From Womb to Tomb: Child Slavery in the Courts

PressTV: From womb to tomb: Child slavery and US courts, by Brett Redmayne-Titley

Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:20PM GMT

By Brett Redmayne-Titley

US family courts are stealing children from the loving arms of innocent parents.

In this ongoing exclusive report for Press TV, the previous examples of Ruby Dillon and her daughter Lexi have show that Child Protective Services (CPS) has no interest in “protection” of children. Its sole motivation is personal profit.

No child is safe.

Down the road in San Diego County a young boy is missing, taken by a man who is not the father, not even a parent. Innocent mother Tammy Rief, who is from Georgia and has never lived in California, now sits in a California prison. Despite an Alabama court order keeping the kidnapper away from her child, and another court order giving Tammy, the mother, full custody, a California judge abused his court to steal her son, Jonah, from his home in Georgia and give him to a man documented to have abused her son. [“Tammy” and “Jonah Rief,”];[];[]; []; []; [ Tammy’s police report,];[].

Without Tammy Rief’s knowledge Judge Gregory W. Pollack was working in far away California with the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan, to have the FBI steal her and her son from Georgia.

This short story of injustice and child trafficking, applied to a San Diego Superior Court judge, Gregory W. Pollack, shows the unique, fraudulent and illegal applications of California law in favor of kidnapping.

For Tammy losing her son, Jonah, started silently in an unknown court not in Georgia; California divorce court.

Tammy has never been married. Much less to anyone in California. Tammy had briefly dated the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan, in South Carolina but had not heard from him in over three years before he suddenly attempted to achieve custody of Jonah in her state of residence, Georgia. Tammy proved to the Georgia court that the kidnapper could not be the biological father and that Jonah was at risk to the kidnapper. Hence the judge issued the two restraining orders establishing full custody to Tammy and preventing the kidnapper anywhere near Jonah.

But, that was Alabama.

Undaunted, the kidnapper somehow got a California divorce court judge to award him custody of Jonah although he had never been married to Ruby or taken a paternity test. The California court had no jurisdiction, or legal right, to hear a divorce case or any case that did not have a connection to California law and California residency. Worse, Ruby did not receive notice, per law, of the out-of-state proceedings she had no knowledge of. [].

It turns out that California divorce court is also a favorable place to steal children. The judge awarded custody of Jonah to the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan. Armed with this fraudulent California court decision the kidnapper was off to an even more favorable court, that of San Diego’s finest judge Gregory W. Pollack. Using the divorce court decision and his own unsubstantiated, self-administered paternity test the judge secretly gave his client custody of Jonah, despite the Alabama court orders to the contrary.

Like his Orange County brethren judge Pollack threw Tammy’s due process and constitutional rights into the trash. When a jury was selected Judge Pollack allowed the jurors to be selected in a closed court and for some to have direct affiliations with the kidnapper, Brian Sullivan. The judge allowed so many legal violations that there is only one answer to the question why?

Next, an obviously corrupt judge Pollack issued a state warrant and had California Marshals arrest and render Jonah and Ruby from Georgia into his California jurisdiction and control.

Stuck in San Diego by court order, Jonah soon returns from a court ordered weekend visit with his father. Witnesses attest that his mother, upon Jonah’s arrival, saw Jonah had been battered and had rope burns on both wrists and on his ankles. Jonah told his mother that his father had abused him along with several other men.

Every species of mother will fearlessly and selflessly defend their child against anyone and anything. Tammy was no different.

Faced with a virtual Twilight Zone episode of unfathomable facts, she grabbed Jonah and sprinted to the nearest out-of-state hospital. Arizona. Examination showed Jonah had been physically and sexually abused. Arizona police were called in. Reports taken. Witness statements taken. Criminal charges discussed. Evidence prepared.

Then the Arizona police arrested Tammy and Jonah and sent them back to the kidnapper and Judge Pollack who charged Tammy with kidnapping her son. She is now finishing a three-year prison sentence.

Similar stories of court ordered kidnapping have been reported in Detroit, MI, Florida and Oklahoma

Jonah was last reported to have entered Australia some months ago.


In a land becoming endemically corrupt, morals in America have no value. Ruby and Lexi’s case follows a familiar plot. It has been repeated again and again. Like all evil plots there are multiple actors, all working as a conspiracy. A conspiracy to traffic children. A conspiracy to create the perfect circle of crime.

If you have assets, and those assets are connected, the plot follows a similar script to Ruby’s and Tammy’s.

A pedophile such as, Mahathep “Mathew” Srikureja, finds a bottom feeding attorney with no morals, like Mathew DeArmey, who has secret and influential contacts with immoral CPS Minor’s Councils, like Harold LaFlamme. The corrupt Minor’s Council has connections to immoral family court judges like Wilson, Waltz, or Salter. The Minor’s council also has contacts with immoral CPS doctors, foster care homes, and child/ parent monitoring companies who, as co-conspirators, do and say what the Minor’s council tells them to do and say.

