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

1 Colbern C. Stuart III

E-Mail: Cole.Stuart@Lexevia.com
2 4891 Pacific Highway Ste. 102
San Diego, CA 92110
3 Telephone: 858-504-0171
Facsimile: 619-231-9143
4 In Pro Se
5 Dean Browning Webb (pro hac vice)
Email: RICOman1968@aol.com
6 Law Offices of Dean Browning Webb
515 E 39th St.
7 Vancouver, WA 98663-2240
Telephone: 503-629-2176
8
Eric W. Ching, Esq. SBN 292357
9 5252 Balboa Arms Dr. Unit 132
San Diego, CA 92117
10 Phone: 510-449-1091
Facsimile: 619-231-9143
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16 CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al.,
17
Plaintiffs,
18
v.
19
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR
20 ASSOCIATION, et al.,
21
22
23
24
25

Case No. 3:13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)

Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANTS REQUESTS FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED WITH
OMNIBUS, JOINDERS

Defendants Date: June 6, 1014

Time: 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: 4C
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL
Complaint Filed: August 20, 2013

26
27
28
1
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 162 Filed 05/20/14 Page 2 of 8

Plaintiffs hereby object and move to strike the following documents submitted

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

3 Defendants joinders thereto.
4
5

I.

AUTHORITY

Facts subject to judicial notice are those which are either (1) generally known

6 within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready
7 determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
8 Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). A court may not take judicial notice of a matter that is in dispute.
9 Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir.2001). The party requesting
10 judicial notice has the burden of persuading the court that the particular fact is not
11 reasonably subject to dispute and is capable of immediate and accurate determination
12 by resort to a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. In re Tyrone
13 F. Conner Corp., Inc., 140 B.R. 771, 781 (E.D.Cal.1992); Rodriguez v. Unknown14 Named disciplinary Hearings Agent, 209CV02195FCDKJNPS, 2010 WL 1407772
15 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2010).
16
17

II.

OBJECTIONS

A. Lucas Declaration/Request for Judicial Notice

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

18

19 Exhibit 1: Document entitled Declaration In Support of Arrest Warrant

20 signed by Defendant GARSON on April 5, 2010. (GARSON Declaration). The
21 document is also filed at Exhibit B to BIERERS Request for Judicial Notice. Both
22 submissions are objectionable for the following reasons.
23
24

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

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

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

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

28

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

2
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 Omnibus asserts merely that the Court may consider the exhibits without
7 explaining why the Court should do so. BIERER purports to assert its relevance to
8 establish a non-issue: Plaintiff Stuart is disgruntled over his prior arrests, convictions
9 in state court and ensuing prison sentences. BIERER Doc. No. 151, 2:8-9. As
10 explained in the Plaintiffs Opposition to the Omnibus and Joinders (Doc. 161), A
11 plaintiffs motives in bringing a lawsuit are irrelevant to a Twombly plausibility
12 analysis. Instead BIERER must identify an alternative explanation for her own
13 behavior other than, for example, knowingly furthering the STUART ASSAULT by
14 alerting SDCBA DOE 1 and SDSD of STUARTS location at the SEMINAR Doc.
15 No. 161, 98:4-6.
16

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

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

18 value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair
19 prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or
20 needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 403.
21

b. Objection: Lacks FoundationControverted Facts:

22

A request for judicial notice may be submitted only on noncontroversial facts.

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

24 falsified documents cited therein, and contains numerous false statements under oath.
25 Specifically, that GARSON a San Diego City Police Department official reports
26 contained 26 obscene and threatening emails between Plaintiff Stuart and his ex27 wife.
28
3
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 162 Filed 05/20/14 Page 4 of 8

1
2

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

3 hearsayout of court statements presently offered for the truth of the matters
4 therein asserted; The declaration is hearsay to this action, referencing a file, itself
5 hearsay to the criminal action and this action, containing hearsay statements or other
6 foundationless matter by a San Diego City Police Department officer, relating to
7 emails, further hearsay, containing obscene and threatening language, also
8 potentially hearsay.
9
10 Exhibit 2: Ex Parte Minutes form (CRM-177) relating to a misdemeanor
11 criminal case.
12
13

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

14 Defendants appear to proffer it as relating to Exhibit 1 but the face of the document
15 does not support such a conclusion.
16

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

17 stamp Roger Krauel, is dated April 14, 2010, but bears no facial reference to the
18 Garson Declaration, does not identify for whom the warrant was issued, the scope of
19 the warrant, and does not identify any agency receiving a warrant. Plaintiffs do not
20 acknowledge the document, and without more foundation which Defendants do not
21 and cannot offer at this stage, it is irrelevant.
22
23

