California Coalition’s complaint in its racketeering lawsuit against the San Diego County Bar Association and its divorce lawyer subsection details the collaboration between San Diego divorce lawyers and the City Attorney’s office in prosecuting critics. Below we excerpt sections of the complaint detailing the felony-level misconduct of San Diego misdemeanor prosecutor Emily Garson, in collaboration with domestic violence felon Lynn (Lyndolyn) Stuart and “parent evaluator” Stephen Doyne, in initiating a retaliatory prosecution against Cole Stuart, President of California Coalition. Garson was responding to California Coalition’s years of efforts to reform family courts.
The City Attorney spent tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting Stuart, an accomplished intellectual property litigator having worked for major international law firms in federal court trials and appeals for nearly two decades, for a speech misdemeanor: “annoying electronic communications.” Stuart was charged for “annoying” his ex-wife by attempting to set up phone contact times with his son.
The City Attorney’s prosecution was largely a failure–Stuart was acquitted for most of the charges, convicted only for emails in which he “cursed” in frustration at his ex-wife’s obstructive behavior.
“Garson told the jury that cursing is a crime. There are at least half a dozen supreme court and circuit court opinions that hold otherwise. She pulled a dirty trick and I confess that my lawyer dropped the ball” says Stuart. “We appealed but the sentence was so short there wasn’t time to resolve the issue, so we raised it in the federal lawsuit.”
The lawsuit alleges that in order to retaliate against California Coalition and Stuart for their reform activities and aggressive pursuit of Family Court Judges Joel Wohlfeil, Lisa Schall, and parent “evaluator” Stephen Doyne before federal and state disciplinary authorities, Garson and Goldsmith extended themselves to commit perjury, evidence tampering prosecutorial misconduct, and racketeering. Stuart’s and California Coalition’s activism on behalf of parents and children included giving evidence to the Southern District’s Grand Jury, United States Attorney, and making reports to law enforcement seeking the arrest of divorce lawyers, psychologists, and judges.
They abandoned all caution in this case, fabricating evidence and exaggerating charges to prosecute speech activity that is clearly not a crime. There is no explanation for such reckless behavior other than they had a major beef with our progress and wanted to punish us” says Stuart.
The lawsuit alleges that in retaliation, Garson and Goldsmith also pursued Stuart’s bar license, costing him a lucrative career as a federal court litigator. Stuart and California Coalition claim family court professionals are defrauding and harming parents and children in the divorce process. California Coalition’s and Stuart’s lawsuit claims over ten million dollars in damages.
Defending the lawsuit alone will cost city taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the city’s exposure for a share of the damage to Stuart and California Coalition is staggering.
The prosecution had no relationship to public safety and benefited no one other than the divorce industry” says Stuart. “Garson and Goldsmith destroyed my career, my ex-wife’s career, our son’s future, California Coalition’s momentum that we had achieved since 2008, and countless lost opportunities to help parents and children facing the enormously harmful treachery of divorce lawyers nationwide. Their behavior is prosecutorial misconduct, but also constitutes very serious federal felonies. Goldsmith and Garson are not merely foolish, they’re graceless, Godless, criminal swine” says Stuart.
Stuart says he will continue his work for California Coalition and families nationwide despite the devastating setback to his career. “I was taught to overcome adversity with faith and determination. Longer-term Garson and Goldsmith’s foolish arrogance may be a blessing to propel what we started five years ago–to confront and destroy a bestial industry populated by the dregs of the legal profession that empowers psychopathology, narcissism, and greed. Our intent at our founding in 2008 was to exterminate the malicious elements of the divorce industry, and Goldsmith’s and Garson’s failed prosecution has not only spotlighted them as a central force behind that menace, but delivered us the tools to exterminate it, and we pray them with it” says Stuart.
The case is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Hearing expected in late 2015.
Malicious Prosecution, Obstruction of Justice
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Cal. Const. art. I, § 26
349. This is a Count by STUART against GARSON, J. GOLDSMITH, C. GOLDSMITH (CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS), GROCH, for deprivation of rights under color of law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Cal. Const. art. I, § 26. This Count sets forth a series of related crimes of abuse of color of law authority and legal process to impose duress, undue influence, retaliation, and oppression on Plaintiffs. These acts include obstruction of justice, malicious prosecution, perjury, prosecutorial misconduct, kidnapping, and extortion under state and federal law, and form the factual basis of PLAITNIFFS’ Claims to several Racketeering Counts, and tolling by duress, fraud, and undue influence.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS TO COUNT 3
The SDCBA Claim and Demand
353. Shortly after the STUART ASSAULT, on about April 22, 2010, STUART delivered a letter to Defendant SDCBA and its then-President, Mr. Patrick L. Hosey, demanding compensation for the injuries STUART suffered in the STUART ASSAULT (the “CLAIM AND DEMAND”).
