Bennett Vs Sacramento County Public Defender's Office, Et Al.

Filed
Superior Court of California,

Sra pee, -_— Sacramento
MARSANNAY WA e
SACRAMENTO CA, 95829 oa/t7i2023
Tel: (916) 599-5142 zeyaadn
YN
In Pro P oo By , Deputy
WwW
satiate 23CV005471
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
-&
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
MN
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
NH
~s
AUSTIN BENNETT, Case No.: 23CV005471

CO
Plaintiff, BENNETT VS SACRAMENTO

COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S
@ BENNETTvsSACRAMENTO.com
Oo
vs. OFFICE et al.

10
Sacramento County First Amended Complaint
11 Public Defenders of Sacramento County
Sacramento County District Attorney
12 The Superior Court of California, County of
Sacramento
13 Ann Marie Schubert, an individual and in her
official capacity as District Attorney
14 Sidne Jones, an individual and in her capacity
as Deputy District Attorney
15 Amanda Founi, an individual
Melody Aguilar, an individual
16 Robert Woodard, an individual
Juan Contreras, an individual
17 Melissa McElheney, an individual
Amanda Massimini, an individual;
18
DOES 1 through 100;
19
Defendants.
20
21
22 Dated: August 3, 2023

23
24 AUSTIN BENNETT
25
26
27 AUSTIN BE DE A Y ON ALL ISSUES

28
BENNETT VS SACRAMENTO COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE et al.

ABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION \ ssscesscss ssisisisnessss saasisasastiesteons pepesenerens preenesvenens ereancemonaye 1

>
Il. TORE PAR EES es ecaccnannns » sy comemmmes + samamamiaame 1+ swemmmecmenmnnines 5 34.0000 tanmeoenene canawen 4-5
WN
A. The Plaintiff
NH
B. The Defendants
ny
C. The Doe Defendants

oO
a BENNETTvsSACRAMENTO.com
D Venue
Oo
10
11 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ores< « sevsnswnas.s sssamesomees snsmummenans sxsamanscchasasasic

odennde 5
12 A. Mr. Bennett Ruled Incompetent without a Trial or Evidence...................0.
eee 5
13 B. Complaint Summary.................cccccceccecseceececsececeeesececsececeeesacescuseucens 11
14 C. Mr. Bennett Charged for a Harmless Push................cccsceeceeececescececeseees 37
15 D. Judge Recuses Herself for Speaking to Senator Pan.................cccccececeseeeeoes 38
16 E. Mr. Bennett Granted Trial by Jury...............cccccceececseceeceeeeceeeeeseeesseeseces 38
17 F. Mr. Bennett Declared Competent, Faretta Waiver Signed..................ccceeeeeee 39
18 G. Defendant Founi Raises Doubt per Mr. Bennett’s Competence................sc0000 40
19 H. Blind Sided by Defendant Amanda Foumi...................ccccceccececcuccecescecues 42
20 I. Who Raised the Doubt was like a Hot Potato...............ccccssesecceeceseseeeceeeeeees 46
21 J. Mr. Bennett Ruled Incompetent without Trial or Due Process.................0se0e0 49
ae K. Mr. Bennett Denied the Right to See the Evidence Used Against Him.............. 52
23 L. Psych Eval Proven Fraudulent, Doctor Claims it was an Accident................... 55
24 M. Evidence Shows Ms. Founi Raised the Doubt, but Denies it....................102-.56
25 N. Defendants Refused to Showed Mr. Bennett any Evidence..................ce0eeee0e at

26 O. Evidence Demonstrate Fraud, Corruption and Malice................ccceceeeeeesecceees 58
27 P. Defendant Juan Contreras Threatened Mr. Bennett Not to Pursue Jury Trial........ 59
28 Q. Defendant Melody Aguilar Ensured Mr. Bennett’s False Imprisonment............. 61
2
R. Austin’s Texts Demonstrate His Understanding of Court Procedural Rules........ 61
S. Defendant Founi Never Submitted Statement of Reasons................ssecceeceeeeee 64