Together they all collude to fabricate evidence and testimony, exclude evidence from the purview of the court, manipulate the child’s testimony against the abusive criminal parent, and provide “protection”, not to the child, but to criminal parent having the good fortune and money to find an attorney like Mathew DeArmey.

If you are more modest means, however, and CPS knocks on your door be very, very, worried.


California leads the nation with 80,000 children in foster care. Thirty years ago CPS added nine children a month, yet today it takes1600 children per month into custody. The state receives between 125-150,000 thousand dollars per child per year ($12 billion), but the child must be in foster care for more than a year. Intriguingly, the average stay in Los Angeles is twenty months and in San Francisco twenty-nine. Hmm.

L. Wallace Pate is a child rights attorney who has followed CPS and its decline into barbarism for over thirty years. She outlined the CPS plot in a recent KFI-Radio interview.

Children are money. For a “Perverse Financial Incentive,” CPS and their parasitic attorneys, and hirelings need new children and they take them. Infants are the plum target as they are of highest value to adoption agencies that also make out on the deal. The courts have ruled it illegal and inadmissible, yet new mother’s on any social assistance, such as medicaid, are uniformly drug tested. Ms. Pate appropriately calls this, “junk science.”

Although these tests have been proven to be inaccurate in seventy-six percent of sample tests, and hospitals are precluded from providing that info to CPS, mothers who test positive have their infant seized by CPS. If the mother has other children they are taken from her, too.

Only 7% of CPS cases against parents involve sexual abuse and 10% percent are for physical abuse. The remaining eighty-three percent are children taken for any reason CPS can fabricate. The judge will, of course, go along with anything.

Then comes the required trial. Even though a criminal trial has a thirty day deadline, family court is a mere fifteen. But the cases never reach trial, since if there was a trial, the facts would favor the parents and CPS would lose the one-hundred-fifty grand at the base of their empire. Just ask Ruby Dillon.

Corrupt public defenders talk the desperate parents into, “taking a plea,” threatening them with the lie that this the fastest way to get their child back. Almost always they take this advice. If not, the judge simply restricts all evidence.

Now that the child is in the clutches of foster care the parents have almost no rights. Now come the horrors of sexual and physical abuse. Kids in foster care are ten times more likely to be abused and six times more likely to die than the national average. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors commissioned a secret report, until it was leaked to the LA Times (that shelved the story), on existing CPS practices. It’s no wonder they tried to keep it secret.

Five hundred- seventy children died in a recent eighteen month period while under CPS supervision. Two hundred and seventy of these were in CPS custody.

Next. Forced institutional sedation.

Within ninety days 80% of the new child inmates will be forced to take some type of psychotropic drug. A federal study recently showed a huge disparity in the use of these drugs in foster homes verses those prescribed by doctors of loving families. In Texas it was four times the state average. CPS has a convenient reason for this endemic drug use; “Separation Anxiety.”

No shit.

Not coincidentally California leads the nation in prison population with over 600,000 inmates. 70% percent have been in foster care. This creates a steady supply of very cheap prison labor to be used by a privatized prison industry that cares more for its stock dividends than human treatment. This cheap labor saves these manufacturing companies billions of dollars every year.

The final insult comes when the courts requires that the parent, who tried in vain to rescue their son or daughter from CPS, now pay back their court appointed legal fees, and those of CPS as well. Of course, CPS does not have to provide a receipt. The courts, however, will gladly garnish wages, seize tax refunds, and order arrest if these aggrieved parents do not obey.



Children’s welfare means little to CPS or their minions who are feeding on limitless taxpayer funds. These funds are spread amongst the old guard insiders network of corruption.

Judges keep high paying jobs. Forty hand-picked law firms in twenty counties have been paid over one billion dollars over the past ten years.

The foster care corporations that warehouse the kidnapped children are paid handsomely, as are the parental monitoring companies.

The pharmaceutical companies get a “captured” clientele of 80,000 artificially, and highly medicated patients and an endless demand for their mind altering drugs.

The adoption companies make millions placing stolen children in homes and even get up to an $8,000 bonus from the state for each child placed. For the un-saleable child many foster homes are promoting a career choice and training; prostitution.

Finally, if this staggering CPS example of the “social safety net” does not work out, there is prison.

The circle of the crime is complete. From womb to tomb.


The power of CPS and their pet courts and judges have been covering their trail of corruption with targeted intimidation and, quite likely, murder. Few reporters are willing to take on the subject. Stories abound of defense attorneys signing on to a custody case only to drop it after a first private meeting with a judge, or dedicated reporters suddenly losing interest.

Some are deceased.

Martin Burns of Fox News/Los Angeles put considerable time into the issue of CPS and Superior Court corruption. He filed several stories for Fox, under his shows title, “Lost In The System.” One show was specifically about Lexi.