355. In about May, 2010, STUART received a letter in response to the CLAIM AND DEMAND from a representative, agent, and employee of Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (“CHUBB”), identifying CHUBB as the insurance carrier and Claim representative for SDCBA.
357. Defendants’ records will reflect that CHUBB’S letter summarily denied SDCBA’S liability for the STUART ASSAULT with no specific explanation. That letter now in Defendants’ possession will reflect that the only “defense” CHUBB’S representative asserted was asserting was that if STUART moved forward with any Claim, CHUBB and SDCBA would be asserting that STUART committed a “criminal trespass” at the April 15, 2010 SEMINAR.
358. STUART was puzzled by the letter. He promptly contacted the CHUBB representative by phone to discuss the CLAIM AND DEMAND and CHUBB’S denial based solely on a “criminal trespass” theory.
359. The CHUBB representative stated that he represented “all parties” and that STUART should direct all Claims for any injury relating to the STUART ASSAULT to him. He refused to identify what other “parties” he represented, stating only “I’m handling the Claim for all parties.”
360. The CHUBB representative admitted the basic facts of the STUART ASSAULT, but claimed that STUART was not legally present at the SEMINAR. He claimed that SUTART was a “criminal trespasser.”
361. STUART explained that he was not a “criminal trespasser,” but a paying attendee. He explained that he was ejected in retaliation for protected free speech activity, not for trespassing.
362. The CHUBB representative categorically denied that STUART was authorized to be present at the SEMINAR at any time.
363. The CHUBB representative made several misrepresentations: He denied that STUART had purchased admission to attend the SEMINAR, that STUART was rightfully at the SEMINAR, that STUART was in possession of a pre-printed name-badge, that STUART’S name had appeared on a pre-printed sign-in sheet prepared before the SEMINAR, and that STUART signed in as any normal attendee on a sign-in sheet that was then certainly in SDCBA’s possession. Defendants’ records will reflect that these Claims are false.
364. STUART inquired further about the statement that CHUBB’s “insureds” intended to “prosecute” a Claim for criminal trespass. STUART stated that SDCBA was a private corporation and that it could not “prosecute” any criminal matter, and asked if the CHUBB representative was referring to a civil “counterclaim” for damages caused by trespass. The CHUBB representative confirmed that he intended exactly what he had stated—a criminal “prosecution” as opposed to a civil “counterclaim.”
365. STUART inquired if CHUBB was asserting that he caused any personal injury or property damage in the ENGAGEMENT or at the SEMINAR. The representative laughed and quipped “not unless you call a bunch of angry judges ‘damage.’”
366. STUART was not amused. He pressed further whereupon the CHUBB representative responded that if STUART continued to pursue the CLAIM AND DEMAND, CHUBB’s “insureds” were “considering prosecution” of criminal trespass charges. He stated to the effect of “I suggest you drop it.”
367. STUART understood the representative to be making a threat to coordinate criminal prosecution for a demonstrably false charge of “criminal trespass” to “counter” a civil CLAIM AND DEMAND, by virtue of the common interests of SDCBA and the STUART ASSAULT COORDINATOR judicial officials in deterring STUART’S nominal $10,000,000 CLAIM AND DEMAND. He further understood the CHUBB representative to be advising that SDCBA and others had or were in process of fabricating or destroying evidence to fabricate a “criminal trespass” prosecution to “Counter” the CLAIM AND DEMAND.
368. Recognizing the scope of the dispute had expanded beyond a mere civil issue into what appeared to be a manufactured prosecution for criminal trespass to thwart the CLAIM AND DEMAND, STUART became intimidated and frightened by what he considered to be a very real threat to his personal security. The CHUBB representative indicated what appeared to be a conspiracy between CHUBB, SDCBA, and one or more of the STUART ASSAULT COORDINATORS, including powerful San Diego judicial officials. Such officials also maintained jurisdiction over STUART’S then-pending family law matter, criminal matter, and any case in San Diego County in which STUART was a party or counsel.
Prosecutorial Misconduct of Assistant City Attorney Emily GARSON
373. On about March 24, 2010, on information and belief, San Diego Assistant City Attorney Ms. Emily Garson (GARSON), made out a perjurous complaining witness declaration based on falsified or altered evidence, causing STUART to be charged with several misdemeanor violations of Cal. Pen.C. § 653m(a) (harassing by electronic communication) and (b) (repeated harassing by electronic communication), and one alleged misdemeanor violation of Cal.Pen.C. § 646.9(a) (stalking). The case GARSON initiated is identified as People of the State of California v. Colbern Stuart, San Diego Superior Court Case No. M104094DV (“People v. Stuart”).