T. Defendant Melissa McEleheney Admits Doctor’s Report Was Fraudulent..........68
Ww
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF................0.cccceccececcsceececeececeecsececeueeeeeeeceeeeeeeeses 69

wa
Count TS Cloegal Ma pea ctice )cecics <imncuscemenea smwneammanains snnrinomanaad Kaananteanses ticahhssiennsd 69
NH
Count II: (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) .................cceeceeeeeeee

cesses 74
ny
Count III: (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)...............ccscceeceeceecesenees 79

fo
com
Count IV: (Abuse of Process).............csccsecsscscceceeceeceeceecceceeeeecesceecessesecees 84

Oo
10 Count V: (Fraud & Intentional Deceit).............ceccccecceceececeeeeececeeecuececeeeesses 86

11 Count VI: (Constructive Fraud)............ccceccsceecsececeececeeeeeseeeceeaeseseseeseectess 88
12 Count VII: (Negligent Misrepresentation) ...............ccccceceecececececsssececececeeessses 90
13 Count VIII: (Defamation Per SE)..............ccccececeecececsecceseucesecsscsccucaseneeceeecs 92
14 Count USS (LABED sssasancavss.s saawaeanmaas ssscndaiadtidsin se anangeereyes epnemmpeses ¢ ewanmeemnerennesncers 93

@ BENNETTvsSAC
15 Count Xs (Slander): « sascssssssscanesss sscacasawaces saovsageneeesveerensgesess

sepunesnnanganrse wave 93
16 Count 200 False Ligtae. s sascnmremramac nacasmatnnns + sansitiie sien s onesies + s-ereawasennnneanen 94
17 Count XII: (Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Attorney)............c.cccccccessscccscsscesseeees 96
18 Count XIII: (Personal Injury)............c.cccceeceecescsecececeeceeceeceecesceeceeceeceescnss 99

19 Count XIV: (Negligent Undertaking)...............ccccccsccseceeeseceeceeeessceeseeccsscees 100
20 Count XV: (Negligent Hiring, Retention & Supervision)..................cccceeeeceessees 101
21 Count XVI: (Public Entity: Failure to Discharge a Mandatory Duty)................066 103
22 Count XVII: (Gross Negligence).............cscececseseccsescecesncucusecucssnescueeeveneesss 105
23 Count XVIII: (Negligence)............ceecececceceecsececeeceeeecsececeeceeeeeseeesseeeesseees 106

24 Count XIX: (Loss of Consortium)...............csccsecsecsececseceeceeeeeceeceeceeseeceessss 111
25 Count XX: (Intentional Misrepresentation)................ccceecsecsecsececeeceeceeceesseess 116
26 Count 20015 (Combes pent) ics: sxcsmasaenss sonmmnneans aateans sacasanieges tortepttonscerereegars 118
27 Count 202s (COV CFS OF Vaca : senmomamenes « nanemnpoaured +4 stamens +X snkiibleipiind «« viotbelompengrsess 119
28 Count XXIII: (Violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act)...............ccccecsceceseeeeseeces 122
3
WN
V. NON-PUNITIVE DAMAGEG.............cccccescccseccceeccseceseeceeceeesesecssssecaneceuae 130
VI. = PUNITIVE DAMAGEG...............:cssseccccssscccceasecccceueeccsasessceceuscessecesenecs 131

WwW
>
VIE. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..........ccsssscccesecccesecceeeeccesseceeceseuscceeueceeusaeeceestees 131

NN
NH
Rc Dee EOSIN ed terse vesnctunremaarwn sonasnmmenins sna gnats 504 }mapaibdiews -ramastenceSounoek 131
ww
co
THE PART
Oo
10
The Plaintiff
ll
12
1. Austin Bennett (Kenneth Austin Bennett). Mr. Bennett is an individual whose principal
13
residence is located in Sacramento County, CA.
14
15
B. The Defendants
16
17
18
Sacramento County Public Defenders
19
YS
The Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento

SF
20
VM
21
Ann Marie Schubert, an individual and in her official capacity as District Attorney
22
NAD
Amanda Founi, an individual

23
Melody Aguilar, an individual
24
er
Bob Woodard, an individual

25
10. Robert Woodard, an individual
26
11. Juan Contreras, an individual
27
12. Melissa McElheney, an individual
28
4
13. Amanda Massimini, an individual
WN
C. The Doe Defendants

WwW
ih
15. DOES 1 through 100. Plaintiffs allege at all times mentioned herein, the true names or
WN
capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, county or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1