Burns boldly confronted Harold LaFlamme, Mathew DeArmey, and the rapist father, Mahathep “Mathew” Srikureja, after a hearing before judge Waltz. He confronted them aggressively in front of the camera, asking questions about their many legal conflicts of interest. As the rapist comically hid his face in DeArmey’s coat tails they fled just as quickly as they could, both collectively shuffling away with the fathers face appropriately joined at DeArmey’s posterior.

Martin Burns was found at the bottom of a ravine near a trail where he liked to walk. Accident? The LA Coroner ruled it a heart attack. So how did he get to the bottom of that cliff thirty feet from the trail?

His counterpart at Fox, “Lori” [Gina] Silva, who had co-written some of Burns’ stories as well as doing research, suddenly lost interest in CPS. She is still at Fox News/LA. She does not return calls.

Georgia State Sen. Nancy Schaefer and her husband of thirty-four years were by all reports loving and inseparable. Ruled a murder/suicide their deaths coincided with the her announcement of the completion of a four-year documentary project she had personally funded to expose names and crimes against children. Following her death, the documentary failed to surface. Its whereabouts is still unknown.

Greed knows no bounds. Greed has no soul. Any court willing to pry a child from the arms of his innocent mother or father has lost any value for life, much less humanity.

World-wide, America has lost all respect for humanity.

Now, it feasts on its own children.


Now, it feasts on its own children.

Brett Redmayne-Titley spent his formative years with his family in Queensland, Australia, Ghana, West Africa, and the Bahamas. Visiting over fifty counties over four decades he has seen the world slowly destroyed by greed, capitalism and empire. Not content to watch from the side lines, Brett has taken up his pen to tell the truth about important stories. On-scene reporting is his specialty. Traveling to the story he has written in-depth, multi-part articles about the Keystone XL Pipeline, Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant, the 2012 Democratic National Convention, the police killing of Evan Kwik and many more.  His articles have been published by dozens of on-line news services. More articles by Brett Redmayne-Titley.

UPDATE on Sentencing of Protective Mom Tammy!

Child Molester Protector D.A. Bonnie Dumanis (through her minion, D.D.A. Jill Lindberg) requested the maximum sentence for Tammi (3 years), and, not surprisingly, Child Molester Protector Judge Kenneth So agreed, while admitting Tammy believed taking Jonah into hiding was necessary for his safety.

This is a contradiction which is obvious to any sane person. NO mother should be prosecuted, much less sentenced, if she goes into hiding because she believes her child is being sexually abused and there is corroborating evidence to confirm it. ‪#‎DontProsecuteProtectiveMoms‬

Even so, with time served and other factors, Tammy should be released within a few months. She has a strong case on appeal due to the many violations of Tammi’s and the public’s rights committed by Judge So. Safe Kids will update as we get info.

San Diego Sex Abuse Scandal Continues Friday with Sentencing of Protective Mom for “Abduction”
Criminal Court Tactics Employed to Cover Up Abuse Exposed

Judge Kenneth So, D.A. Bonnie Dumanis and Public Defender Kristin Scogin all colluded in covering up substantial evidence of sexual abuse in order to secure Protective Mom Tammy’s conviction. Now Judge So will sentence Tammy for the crime of protecting her son.

CourtWatchers documented the many contortions these officials went through in their coordinated effort to cover up the sexual abuse of Little Jonah and convict PM Tammy Rief. This was obviously done to cover up for the family court cover up by the notorious Judges Gregory Pollack and Eugenia Eyherabide, as well as by CPS.

Here is some of the evidence of the cover up compiled:
[Evidence of the sexual abuse:]

• Public Defender Kristin Scogin only called two of Tammy’s friends as defense witnesses, because they could be dismissed as biased. She refused to call any of the 50 other professional/ objective witnesses Tammy wanted, including law enforcement, CPS workers, M.D.’s and mental health professionals from three different counties who had evidence of the abuse.

• P.D. Scogin refused to call the most important witness in the case: the N.C. detective who Little Jonah disclosed the sexual abuse to when they were caught in hiding. (In contrast, the prosecuting attorney called the N.C. sergeant who made the arrest helping to convict Tammy.) When Safe Kids asked Scogin to comment on why she did not call the detective, she refused.

• Judge So would not allow the N.C. police report which documented these disclosures by Jonah.

• P.D. Scogin called Tammy paranoid at least 10 times in her closing arguments, supporting the view that the abuse did not really happen; it was only in Tammy’s head, i.e. “she’s crazy” used so often in cover ups. The other tactic, “she’s lying/alienating”, could not be used because it had never been used in family court (the prolific “mad or bad” tactic).

• Judge So encouraged the prosecution to use the argument that the abuse has been investigated many times, but never substantiated, supporting the theory that Tammy was paranoid. (Of course, there was never a proper investigation and CPS and family court had colluded in the cover up, as usual.)