374. The evidence of STUART’S crime has been kindly provided to this Court by counsel for Ms. Stuart at Doc. No. 48-14. The emails therein are impolite, rude, and indeed contain vulgarities. Yet unlike the sworn declaration that utilized those emails to initiate a retaliatory criminal prosecution and solicit a sentence of four years, the emails are not, and cannot be, crimes. See, U.S. v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012).
375. GARSON lacked probable cause to initiate the People v. Stuart matter. Her sworn declarations as a complaining witness in doing so are crimes—felonies under federal law—several and severe. STUART has endured years in persecution as a result of such outrageous behavior. He re-appears today to redress those acts for himself and, he prays, thousands of others who have suffered similar and even more outrageous insults, violations, deprivations, and injuries under the indecency of those who today occupy offices of honor, yet who regularly debase those offices while driven by motives no one, perhaps not even they themselves, could honor.
377. GARSON’S acts in investigating, manipulating evidence, witnesses, and the San Diego Superior Court, and initiating the prosecution of the People v. Stuart matter constitute CULPABLE and UNREASONABLE breach of one or more PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, and have foreseeably resulted in deprivations of STUART’S clearly-established rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Such acts are not immune from criminal accountability, and those on which the Claims of this Count are based, are not immune from civil.
379. On about April 6, 2010, GARSON caused to be filed a second perjurous Declaration In Support of Arrest Warrant relating to People v. Stuart containing similar false statements and misrepresentations based upon the same purported evidence. This documents is filed, though not authenticated, in this matter at Dkt#16-1, Ex. “A.”
381. On information and belief, GARSON collaborated, agreed, affiliated, and conspired with her boss, San Diego City Attorney and former San Diego Superior Court Family Division judge Jan Goldsmith, and her boss’s wife, sitting Family Division judge, and instant Defendant Christine Goldsmith, in such activities. On information and belief, C. Goldsmith and J. Goldsmith supervised, directed, encouraged, facilitated, and tolerated GARSON PERJURY ONE and TWO to interfere with and retaliate for Plaintiffs’ PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES and the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
382. On information and belief, GARSON, J. GOLDSMITH, and C. GOLDSMITH did so with the knowledge and support of SCHALL and WOHLFEIL, all of whom acted with the specific intent to retaliate against STUART for the DDIJO COMPLAINTS I and II against them.
384. Based upon GARSON PERJURY ONE and TWO, CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS caused STUART to be imprisoned without probable cause causing a false imprisonment for approximately 10 hours by agents of GORE. At the time STUART was imprisoned by GORE, GORE knew or should have known of the perjurous and retaliatory nature of the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS’ acts (FALSE IMPRISONMENT 1).
385. STUART became aware of the charges in the People v. Stuart matter in late April, 2010. STUART perceived the charges to be illegal actions to retaliate for, deter, and oppress Plaintiffs from pursuing PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, the CLAIM AND DEMAND, and the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
386. STUART became intimidated, frightened, and oppressed as a result of CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS’ illegal activities, and refrained from pursuing the CLAIM AND DEMAND, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITES, and this Action.
Prosecutorial Misconduct in People v. Stuart
387. In about June or July, 2010, STUART appeared for arraignment on the above-referenced misdemeanor charges relating to People v. Stuart.
388. STUART requested his attorney to discuss the case with the prosecutor representing the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS to determine the basis for the charges. STUART’S attorney approached the Assistant City Attorney prosecuting the matter, on information and belief Ms. GARSON, to initiate discussions.
389. After a few minutes of discussion, STUART’S attorney returned and explained to STUART to the effect that GARSON was “really pissed off on this one.” He stated that GARSON was angry for “something you did at a bar association meeting.” STUART recognized this as the STUART ASSAULT and the same “criminal trespass” charge that SDCBA’S insurance carrier had made. STUART explained the circumstances of the STUART ASSAULT to his attorney, who was unable to draw any conclusions.
390. STUART’S attorney advised that the GARSON stated she was intending to add more charges. Based on his conversation with GARSON, he surmised and advised STUART that GARSON was intending to “bump it up to a felony.” STUART’S attorney advised STUART to the effect of “they’re going to throw everything they can at you on this one.” STUART understood the “everything” to mean charging STUART for a felony relating to ENGAGEMENT based on the same charge that CHUBB had made as “criminal trespass.” A further status conference was scheduled to permit GARSON to amend the criminal complaint with more charges.