NDA
through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs and therefore Plaintiffs sue these DOE
I
defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true
co
com
names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon
Oo
10 allege that each of these fictitiously-named defendants is responsible in some manner for the
11 occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs' damages as herein alleged were proximately
12 (legally) caused by their conduct.
13
14
D. Venue
@ BENNETTvsSA
16
17 16. Venue is properly laid in Sacramento County because the defendants all maintain an office in
18 this County where the plaintiff was harmed, the individual Defendants work and/or reside in this
19 County, and the facts and circumstances giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in substantial part in
20 this County.
21
22
III. Statement of Facts
23
24
A. Mr. Bennett Ruled Incompetent Without trail or Evidence
a
26
27
28
5
17. The DEFENDANT did not allow Mr. Bennett to see the report from Dr. Jakubowski before
he was found incompetent. Mr. Bennett asked many times to see the doctor’s report via text, but
the defendant refused.
WN
WwW
18. Mr. Bennett was ultimately was found incompetent to face trial on August 17, 2022 and his
-&
case was dismissed. Mr. Bennett still had not been shown the doctor’s report.
NN
NHN
19. Mr. Bennett was denied his right to a competency trial, in order to challenge the doctor’s
nN
findings, which were kept from Mr. Bennett.

Co
com
20. Mr. Bennett never met with the court doctor, who falsified a report claiming she met with
Oo
10 Mr. Bennett in the Sacramento County Jail.
11
12
21. Judge Peter Southworth stated on July 26, 2022 (transcript TS :58) that he was in receipt of a
13 report, “ultimately determining Mr. Bennett is not incompetent to stand trial stating, “That’s
14 based largely on Mr. Bennett’s declining to, or refusal to cooperate and answer in the
a BENNETTvsSAC
15 competency examination, as well as Dr. Jakubowski’s review of various records.”
16
22. Mr. Bennett had never been diagnosed for any mental disorder, including depression or any
17
other type of abnormal behavior. Mr. Bennett never saw the “various records” used to find him
18 incompetent to face trial.
19
20
23. Refusing to meet with a court doctor does not constitute incompetence to stand trial, nor
21 come to anything close to what statutory law describe as incompetent to stand trial. See § 1368,
22 CA Judges Benchguide [§63.2]b.[§63.14], [§63.15][§63.14]
23
24. Mr. Bennett would have to be incapable of understanding the purpose or nature of the
24
criminal hearings to be found incompetent, and his many texts and court transcripts competency
25
hearings demonstrate otherwise.
26
27 25. Acting DA Sidney Jones admitted on record, July 26, 2022 (Court transcript 1:50), that Mr.
28 Bennett did not meet with the court doctor.
6
26. On August 17, 2022, after admitting at the hearing on July 26, 2022 Mr. Bennett did not
speak to the court doctor, the DA used the same report to find Mr. Bennett incompetent.
27. The judge also admitted on record at two different hearings, Mr. Bennett politely declined to
meet with the court doctor (see Court transcripts 7/21/22, TS :30 and 7/26/2021).
NHN
28. Mr. Bennett asked the DEFENDANT to give him a copy of the doctor’s report multiple
~
times, but the defendant ignored Mr. Bennett.

©
29. Mr. Bennett was ultimately found to be incompetent to face trial and his case dismissed,
Oo
10 without ever seeing the evidence or report that was being used against him.
11
30. Mr. Bennett was denied a competency trial, as required by law.
12
3
31. It was the defendant’s responsibility and obligation per Pen C § 1368(b) before there was
14 even a suspension of Mr. Bennett’s jury trial, to confer with Mr. Bennett and certainly go over
15 the report to ensure Mr. Bennett’s right to due process was not violated.
16
32. Mr. Bennett’s rights to see the doctor's report were violated at multiple levels, including the
17
Constitution, statutory and professional rules of conduct.
18
19
33. “(a) A lawyer shall: (3)... promptly comply with reasonable requests for information and
20
copies of significant documents when necessary to keep the client so informed;”
21
22
34. Rule 3-700(D) of the State Bar of California Rules of Professional Conduct instructs
Zs
attorneys must “promptly release to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers
24
and property. 'Client papers and property’ includes correspondence, pleadings, deposition
25
transcripts, exhibits, physical evidence, expert's reports, and other items reasonably necessary to
26
the client's representation, whether the client has paid for them or not."
27
28
7
N
35. Mr. Bennett prevented from ever seeing the report, which proved to be fraudulent.
36. The DEFENDANT refused to give Mr. Bennett the doctor's report even after the dismissal,
WwW
instructing him to go to the courthouse if he wanted to see it.