• Judge So defined “malicious” (the requirement for conviction) for the jury as anytime somebody does a wrongful act, as opposed to when somebody deliberately does a wrongful act, so as to incriminate Tammy.

• Important evidence by Tammy’s friends was excluded, or simply not included, because Scogin did not ask the proper questions.

• Judge So prevented Tammy’s friends from speaking freely, even under direct examination, keeping much important evidence out. (It is supposed to be opposing counsel that stops the witness through valid objections, not the judge.)

• The jury was rigged. CourtWatchers were excluded from jury selection in violation of Constitutional rights of the public and the defendant to prevent them from witnessing the rigging. Tammy reported that the jury members selected were favorable to the prosecution and Scogin would not allow her to participate at all in the selection. And Judge So sealed the jury selection proceeding and jury names.

• Tammy was kept in jail for almost a year without bond or with a too-high bond, making it difficult for her to get support outside of the corrupt Scogin in preparing her case.

• P.D. Scogin tried to get Tammy declared mentally incompetent. That is when Safe Kids Intl became involved. Our court watch helped convince Judge Brannigan to not rule her incompetent. If she had been, she would have likely been institutionalized and medicated into silence about the sexual abuse.

• Judge So refused Tammy’s Marsden motion to get Scogin off her case. Judge So tricked a courtwatcher into leaving by acting like the hearing was finished and then starting up again after she was gone. He then sealed the Marsden motion with nobody to hear what justification he used to seal it.

• Tammy’s hearings were often not on calendar or were placed there at the last minute to deter court watchers.

• Judge So, Scogin and P.A. Jill Lindberg often went into chambers together for extended periods of time, under the guise of it being a “side bar”, to discuss their strategy off the record.

• Judge So sealed Tammy’s family court file, as it was a record of how long and how hard she had fought to protect Jonah and contained important evidence.

• D.A. Dumanis covered up Jonah’s disclosure to N.C. and the disclosure to CPS after Tammy was arrested and Jonah was back with his identified molester.

COURT WATCH Friday, 8:30 am, San Diego Superior Court, Dept. 55, Judge Kenneth So. 220 Broadway, San Diego, CA.

*You can support Tammy and/or express your outrage at the cover up with comments here. You can also express thanks to the courtwatchers who helped compile all the evidence of the cover up, especially PM Kathy Brown!

NOTE: In the event Tammy is released with time served on Friday, she needs a place to stay in So. Cal., preferably San Diego, for a month or so. If anyone can put her up, please PM Safe Kids. Thanks for supporting a Protective Mom!

Link to event with more info:

Link to event re: declaring Tammy mentally incompetent:

*D.A. Bonnie Dumanis is up for re-election. Spread the word that she covers up sexual abuse. She covered up in Damon and Jacob’s case, and Protective Mom Joyce’s case (her ex was later convicted of molesting other children).

fair use and disclaimer


Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.




Fair Notice and Disclaimer


  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.


$225,000 Paid to San Diego Mother Permanently Deprived of her Baby by Cops and CPS (VIDEO)

$225,000 Paid to San Diego Mother Permanently Deprived of her Baby by Cops and CPS (VIDEO)

Joneisha Kemper’s Story:

Johnneisha Kemper was 16 years old when she said she called police for help but instead of helping, they took her newborn daughter. NBC 7’s Danya Bacchus has this exclusive report. (Published Saturday, Oct 11, 2014)

(Published Saturday, Oct 11, 2014)

The City of San Diego will pay $225,000 to settle a civil suit filed by a teen mom who lost parental rights to her daughter just days after the child’s birth.

Johnneisha Kemper says San Diego Police officers took her baby away in 2008, just days after she gave birth at the age of 16, claiming she was unfit to raise the newborn.

Now, the city of San Diego has approved a settlement in the civil rights lawsuit filed alleging the SDPD took the child without threat or warrant.

“The system did fail her in every way that she could have been failed,” her attorney Shawn McMillan told NBC 7.

Kemper sat down and spoke exclusively to NBC 7 about the case, saying the money can’t replace what she’s lost.

“I want my daughter. It’s like somebody I never knew,” Kemper said.

Kemper had her daughter, Nyhanna,with her while visiting her mother in San Diego in 2008. She had just been released from the hospital, when Kemper said she had a dispute with her mother.

Her mother locked her out of the house, with her baby still inside.

Kemper said she called San Diego Police hoping they would help intervene but instead they took her child.

And from there the legal battle began.

Attorney Shawn McMillan helped Kemper file a civil rights lawsuit against San Diego County, the social workers involved, City of San Diego and the Police officers who initially took the baby.

“The system did fail her in every way that she could have been failed,”Attorney, Shawn McMillan

The lawsuit said police officers took the baby even though there was no immediate threat to the child.

“The first thing they have to ask themselves is before they act at all, is, is this child in immediate danger of suffering severe bodily injury or death at the hands of the parent,” McMillan said.

A foster child herself, Kemper was living in the Los Angeles area at the time.

