certificate pursuant to California Corporations Code section 1505 and Item 15 must be left blank.
14. NAME OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS [Note: The person designated as the corporation's agent MUST have agreed to act in that capacity prior to the designation.]

COLBERN C STUART
15. STREET ADDRESS OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA, IF AN INDIVIDUAL CITY STATE ZIP CODE

4891 PACIFIC HWY STE 102, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110

Type of Business
16. DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMIL

17. BY SUBMITTING THIS STATEMENT OF INFORMATION TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE, THE CORPORATION CERTIFIES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

11/28/2013
DATE SI-200 (REV 01/2013)

COLBERN C STUART
TYPE/PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM

CEO
TITLE SIGNATURE APPROVED BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Page 1 of 1