-F
37. When Mr. Bennett arrived to the courthouse, he was told the report was sealed and he could
Wm
not see it unless the judge gave permission.

NH
ms
38. Mr. Bennett was unable to dispute the contents of the report, because the defendant kept it
fo
from him and refused to show it to him. The only way Mr. Bennett could have disputed the
a BENNET TvsSACRAMENTO.com
Oo
findings in the doctor’s report, which was later discovered to be fraudulent, was to see the
10 findings which he was prevented from.
11
12 39. It was not until Mr. Bennett’s case was dismissed, because he was deemed incompetent to
face trial (without a trial to defend himself), that he finally saw the report, which was around one
13
months after his case was dismissed.
14
15
40. The DEFENDANT intentionally deprived the interest of Mr. Bennett in property through
16
the unauthorized act and causing Mr. Bennett harm.
17
18
19 41. The DEFENDANT admitted, after Mr. Bennett’s case was dismissed based on the psych
20 eval, that the doctor’s report was fraudulent.
21
22
42. Mr. Bennett told the public defenders many times, including by text, that he had not met with
23
the doctor and to please give him the doctor’s report so he could go over it; but they refused.
24
Zo
43. For the DEFENDANTSs to say they did not know it was fraudulent is disingenuous, based on
26
the public defenders actions by refusing to let Mr. Bennett have a copy or even see the report.
a
28
8
44. During Mr. Bennett’s evaluation on January 3, 2012, Dr. Marine Jakubowski forensic
clinical psychologist owed a duty to Mr. Bennett to perform her evaluation within an acceptable
standard of care within the psychology community and Dr. Marine Jakubowski breached this
standard of care by including false facts in her report.
45. Being found incompetent to stand trial has negative consequences outside of court
NHN
proceedings.
nN
CO
46. Being found incompetent to stand trial has a social stigma attached to it.
Oo
10
11 47. Being found incompetent to stand trial has serious consequences.

12
13 48. The public defender’s who were representing Mr. Bennett stated that he went on “rants”
14
15 49. The public defender’s representing Mr. Bennett did not like they way Mr. Bennett
16 communicated through text.
17
18 50. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett found his questions annoying.
19
20 51. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett did not want to go to trial.
21
22 52. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett did not want to depose or put Senator Pan on
23 the stand.
24
25 53. Mr. Bennett and the public defenders representing him did not see eye to eye.
26
2i 54. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett found him obnoxious.
28
9
55. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett decided to advance the theory of
incompetence.
WN
>WwW
56. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett advanced the theory of incompetence because
they thought they could end the case faster.
MN
ND
57. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett advanced the theory of incompetence because
NN
they did not need Mr. Bennett’s cooperation or approval.

oOo
com
Oo
10 58. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett advanced the theory of incompetence
11 because they it was easier for them then representing Mr. Bennett in the way Mr. Bennett
12 wanted.
13
14 59. Mr. Bennett’s trial was cut short and saved the public defenders work because Mr. Bennett
@ BENNETTvsSAC
15 was found incompetent.

16
17 60. The DEFENDANT saved them self from having to listen to Mr. Bennett’s “rants” and
18 answer Mr. Bennett’s questions about the laws because Mr. Bennett was found incometant.463.
19 Beal Bank SSB v. Arter & Hadden LLP, 42 Cal. 4th 503, 514 (2007) (citing Neel v. Magana,
20 Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand, 6 Cal. 3d 176, 188-89 (1971)). “This disclosure obligation
21 was recognized by the California Supreme Court in Neel over fifty years ago. Fiduciary duty
22 includes the obligation to render a full and fair disclosure to the client of all facts that materially
23 affect the client’s rights and interests.”
24
25 61. 464. Fiduciary duty includes “the obligation to render a full and fair disclosure to the client
26 of all facts that materially affect the client’s rights and interests.”
27
28
10
62. It was not until Mr. Bennett’s case was dismissed for the furtherance of justice based on his
incompetence, because he was not able to see the report and challenge the findings.
63. The defendant finally gave the report to Mr. Bennett nearly one month after his case was
dismissed.
NHN
64. Mr. Bennett could have challenge the false findings, had the DEFENDANT shown him the
mn
report.
fo
a BENNETTysSACRAMENTO.com
Oo
10 65. Mr. Bennett could have pointed out the errors had the DEFENDANT given him the report.
11
12 B. Complaint Summary
13
14 66. Mr. Bennett charged with simple misdemeanor battery.
ie
16 67. Mr. Bennett faced six months in jail, or a $1,000 fine.