At 16, she had no driver’s license but said she tried her best to get to San Diego to do what the court required.

“Within that six months I had to go to counseling, go to parenting classes, and take drug tests. I had regulatory visits every Tuesday,” she recalled.

Kemper’s daughter is now 6 years old and living with adoptive parents.

Eventually, the court terminated her parental rights and Nyhanna was adopted.

“After they did that, that was the end. I lost everything,” Kemper said.

“I can’t do anything to get her back. I just have to sit and accept the fact that oh, I have a daughter but she’s just somewhere out there,” she said.

McMillan said they pushed for a policy change and training for officers in how they remove children but the City refused and even offered more money instead agreeing to change.

As for Kemper’s hope to get her daughter back, McMillan said there’s little chance.

Shawn McMillan, Kemper’s attorney, said there was nothing he could do to return custody to Kemper.

“It’s just a really sad situation. There’s nothing we can really do for a parent in her situation to get her child back. It’s over,” he said.

Kemper said she hope her case will keep this from happening again to another mother.

NBC 7 reached out to the City Attorney’s Office about the case but they had no comment.

Interview with Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick, Mother who Fought and Won $10.6 Million from Orange County and Lying Social Workers

Interview with Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick and bill windsor of lawless america, Mother who Fought and Won $10.6 Million from Orange County and Lying Social Workers

Click on the link above to access the video on from Bill Windsor’s Lawless America Series in which he interviews mother, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick, after she courageously fought the system that robbed her of everything, including her two daughters after they made allegations of sexual abuse about their father and were subsequently institutionalized.  Hardwick and her daughters were re-victimized by an abusive “protective” system and lying social workers and court employees and judges in a conspiracy to protect her ex-husband from truthful “lies,” as misalleged by those with financial motive and incentive to cover-up precisely these types of allegations in which the father’s gender (and any grants and funding programs tied to it) takes precedence over fairness, justice, and lawful and constitutional rulings by those trusted with society’s most precious assets–children and families (or property and property owners).  Hardwick had to endure humiliating “supervised ‘visitation’” with her own daughters with zero showing of parental unfitness on her part, as is the case with so many of us still fighting.  Thank “God” for Hardwick and her daughters’ “unconquerable souls” (Invictus, poem by William Ernest Henley, Book of Verses, 1888).

“I Gave a Child Molester Custody of His Daughter,” Says San Diego Judge


“I Gave a Child Molester Custody of His Daughter,” Says San Diego Judge

Judge: I Gave a Child Molester Custody of His Daughter

Source:  The Daily, ” Judge: I Gave a Child Molester Custody of his Daughter,”by MC Moewe, pub. Mon. Aug 25, 2014 (Click to See Judge Salcido on this Video).

Cost to County of Lying Social Workers: $10.6 million

Cost to Orange County for Lying CPS Social Workers: $ 10.6 Million, Two Teenage Girls Finally Home with Mother, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick

Mother, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick and her Two Daughters

Read about how scheming CPS social workers cooked-up a conspiracy to “remove” Seal Beach woman, Deanna Fogarty Hardwick’s, two loving daughters in a custody-switching scam that involved their father (who had recently gotten re-married) and allegations of sexual abuse by his daughter.  The girls were forced to live in an institution before being transferred to the custody of their father and subjected to humiliation by “supervised” visitation with their own mother–one of the grounds for this rainmaker special jury verdict which included exemplary punitive damages to serve as a future deterrent.  Yet, social workers remain determined to repeatedly commit crimes of criminal ignorance against the Sovereign women, men, and children whose lives they repeatedly destroy around the world and across this Republic US.  Fogarty-Hardwick’s “Underdog” Attorney/Lawyer of the Year in San Diego, California–Shawn McMillan’s–crest symbolizes the genteel and noble requirement and divine privilege of compassion and sharing in the suffering of others.  Sometimes humility and the beautiful virtues actually do get rewarded in this life, and this story illustrates that persistence does indeed payoff.  Keep reading, for one never knows what great Fate awaits one on the next page!

Please comment with the names of real lawyers and zealous advocates for families and children who you know or have heard about.  Likewise, please comment on those who zealously advocated for your money that got you nothing in return save for heartache, defeat, a family, and/or a permanent record that forever chains one to the “digital plantation” (citing Dale Carson, author and attorney, former police officer in Cook County, Illinois, son of a judge, Duval County, Florida,  How To Arrest Proof Yourself for Dummies, practicing lawyer in Florida, Fourth Amendment constitutional rights expert).