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

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

25 under any circumstances. See Motion to Conduct Early Discovery.
26
27
28
4
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 162 Filed 05/20/14 Page 5 of 8

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

2 Coalition for Families and Children, PBC.
3

Defendants reference this exhibit in support of the proposition that California

4 Coalition is not a law firm or otherwise licensed to practice law and did not even exist
5 until one day before the complaint was filed. Defendants apparently assert this as a
6 fact supporting their request to dismiss the Lanham Act Count (COUNT 15).
7 Omnibus Doc. 131, 15:11-17. The line of cases on which Defendants rely has been
8 abrogated in Lexmark v. Static Controls (See Opposition to Omnibus). Because
9 standing to bring suit under the Lanham Act does not require competition, the
10 document is irrelevant. California Coalition, PBC is a successor in interest to
11 California Coalition, Inc. and Lexevia, PC. Plaintiffs have separately requested leave
12 to amend to plead these facts.
13
14 Exhibit 5: Decision and Order re: Inactive Enrollment
15

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

16 or business record foundation.

17

a. Objection: Relevance:

18 The document is referenced only in support of Defendants argument that STUART

19 cannot maintain a Lanham Act claim because As a matter of public record, Stuart
20 has been disbarred or suspended from practicing law in every 14 state where he was
21 admitted. (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.) Omnibus Doc. No.
22 131, 15:11-17. STUARTs present status as a member of any bar is irrelevant to any
23 issue properly before the Court. California Coalition, Lexevia, and STUART each
24 are within the zone of interest to satisfy Article III standing under the Lanham Act.
25

b. Objection: Lacks Foundation:

26 The document bearing no signature, date, filing stamp or other indicia of official or
27 business record foundation.
28
5
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 162 Filed 05/20/14 Page 6 of 8

1 Exhibit 6: Order Entering Default and Order Enrolling Inactive

2
3

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

4 irrelevant to the zone of interest determination. It is irrelevant for the same reasons
5 set forth above.
6
7

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

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

9 controversial and lacking foundation.
10
11 Exhibits 4, 7-10: Printed documents and printed pages relating to STUARTS
12 status with the State Bars of California, Nevada, and Arizona.
13

a. Objection: Relevance, Lacks Foundation:

14 For the same reasons as Exhibit 6 is irrelevant to the sole issue of Lanham Act
15 Standing, these documents are irrelevant.
16
17

B. Objections to DOYNE Request for Judicial Notice

18

(Doc. No. 143-2, 3)

19 RJN 143-3 Exhibit A to RJN; 2 Documents, One entitled Findings and Order
20 After Hearing and a second entitled Attachment to Findings and Order After
21 Hearing.
22
23

a. Objection: Lacks Foundation, Controversial:

The exhibit appears to be a fraudulent attempt to combine two separate

24 documents. The first page appears to be a form Findings and Order bearing an
25 unrecognizable signature dated August 8, 2008 apparently filed the same date. It is
26 not signed by counsel as approved as conforming to Court Order.
27

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

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

6
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM

Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 162 Filed 05/20/14 Page 7 of 8

1 June 16, 2008, which is not coordinated with the first page it is submitted with.
2 Though it is submitted by Defendant DOYNE it bears the initials SB,
3 corresponding to Defendant Sharon Blanchet. It thus appears to have been created by
4 DOYNE from filed owned by Plaintiff STUART, in possession of Defendant
5 BLANCHET, maintained for the benefit of Plaintiff STUART.
6

It is not stamped as filed with any court.

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

8 falsified documents in this action is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1512(c) and
9 will be added as an independent predicate crime in due course. For the time being the
10 exhibit is objected to as lacking foundation, irrelevant, and controversial.
11
12
13 DATED: May 20, 2014

By: /s/

14

Colbern C. Stuart III

Colbern C. Stuart, III, President,

California Coalition for Families and
Children, PBC
in Pro Se

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7

PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS

13-CV-1944 CAB BLM

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

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

3
4 The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
5 consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the
6 court's CM-ECF system per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b )(2)(E). Any other
7 counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail this
8 20th day of May, 2014.
9
10
11
12

By: /s/

Colbern C. Stuart III

Colbern C. Stuart, III, President,

California Coalition for Families and
Children, PBC
in Pro Se

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO
OMNIBUS
3:13-cv-1944 CAB BLM