17
18 68. Mr. Bennett did not want to be found incompetent.
19
20 69. The push had nothing to do with a firearm. Mr. Bennett does not own any firearm.
21
22 70. Mr. Bennett petitioned the court to act as his own attorney.
23
24 71. Prior to granting the Faretta motion, Judge Pamela Smith-Steward ensured Mr. Bennett was
25 acting knowingly, intelligently, and with awareness of the risks associated with self-
26 representation.
ZT
28
11
72. Judge Pamela Smith-Steward evaluated and assessed Mr. Bennett competent to self
represent.
N
WwW
73. Judge Pamela Smith-Steward signed the Faretta waiver on 11/18/2019, validating her due
-&
diligence.
WN
ND
74. As required by law, Judge Smith-Steward did her due diligence to find Mr. Bennett
NN
competent to self represent

fo
oOo
10 75. Mr. Bennett's Faretta motion was approved on 11/18/2019.
11
12 76. Mr. Bennett was granted a jury trial.
13
14 77. Senator Pan would have to testify. Mr. Bennett intended to cross examine him.
15
16 78. At the start of Mr. Bennett’s following trial hearings, he arrived late with his son.
17
18 79. Prior to arriving, Judge Pamela Smith-Steward steward issued a bench warrant for Mr.
19 Bennett’s arrest, for failure to appear.
20
21 80. Mr. Bennett 12-year old son had accidentally locked his office and car keys in his office, so
22 he had Uber to his hearing.
23
24 81. Judge Pamela Smith-Steward could see Mr. Bennett in court with his son when he arrived
25 late, the judge did not retract the bench warrant, so Mr. Bennett had to post bail.
26
27 82. Mr. Bennett's bail amount was set for $15,500. Normal bail amount for similar situations
28 was $1,500-$2,000 at the time.
12
83. Judge Pamela Smith-Steward demonstrated an unfavorable prejudice towards Mr. Bennett.
84. The person working the counter at the Sheriff's department where Mr. Bennett posted the
$15,500 bail expressed, “Wow!! The judge must not have liked you!”
85. Hearings dragged out for more than a year per COVID lock-downs.
NW
wn
86. On hearing 02/15/2022, Mr. Bennett’s Zoom call reception was terrible. You can hear the
co
distortion in Mr. Bennett’s voice, and he was not able to hear well what was going on in court.
oOo
10.
11 87. Mr. Bennett was pro per at the time, but was interviewing a trial attorney who wanted six
12 weeks before the hearing in order to better prepare.
13
14 88.45. When Mr. Bennett got off the zoom call, Judge Pamela Smith-Steward waited to raise
IS doubt about Mr. Bennett’s competence behind his back.
16
17 89. Judge Pamela Smith-Steward instructed the bench officer to ensure Mr. Bennett was charged
18 with a Penal Code 1368 per “competency issues,” if he did not hire counsel and choose to go pro
19 per.
20
21 90. Judge Smith-Steward did not bother following procedural rules, which required her to state
22 the doubt on record in front of Mr. Bennett, then go through a check list of questions to see if
23 indeed there was substantial evidence for bona fide doubt concerning Mr. Bennett’s competence.
24
25 91. Only with substantial evidence could the court suspend the jury trial and start competency
26 hearings, to ascertain if Mr. Bennett was competent to stand trial.
27
28
13
92. California law clearly states Mr. Bennett was to be presumed competent, until there was a
competency trial that would permit Mr. Bennett to challenge the findings, per due process, and
N
bring his own witnesses, including psychologists.