San Diego Lawyer, Shawn McMillan and Wife or Significant Other/Friend, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick’s Lawyer Who Helped her Win and Collect the $10.9 million from Orange County, CA

To re-cap, there is Best Family Lawyer in America of the Family Innocence Project, Michelle Macdonald in Minnesota, Gregory Hession in Massachusetts, who is temporarily working on another projects, to the best of Author’s knowledge, and the valiant Mr. Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition for Families and Children and Croix’s Real Daddy who is currently fighting for real justice on multiple fronts in Southern California.  Arch Cunningham shows boldness and courage as he represents the class of parents, or, “plaintiffs,” in the Pierce v. Cantil-Sakauye action in San Francisco, California.  Is the Ninth Circuit the only place justice might be available for all?  No wonder they want to break that racket-up.

Source:  OC Watchdog, “Cost of County Lying Social Workers: $10.6 Million,” posted by Andrew Gavin, pub.January 19, 2012, updated August 21, 2013

Pierce v. Cantil-Sakauye class action Opening Brief filed 11-08-2013


Ratings: (0)|Views: 71 |Likes:
Published by Elena Blank
Vexatious litigant AOB
See more

Pierce v. Cantil-Sakauye class action Opening Brief filed 11-08-2013

Posted by admin , in Vexatious Litigant Statutes 15 November 2013 · 392 views

Pierce v. Cantil-Sakauye class action Opening Brief filed 11-08-2013″Arch Cunningham, the attorney representing the class of parents who were stigmatized as vexatious, has filed his opening brief with the Ninth District Circuit Court of Appeal. The brief specifically addresses the unconstitutionality of the vexatious litigant application in family law and how parents have been maliciously harmed by not having the first and fourteenth substantive and procedural due process right to seek redress from terminating custody orders. The brief in its entirety can be accessed here.…CAAOB110813-pdf

Any parent who has been stigmatized as vexatious is prevented from accessing a court of law, thus in effect their parental rights have been terminated.” (from the blog News & Views Riverside Superior Court and Family Law Abuse).

A copy of the opening brief can also be accessed here.

Mr. Cunningham makes a sharp distinction “ . . . between civil litigants and parents in custody disputes”.

He argues that . . . “A “vexatious litigant” litigating parental rights should be treated differently than “. . .your garden-variety ‘vexatious civil litigant,’” because he/she is “enmeshed in litigation touching on their fundamental parental rights” citing Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745; Stanley v. Illinois (1972) 405 U.S. 645)”.

And he argues further that litigation relating to parental rights involves “. . .adjustment of a fundamental human relationship . . .” so that the issue of access to the courts for these litigations requires a standard of strict scrutiny just as Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) 401 U.S. 371 required this in regard to divorce litigation. The standard of “ . . .“rational basis review,” which the Ninth Circuit applied in Wolfe” (referring to the Wolfe v. George case which is the subject of a previous blog) is inappropriate for parental rights litigation.

First of all, any attack on California’s so-called “vexatious litigants” statute (“VLS” – California Civil Procedure Code Section 391 et seq.) is certainly welcome and praiseworthy.

However, it doesn’t seem that Mr. Cunningham has hit the mark in framing the chief issue.

Wolfgram v Wells Fargo Bank (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 43 (the case cited most frequently upholding the constitutionality of VLS) has addressed this issue as follows:

“ . . .Wolfgram argues the “prefiling” statute is overbroad because it prevents the filing of writs of habeas corpus and petitions for dissolution of marriage, resolution of paternity and adoption. We disagree. First, if a vexatious litigant chooses to file an action implicating family rights, which Wolfgram properly characterizes as subject to particular constitutional protections, the presiding judge of the proposed court presumably will take the nature of the action into consideration. For example, a declaration by the litigant that he is presently married and desires a divorce would, in all likelihood, constitute good cause to allow him to file a dissolution petition;. . .”.

Judge Morrison, author of the Wolfgram opinion, assures us that we can trust the presiding judge, qua official censor, to permit filing of parental rights litigation, just as the government censor can be trusted to allow the filing of any meritorious litigation.

The more important issue is that there should be no censorship at all of any litigation – even litigation filed by “. . .your garden-variety ‘vexatious civil litigant,’”.

Many systems are already in place to weed out unmeritorious litigation. Summary judgment motions, judgment on the pleadings motions. For abusive filings there are sanctions under Civ.Proc.Code sec. 128.5. For cases of abuse, there are actions for malicious prosecution. And for more extreme cases of harassment there is criminal prosecution under the barratry statute (Penal Code Sec. 158). All of these accomplish the same purpose without imposing an unconstitutional prior restraint (see previous blog posting on prior restraint) which the prefiling order under VLS sec. 391.7 does impose. “Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money” (Thomas Hobbes). and VLS sec. 391.7 is unnecessary for the purpose it is intended to accomplish..

The standard of strict scrutiny in analysing the constitutionality of sec. 391.7 should be applied because the right to file any litigation (not just parental rights litigation) if a fundamental right. At the risk of appearing to be repetitive (after all this blog is not a court brief!) I’ll repeat the sources stated in the earlier blog post in this regard . . .