391. Sensing that the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS were using the threat of a felony or “criminal trespass” charge as an intimidation tactic retaliate against STUART for his CLAIM AND DEMAND, the DDIJO COMPLAINTS, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, on two occasions between about May 1, 2010 and February, 2011, STUART contacted GARSON by telephone, requesting that GARSON drop all charges in exchange for STUART’S backing off of the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, the CLAIM AND DEMAND, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES. GARSON refused to return STUART’S telephone overtures. On information and belief, GARSON’s notes or other documents related to the People v. Stuart matter will reflect these communications.
392. At a subsequent status conference STUART was arrested immediately upon appearing in court illegally and without probable cause as a foreseeable consequence of the GARSON PERJURY ONE and TWO, causing a false imprisonment for approximately 12 hours in the custody of GORE, who knew or should have known of the malicious and retaliatory nature of the prosecution and arrest (FALSE IMPRISONMENT 2).
393. After he was illegally imprisoned, STUART’S attorney conferred with GARSON about the case and charges. He advised STUART, who was in custody, to the effect of “They’re adding more charges for stalking and harassment” and that the charges related to “something about the bar association.” He had few details but asked STUART to explain his understanding of the email exchanges and bar association events.
394. STUART summarized the events of the “annoying email” exchanges between him and his ex-wife, and the SDCBA ENGAGEMENT and SEMINAR, including the CLAIM AND DEMAND and the CHUBB “criminal trespass” threat. The attorney indicated to the effect that “653m is unconstitutional” but that prosecutors “still charge it to get you to agree to a protective order.” He advised that “they never seek jail time on these.”
395. After further conversations with GARSON, the attorney returned to advise STUART that the City Attorney’s Office was taking an unusually hard line on the case. He advised GARSON would be seeking to add new stalking charges as a felony.
396. STUART understood the “new charges” to relate to the threat of a “criminal trespass” and/or “felony stalking” “CounterClaim” originally made by CHUBB. Because he was under ongoing prosecution for an illegal charge against protected speech, and threatened with additional illegal charges STUART was intimidated and frightened to take any action to assert the CLAIM AND DEMAND, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, or further PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY.
397. On information and belief, while STUART was in custody GARSON requested and received leave to add several additional misdemeanor charges, but no felony stalking charge.
398. In or about December, 2010-January, 2011, Stuart attended a pre-trial conference in the People v. Stuart matter. He was once again arrested immediately upon appearing. The arrest was without probable cause and a foreseeable consequence of the GARSON PERJURY ONE and TWO, causing a false imprisonment for approximately 10 hours in the custody of GORE, who knew or should have known of the malicious and retaliatory nature of the prosecution and arrest (FALSE IMPRISONMENT 3).
399. STUART’S attorney, Mr. Solomon Chang, advised consistent with prior attorneys that the City Attorney’s Office and GARSON were taking an unusually hard line in the case, and still seeking to add additional charges. Mr. Chang indicated the additional charges would include what he described as “felony stalking” charges. STUART understood these charges to relate to the bar association false “criminal trespass” theory.
400. STUART’S attorney inquired if GARSON would be willing to negotiate to dismiss the charges in exchange for backing off the CLAIM AND DEMAND, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES. Mr. Chang advised he would speak with GARSON. He did so, and returned, advising “no way” and to the effect “they want you to serve time on this one” and “you really made them angry.” He asked for more details about the ENGAGEMENT, and STUART ASSAULT. STUART shared the details, and Mr. Chang advised caution—to “wait and see” whether the City Attorney would be adding felony charges, or leaving the charge as several misdemeanors.
401. STUART was released from imprisonment the following day. He thereafter remained in fear that the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS would add manufactured charges based upon the “criminal trespass” and “bump it up” to a charge for “felony stalking.”
402. On the first day of the People v. Stuart trial in late February, 2010, before jury selection the assigned trial judge Michael GROCH placed STUART under “house arrest” illegally and without probable cause as a foreseeable consequence of the GARSON PERJURY ONE and TWO, causing a false imprisonment of approximately one week (FALSE IMPRISONMENT 4). STUART was not charged, arraigned, or prosecuted for any crime.
403. GROCH ordered that STUART could avoid being jailed through trial only if he rented a hotel room in downtown San Diego and did not travel beyond the hotel and the downtown County courthouse. GROCH denied STUART’S request to return to his home in Los Angeles during the week-long trial to gather clothing and toiletries. GROCH did not advise STUART of any charges or violation of law. Such acts, though possibly immune from civil suit, constitute “monstrous” felony criminal violations of STUART’S rights relating to SEARCH AND SEIZURE, PROCEDURAL and SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, and CRUEL AND/OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.
404. Mr. Chang failed to object or seek hearing on the illegal arrest, explanation of charge, or other remedy for STUART’S arrest and “house arrest” sentence, advising only to the effect “I told you, they’re pissed.” STUART immediately purchased a hotel room for the entire week, and was forced to purchase several suits, shirts, ties, undergarments and toiletries to last through the week-long trial.