“The right to represent oneself in United States courts dates back to the founding of the country. Having its roots in the British common law, the right to pro se appearances evolved as a combined proposition of “natural law,” an early anti-lawyer sentiment, and the egalitarian “all men are created equal” concept that “financial status should not have a substantial impact on the outcome of litigation.” The American legal ideal is that both the wealthy and the pauper could have access to the courts and could be treated equally with the resulting decisions being as fair as possible. The development of pro se rights in the United States has been tied to the rights of indigents to have access to the courts. Open access to the courts for all citizens has also been viewed as being important for the development of law and public policy and the avoidance of citizens’ resorting to non-judicial self-help.” (“The Pro Se Phenomenon” Drew A. Swank, Esq.* BYU Journal of Public Law v. 19 p. 373).

In fact, lawyers were banned outright or faced tight restrictions in many colonies for much of the 18th century. The “Body of Liberties” adopted by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1641 expressed the typical attitudes of the time:

“Every man that findeth himselfe unfit to plead his own cause in any court shall have libertie to employ any man …, provided he give him noe fee or reward for his pain.”.

Most states enforced few if any restrictions on non-lawyers appearing in court on behalf of others — as Lincoln himself did before he talked a judge into granting him attorney status. The American Bar Association convinced states to pass “unauthorized practice of law” statutes in the 1920s and 1930s, which effectively gave lawyers a monopoly over the sale of legal information;

Even a court exasperated by frivolous pro se filings recognizes this right:

“. . . the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws.” (Elmore v. McCammon (5th cir, SD Texas, 1986) 640 F.Supp. 905,911).

In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the US Supreme Court ruled that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.

In civil proceedings, the right to litigate in propria persona is also a protected right under California law.

Baba v. Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, 124 Cal.App.4th 504 (2004) states the following:

“. . .the right to represent oneself in civil proceedings conducted in this state, though
established by precedent rather than statute, is firmly embedded in California jurisprudence. This right is necessary to protect and ensure the free exercise of express constitutional rights including the right to acquire and protect property and to access the courts. It is also implicitly recognized by statute. For these reasons, we conclude that the right to represent oneself in civil proceedings is a general law of this state.. . .

“At least by 1896, our Supreme Court recognized that a litigant has the right to represent him or herself in a civil proceeding in this state. (Philbrook v. Superior Court (1896) 111 Cal. 31, 54 (Philbrook).) . . .

Since then, California courts have repeatedly and consistently acknowledged this right. (See, e.g., O’Connell v. Judnich (1925) 71 Cal.App. 386, 388 (O’Connell); Culley v. Cochran (1930) 107 Cal.App. 525, 531; Gray v. Justice’s Court (1937) 18 Cal.App.2d 420, 423; Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898, questioned on other grounds in CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1147; Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co. (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 156, 160; Doran v. Dreyer (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 289, 290; People ex rel. Dept. of Pubic Works v. Malone (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 531, 537; Abar v. Rogers (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 862, 864-865; Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1055; J.W. v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 965; Drake v. Superior Court (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830.) . . .

This authority establishes a “general rule” that “`any person may represent himself and his own interests, at law and in legal proceedings . . . .'” (J.W. v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 965.) . . .

The decisions make clear that self-representation is not just a privilege but also a right. As one court explained: “It will be observed that the privilege of practicing law is confined to appearing in behalf of others. The right of one to appear and conduct his own case is not affected. One is a privilege and the other is a right.” (Gray v. Justice’s Court, supra, 18 Cal.App.2d at p. 423.) . . .

Furthermore, It appears that the existence of such a right was never a subject of judicial dispute. (See, e.g., Paradise v. Nowlin, supra, 86 Cal.App.2d at p. 898 [noting that this general rule is “overwhelmingly sustained by the authorities.”].)” (Baba, supra).

The government, state, federal, or local, is prohibited from restraining or oppressing this right by censorship of any kind either before or after the publication of the expression.

If VLS sec. 391.7 is so clearly unconstitutional they why have appellate court judges in several cases made heroic efforts to uphold it? The reason is that sec. 391.7 is not so much a protection for a defendant litigant. It is of benefit to the judges themselves!

Pro se litigants simply don’t fit into the paradigm of our adversary system of litigation.
The adversary·process has been defined as follows:

“The central precept of the adversary process is that out of the sharp clash of proofs presented by adversaries in a highly structured forensic setting is most likely to come the information upon which a neutral and passive decision maker can base the resolution of a litigated dispute acceptable to both the parties and society.” (Stephan Landsman, THE ADVERSARY SYSTEM (Am.Enter.Inst.,c1984),p.2).

The adversary process has been historically linked to the jury trial. See Landsman, supra, pp.7-25.

Where even one of the litigants, is a laymen in propria persona, the purpose of the adversary system cannot be achieved.

The parties, and the system, under the adversary system:

“. . . have come to rely upon a class of skilled professional advocates to assemble and to present the testimony upon which decisions will be based. The advocates are expected to provide the forensic talents necessary to organize the evidence and to formulate the legal issues. If the lawyers fail to carry out their duty, development of the case will be impeded, and the adversary process may be undermined.” (Landsman, supra,p.4) .