405. On information and belief, the People v. Stuart matter was GROCH’S first trial since being appointed from the District Attorney’s Office four months earlier, and also on information and belief his last. GROCH was transferred to the Superior Court’s Family Law Division shortly after the People v. Stuart criminal matter, where he remains.
406. On the first day of trial, before jury selection, Mr. Chang again advised to the effect that Assistant City Attorney GARSON was “holding” additional charges for felony stalking relating to the “bar association.”
407. STUART advised Chang that he could testify as to the bar association events to prove they were not “stalking” but free speech activity. Chang told STUART “you can’t testify in this case,” explaining that they City Attorney would be able to elicit testimony relating to the ENGAGEMENT and bring more serious charges accusing such acts as a pattern of “felony stalking” in addition to whatever charges the City Attorney was then “holding.”
408. STUART protested that such charges would be unfounded. Chang politely agreed, but advised “they might still bring the stalking charges as a felony” and that STUART would “have to take your chances with a jury and on appeal” and “you’re looking at a lot more time for a felony.” As a result of the fear of being charged with “felony stalking”, STUART did not testify at trial on his own behalf.
409. Each charge for “annoying or threatening electronic communications” under Cal. Pen.C. § 653m(a) and (b) carries a maximum sentence of six months in County jail. The statute prohibits “electronic communications” that use “obscene language or address to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person.” Cal. Pen.C. § 653m(a).
410. GARSON apparently charged each email sent by STUART in the exchange between STUART and his ex-wife from September, 2009 and February, 2010 as a separate misdemeanor offense. According to GARSON’s closing argument at trial, if STUART used a “curse word” in his email, GARSON charged the email as an “obscene language” under the statute. STUART used several “curse words” which were clearly insults, though clearly not threatening or “obscenity” under controlling United States Supreme Court and Supreme Court of the State of California precedent. GARSON also charged the entire group of emails as a single misdemeanor “stalking” charge under Cal. Pen.C. § 646.9 (stalking). Doc. No. 48-14.
411. STUART requested that Chang move to dismiss the criminal complaint on grounds that the statute it is brought under imposes unconstitutionally overbroad and vague restrictions on free speech, as “annoying” communications may not be criminalized. STUART also requested that Mr. Chang move to dismiss the case on the grounds that the email conversations were protected speech as they were neither threatening nor obscene under clearly established U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, and that a motion seeking judgment as a matter of law on the uncontested evidence would be appropriate. See, U.S. v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012).
412. Mr. Chang agreed, and advised STUART he would make such a motion. Yet thereafter Mr. Chang failed to do so, instead raising the arguments—arguments on a question of law—in closing argument to the jury. GARSON successfully objected to the tactic. Mr. Chang failed to make a further motion to the Court, and the constitutional issues were not adjudicated.
413. Mr. Chang’s failure to properly assert the constitutional defense is inexplicable behavior for faithful, competent counsel. On information and belief, GARSON unduly influenced Mr. Chang, then a junior attorney on information and belief in his first trial, to forbear on asserting the constitutional defenses in order to impose duress, intimidation, and fear to impede and delay STUART’S CLAIM AND DEMAND and DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and this Action.
414. On information and belief, GARSON collaborated, agreed, affiliated, and conspired with her boss, City Attorney and former family division judge Jan Goldsmith, other STUART ASSAULT COORDINATORS, and other ENTERPRISE PERSONS, including Mr. Goldsmith’s wife, sitting Family Division judge, and instant Defendant Christine Goldsmith, in such activity.
People v. Stuart Trial and Execution of Sentence
415. GARSON prosecuted the People v. Stuart trial on by then over 40 misdemeanor charges under 653m and a single misdemeanor stalking charge which combined all of the emails into a single charge of a “pattern” for stalking. Such a “double” charge was, on information and belief, illegal. Mr. Chang failed to object even after STUART so requested.
416. On March 1, 2011, STUART was acquitted of the single misdemeanor stalking charge and about twenty of the misdemeanor “annoying email” charges.
418. On information and belief, in imposing the sentence GROCH was aware of the CLAIM AND DEMAND, STUART ASSAULT, Plaintiffs’ PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, DDIJO COMPLAINTS and imposed a cruel and unusual sentence to retaliate, impede, harass, and oppress STUART from initiating this Action.
419. On information and belief, GROCH did so in participation or operation of and in agreement and affiliation with the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS and in participation with one or more ENTERPRISES and conspiracies identified herein.