Landsman, supra — although, essentially, a defense of the adversary system — recognizes that the adversary system is not appropriate for some types of disputes, for example disputes between family members.

“The adversary method is not equally useful in resolving all types of disputes . . . there are . . .settings in which adversary procedure does not seem appropriate. . . . Adversary procedure may exacerbate rather than resolve tensions and may not foster the kind of compromise essential to the restoration of harmony. For this reason, disputes between … family members . . . should usually be resolved in nonadversarial proceedings.” (Landsman,supra, at 52).

Ordinary citizens not represented by a lawyer – and often with little or no knowledge of the law (pro se litigants) – burden the courts and take time away from money-making, neatly-packaged litigation presented by expensive lawyers (which is much easier for judges to deal with). As one Australian judge put it: “ . . . litigants “with a blindness to procedural reality” are both a problem and quite distressing for judges.” (Freckelton, Vexatious Litigants: A Report on Consultation with Judicial Officers and VCAT Members, Law Reform Comm., Victoria, Australia, 1 October 2008 ).
The judge has a special duty to be patient and tolerant towards a pro per litigant.

“Where a party is not represented by counsel, the trial court will exhibit patience and tolerance and permit the widest latitude in any efforts to prove the charges made.” ( 8 8 C.J.S., Trial §36,p.95).

Several California cases recognize the special status of the pro per litigant. Pete v. Henderson (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 487 holds that the court has a special duty to aid a layman litigant representing himself in propria persona. Campbell v. Jewish Committee for Personal Service (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 771 holds that the court must be liberal in favor of the layman pro per litigant.

It’s much easier for a judge to simply throw a pro se litigant – who is vexing to the judge – out of the court system as a so-called “vexatious litigant” than it is for the judge to exhibit the required patience (especially now that there is a growing tide of pro se litigants for the judges to deal with).

Under VLS sec. 391.7 the judge can issue a prefiling order on his own motion. Thus sec. 391.7 has a built in conflict of interest. A basic axiom of American law (an obvious conflict of interest and due process violation) is that a judge does not initiate the litigation which he thereafter decides (there are exceptions where the judge can rule “on his own motion” – but VLS sec. 391.7 if far from being in the category of, say, a contempt-of-court proceeding).
Hopefully, there are some appellate court judges out there whose loyalty is to the administration of true justice rather than to maintaining the old boys’ club – litigation-as-a-chess-game paradigm – adversary system – where the unwashed masses of pro se litigants are not welcome..

Appellants’ Opening Brief-54
Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.6, Appellants certify that there are no related appeals pending in this court that arise out of the same district court case as the present appeal. Dated: November 5, 2013 s/ Archibald Cunningham Archibald Cunningham, Counsel for Appellants
Case: 13-17170 11/08/2013 ID: 8857526 DktEntry: 3-1 Page: 60 of 62
Appellants’ Opening Brief-55
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on November 5th, 2013. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system. s/ Archibald Cunningham  ______________________ Archibald Cunningham Attorney for Appellants
Case: 13-17170 11/08/2013 ID: 8857526 DktEntry: 3-1 Page: 61 of 62
Form 8. Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 9th CircuitRules 28-4, 29-2 c) 2) and 3), 32-2 or 32-41 for Case Number 13-1 7170 Note: This form must be signed by the attorney or unrepresented litigant and tt ched to the end of the brief I certify that check appropriate option;: r _;
This brief complies with the enlargement of brief size permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 28-4. The brief is type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32 a) 5) and 6). This brief is 12,936
words, lines of text or SO pages, excluding thee portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32 a) 7) B) iii), if applicable. I·This brief complies with the· enlargement of brief size granted by court order dated .The briefs type size and type face comply with Fed. R.App. P.2 ~) 5) and 6). This brief is words, –– lines of text or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32 a) 7) B) iii),
if applicable, or This brief is accompanied by a motion for leave to file an oversize brief pursuant to Circuit Rule 32-2 and is words, lines of text orpages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32 a) 7) B) iii),if applicable. 1 This brief is accompanied by a motion for leave to file an oversize brief pursuant to Circuit Rule 29-2 c) 2) or 3) and is words, lines of text or pages, excluding the portions~~exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32 a) 7) B) iii), if applicable. 1 This brief
complies with the length limits set forth at Ninth Circuit Rule 32-4. The briefs type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32 a) 5) and 6). Signature of Attorney or I Unrepresented Litigant\ ac/ s/ Archibald unm~gham,( s/plus typed name is acceptable for electronically-filed documents) Datelll/51131 filing a brief that falls within the length limitations set forth at Fed. R. App. P. 32 a) 7) B), use Form 6, Federal RulesofAppellate Procedure.Case: 13-17170 11/08/2013 ID: 8857526 DktEntry: 3-1 Page: 62 of 62