420. After sentencing, STUART’S attorney, Mr. Chang, advised STUART that he “better lay off whatever you were doing” and to “not piss these guys off again.” He failed to advise STUART of his right to stay execution of the misdemeanor sentence by filing an immediate appeal. Based upon such failure, STUART did not do so.
421. As a result of Mr. Chang’s failure to advise to seek appeal, STUART was illegally imprisoned as a foreseeable consequence of the GARSON PERJURY ONE and TWO, causing a false imprisonment in the custody of GORE, who knew or should have known of the malicious and retaliatory nature of the prosecution and arrest, for approximately 90 days. (FALSE IMPRISONMENT 5).
Malicious Prosecution Within California State Bar
426. Shortly after his release from illegal imprisonment in May, 2011, STUART was contacted by the State Bar of California regarding an action that had been initiated relating to his law license. STUART contacted the State Bar and spoke with a State Bar investigator assigned to the case, Case No. 10-C-03559, one Mr. Hugh Radigan. Mr. Radigan advised STUART that GARSON had contacted the State Bar to report STUART for misconduct.
427. The State Bar investigator shared details of his conversations with GARSON, advising STUART to the effect that “you’ve really stirred up some anger down there” and that GARSON demonstrated unusual animus toward STUART. He advised that GARSON had claimed that STUART was “harassing judges” referring specifically to the SDCBA ENGAGEMENT and the DDIJO COMPLAINT I regarding SCHALL. Mr. Radigan repeated Ms. GARSON’S use of a number of extremely derogatory insults, epithets, and vile language inappropriate for repetition here. He was oddly delighted with Ms. GARSON’S vitriol and rather perversely intrigued at what had enlivened her so.
428. Mr. Radigan stated that GARSON had pressed him aggressively to invoke disciplinary proceedings, but that she was the only complaining witness. He stated that Ms. Stuart was not a complainant and would not be a witness. He stated to the effect that because of GARSON’S involvement in the criminal prosecution and lack of any attorney-client relationship injury, GARSON was “not the best witness,” but that she was nevertheless insisting that the State Bar pursue discipline.
429. STUART explained the details of the SDCBA ENGAGEMENT, STUART ASSAULT, PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, and the email exchanges with his ex-wife to Mr. Radigan. Mr. Radigan indicated he had read certain relevant emails and read or heard details about the STUART ASSAULT, ENGAGEMENT, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES. He indicated that he personally didn’t believe any of the activities warranted discipline, but that GARSON’s aggressive pursuit of the matter compelled him to continue the matter. He advised STUART, “put something on file and this should go away.” On information and belief, Mr. Radigan’s notes, from which he read to STUART during their telephone conversation, will reflect these conversations, including Ms. GARSON’S defamatory, perjurous, and insulting statements.
430. STUART on about October, 2011, delivered a written response to the State Bar explaining his political activity, the STUART ASSAULT, the email exchanges, giving his defense, and requesting dismissal of all charges. STUART did not receive a further response from the State Bar.
431. On information and belief, GARSON alone initiated the State Bar proceeding and illegally induced Mr. Radigan and possibly other State Bar employees to pursue a groundless investigation and prosecution of STUART within the State Bar to retaliate, intimidate, harass, and oppress him relating to the CLAIM AND DEMAND, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITY. On information and belief, GARSON collaborated, agreed, affiliated, and conspired with each CITY ATTORNEY Defendant in such activity.
432. Because of the pending charges from the State Bar being aggressively pursued by MS. GARSON, the looming four year “suspended sentence”, the vague DVILS ORDERS, GARSON’s connection to them and demonstrated willingness to commit felony crimes to persecute STUART, after his first conversation with Mr. Radigan STUART was further intimidated and fearful of reprisal from CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS. He refrained from pursuing the CLAIM AND DEMAND, DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITES under the additional fear of jeopardizing his law license.
435. GARSON charged STUART with violating the “suspended sentence” based on several Internet “blog” posts STUART made criticizing the San Diego City Attorney’s Office’s handling of the People v. Stuart matter, and regarding the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS’ only witness to that matter—Ms. Stuart. (GARSON PERJURY 3).
436. Mr. Greg Turner represented STUART at the “suspended sentence” hearing. Before hearing Mr. Turner advised that he had “never heard of a case” imposing an actual jail sentence of four years for a petty “speech” misdemeanor like 653m. Mr. Turner’s specific comment was “they give felony drug dealers less time than this.” After conversations with GARSON and GROCH, Mr. Turner later advised to the effect that “they’re really out to get you!”
437. Mr. Turner relayed from GARSON that the City Attorney’s only witness in the “suspended sentence” imposition hearing would be STUART’S ex-wife, Ms. Stuart. At hearing, Ms. Stuart testified under oath that she was “working for the F.B.I.” to investigate STUART for “harassing” judges and based on his Internet comments regarding the City Attorney. Defendants’ records and transcripts will reflect that Ms. Stuart testified under oath that she was participating in an “investigation” with the F.B.I. and the City Attorney involving potential federal criminal charges against STUART.
438. None of the City Attorney’s witness testimony was relevant to any issue in the case charging STUART with violation of a protective order for his political criticism of the City Attorney’s Office illegal prosecution.
439. Nor was it true. After his May 15, 2013 release, STUART learned in September, 2013, that Ms. Stuart’s testimony under oath and under guidance of Ms. GARSON—was entirely false. In truth Ms. Stuart was in May, 2012 collaborating with F.B.I. Special Agent Keith Slotter on a television news periodical Ms. Stuart was then developing entitled “San Diego’s Most Wanted—the F.B.I. Files” which featured short news pieces on ongoing local “most wanted” criminal investigations handled by the F.B.I.’s office located within this District. A description of this publicity collaboration is located at http://www.rotarycluboflajolla.com/september-24-2013-speakers-keith-slotter-lynn-stuart-crime-see-tv-really-happens/.
440. Ms. Stuart had a “public relations” relationship with Agent Slotter through that show. On information and belief, Ms. Stuart at no time was participating in any “investigation” of STUART with the F.B.I., and no such investigation ever existed.
441. Nevertheless, Ms. Stuart’s perjurous allegations elicited at hearing by GARSON that STUART was the subject of an F.B.I. investigation relating to “harassment” of judges intimidated, frightened, and oppressed STUART, causing additional duress, and impeding his pursuit of this Action, PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES, and the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. On information and belief, GARSON, J. GOLDSMITH, and Ms. Stuart intended this oppressive effect by coordinating Ms. Stuart’s false testimony at the May, 2012 hearing. (GARSON PERJURY 4).
442. Defendants’ records will also reflect that at the June 2012 “suspended sentence” violation hearing, GARSON introduced printed Internet pages containing STUART’S comments about GARSON’s and J. GOLDSMITH’S competence and integrity relating to the People v. Stuart matter. Based solely on STUART’S protected free speech Internet commentary regarding GARSON, J. GOLDSMITH, and STUART’S ex-wife, GARSON requested the maximum imposition of the entire three and a half years remaining in the “suspended sentence.”
443. GROCH found STUART in violation of the conditions of his “suspended sentence” based solely on STUART’S Internet speech and imposed about 999 days of the 1350 days remaining in the “suspended sentence.” Defendants’ records and hearing transcript will reflect that the only evidence presented against STUART were non-threatening social and political commentary made on the Internet criticizing the City Attorney’s illegal prosecution, and Ms. Stuart’s perjury therein.
444. In addition to the suspended sentence, Defendants’ records and court transcripts will reflect that GROCH issued a third DVILS ORDER to STUART purporting to prohibit him from all speech, and even thought, about Ms. Stuart, Ordering STUART: “She does not exist to you.” STUART remains at jeopardy under such decree until May, 2022.
445. 18 U.S.C. § 242 provides:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
446. GROCH’S Order and GARSON’S numerous acts of punishment and prosecution of protected speech commentary against the City Attorney, and GARSON’S perjury and subornation of perjury constitute deprivations of STUART’S rights secured under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and related provisions of the Constitution of the State of California. Whether shielded from civil accountability or otherwise, the felonies represent a deplorable pattern of contempt of law. They are also RICO predicate crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A) and (B), as detailed below.
447. On information and belief, GARSON sought to impose these deprivations knowing such to be criminal violations of STUART’S constitutional rights in order to punish, retaliate, obstruct justice, and CHILL STUART from further criticism of the her, her boss, the City Attorney’s office, and all other Defendants herein, and to intimidate, harass, and oppress STUART from pursuing the CLAIM AND DEMAND, this Action, the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES.
448. After the sentencing in June, 2012, STUART’S attorney Mr. Greg Turner advised STUART that the sentence and prosecution of the case was the most “bizarre” he had ever heard of in over twenty years of practice. He advised that the sentence was illegal and suggested an appeal, but advised that such would not achieve relief by the time STUART had served his three year sentence.
449. STUART did file such an appeal, which was pending as of August 20, 2013.
450. At conclusion of his engagement, Mr. Turner digested his advice from his several days of work on the case, including relaying his several off-the-record interactions with GARSON and Judge GROCH. Turner stated to the effect that “you better not blink an eye or they’ll go after you again.” Turner also advised of his “off the record” conversation with GARSON and GROCH, on information and belief in an informal teleconference between the three prior to the suspended sentence hearing. Turner advised that he was “passing along” what Turner represented to be Judge GROCH’S “strong suggestion” that STUART leave the State of California and return to his boyhood home in Arkansas immediately upon his release.
451. On information and belief, GARSON and GROCH used Turner as a conduit and device to impose fear, retaliation, intimidation, duress, undue influence to impede STUART’S bringing this Action, cause him to leave this District, County, and State of California, and further deprive him of rights privileges and immunities secured under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California.
452. STUART was and in fact remains intimidated, oppressed, fearful, and under duress from GARSON’s and Judge GROCH’S illegal activity.
453. STUART was imprisoned by GORE, who knew or should have known of the malicious and retaliatory nature of the prosecution until release on May 15, 2013. Such constitutes a false imprisonment for approximately fourteen months (FALSE IMPRISONMENT 6).
454. In order to permit Defendants to satisfy their due diligence obligations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3) and (4) in responding to the Fist Amended Complaint, PLAINITFFS hereby waive all attorney-client communication privilege with regard to Mssrs. Turner and Chang, and invite Defendants to confirm these allegations directly.
GARSON’S Prosecutorial Misconduct at December 7, 2012 Early Release Hearing
455. On December 7, 2012, after STUART had been illegally imprisoned under the “suspended sentence” charges since April 10, 2012, STUART appeared before GROCH to petition for early release. GARSON appeared for the City Attorney’s Office to oppose early release.
456. The only evidence GARSON offered at hearing was a document she claimed to have obtained from the State Bar of California on the same day—December 7, 2012—which indicated that STUART had been disbarred just the day before, on December 6, 2012.
457. Defendants’ records and transcripts will reflect that GARSON presented the State Bar document to the Court, advising to the effect that “since he’s no longer employable as a lawyer” she was requesting the Court deny STUART early release. STUART had not been aware of the status of the State Bar prosecution while he was in jail and was unable to respond.
458. Defendants’ records and court transcripts will reflect that GARSON argued that STUART’s “unemployability” made him “at risk” to “repeat his offense”—the “offense” being comments on the Internet regarding the City Attorney and STUART’S ex-wife. Based solely on this argument, GROCH denied STUART early release, extending his incarceration another five months until May 15, 2013. At the time GROCH ruled in the matter, he was aware of DDIJO COMPLAINTS I and II, implicated him in violations of federal law.
459. On information and belief, after STUART spoke with Mr. Radigan in about October, 2011, GARSON induced further prosecution of the State Bar matter knowing that STUART was incarcerated and unable to defend himself. GARSON did so to force STUART’S disbarment in order to facilitate her arguments at the early release hearing that STUART posed a “risk” for further crime because of his “employability” and to further retaliate, intimidate, harass, and oppress STUART for and from pursuing the CLAIM AND DEMAND, this Action, the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, and PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES.
460. On information and belief, GARSON collaborated, agreed, affiliated, and conspired with the CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS and GROCH in such activity.
466. As an intended or a reasonably foreseeable result of these actions of Defendants, STUART has been reasonably fearful, intimidated, frightened, deceived, and thereby under duress and undue influence to exercise his rights to bring this Action sufficient to equitably extend or toll the running of any statute of limitations on all Claims. Ateeq v. Najor, 15 Cal. App. 4th 1351, 1356, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 320, 323 (1993); Lauter v. Anoufrieva, 642 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1101 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
Sadly, the San Diego City Attorney’s Office refuses to police itself, and refuses to reign in prosecutors such as Emily Garson,” says Stuart. “We sued them in federal court, and they hid behind the doctrine of “absolute judicial immunity” which they believe allows them to essentially commit murder without consequence. That is legally wrong and simply evil. If they won’t keep their own house obedient to law, then it’s time for San Diegans to clean that house for them. Therefore we’re calling for every San Diegan to take action against every City Attorney prosecutor. Violence is illegal, so we can’t advocate that, though it certainly is justified. If you’re on a jury, carefully consider the credibility of the City Attorney prosecutor. They lie like crazy, manufacture evidence, intimidate witnesses, and facilitate false testimony. It’s a disgraceful abomination–a mockery of law and order–acted out by those who should be held to the highest standards of obedience to principle,” says Stuart.
We say the City Attorney’s prosecution unit is infested with arrogant outlaws, and in depriving struggling families of the fair protection of the law, The City Attorney prosecutors have forfeited legal protections for themselves. They refuse to assure justice in our communities, and instead inflict extremely harmful injustice on struggling families–who they have targeted as enemies. That heinous behavior deserves the most severe of consequences–we’re not suggesting to bury these biased miscreant prosecutors alive, but we as families would celebrate any San Diegan who takes justice out of the hands of the unjust, and enforces a law that the City Attorney refuses to obey,” says Stuart.