>WwW
93. The burden of proof was on the court to find Mr. Bennett incompetent who was to be
MN
presumed competent.
NHN
nN
94. It was not Mr. Bennett’s responsibility to prove his competence.

fo
com
Oo
10 95. Mr. Bennett did not receive a competency trial, as required by law.
11
12 96. The first steps Judge Smith-Steward should have taken, if she had doubts concerning Mr.
13 Bennett’s competency, was to raise the doubt, state whatever the doubt was on record, then ask
14 Mr. Bennett a series of questions.

@ BENNETTvsSAC
15
16 97. Judge Smith-Steward should have asked Mr. Bennett very basic questions in order to assess
17 Mr. Bennett, but she did not. She simply stated there was a “competency” issue behind Mr.
18 Bennett’s back, and chose not even to be at his next hearing to follow court rules to assess Mr.
19 Bennett.
20
21 98. It was Judge Smith-Steward’s on going duty as a trial judge, especially since she raised a
22 doubt. Instead, she instructed the court to remind the bench officer who would preside at Mr.
23 Bennett’s next hearing, that if Mr. Bennett would be pro per, to raise PC 1368.
24
25 99. The CA Judges Benchguides gives a procedural checklist for the trial judge to question the
26 defendant, but the judge chose to disregard the law and move outside of court procedural rules.
27
28
14
100. Judge Smith-Steward, the trial attorney to Mr. Bennett’s jury trial, did not bother showing
up to Mr. Bennett’s following hearing, though it was her obligation according to the law.
N
WwW
101. The first steps Judge Smith-Steward should have taken, if she had doubts concerning Mr.
&
Bennett’s competency, was to raise the doubt, state whatever the doubt was on record, then ask
MN
Mr. Bennett a series of questions.

NH
nN
102. Judge Smith-Steward should have asked Mr. Bennett very basic questions in order to assess
co
com
Mr. Bennett, but she did not. She simply stated there was a “competency” issue behind Mr.
Oo
10 Bennett’s back, and chose not even to be at his next hearing to follow court rules to assess Mr.
11 Bennett.
12
13 103. It was Judge Smith-Steward’s on going duty as a trial judge, especially since she raised a
14 doubt. Instead, she instructed the court to remind the bench officer who would preside at Mr.
a BENNETTvsSAC
15 Bennett’s next hearing, that if Mr. Bennett would be pro per, to raise PC 1368.
16
17 104. The CA Judges Benchguides gives a procedural checklist for the trial judge to question the
18 defendant, but the judge chose to disregard the law and move outside of court procedural rules.
19
20 105. Judge Smith-Steward, the trial attorney to Mr. Bennett’s jury trial, did not bother showing
21 up to Mr. Bennett’s following hearing, though it was her obligation according to the law.
22
a 106. The California Judges Benchguides in § 63.12 states the judge has a “continuing duty” to
24 “make proper inquiry regarding a defendant’s mental competency or to understand the nature of
25 the sentencing procedure.
26
27
28
15
107. “This duty may not be avoided by relying solely on a pretrial decision or pretrial psychiatric
report”... clearly, to raise the doubt while Mr. Bennett was not present and not to show up at the
N
next hearing, ensured the judge was neglectful in her “continuing duty.”
WwW
fF
108. Instead of Judge Smith-Steward appearing to the next hearing, Commissioner Cintean
MA
appeared.
HN
ws
109. Commissioner Cintean had no previous experience with Mr. Bennett.

fo
com
Oo
10 110. Commissioner Cintean stated the previous judge had a doubt and that so did he.
11
12 111. The DEFENDANT never defended Mr. Bennett, even when he texted the DEFENDANT
13 telling them the rules of procedure were violated by the commissioner and judge.
14
@ BENNETTvsSAC
15 112. The public defenders never defended Mr. Bennett, even when he texted the DEFENDANTs
16 telling them the rules of procedure were violated by the commissioner and to have him recused.
17
18 113. Instead, a commissioner replaced Judge Smith-Steward, and he himself claimed to have a
19 doubt per Mr. Bennett’s competency, though he never spoke to Mr. Bennett, and immediately
20 muted Mr. Bennett when he objected.

21
22 114. Mr. Bennett’s mic was left on mute, so he could not defend himself.
23
24 115. The public defender, Amanda Founi, misrepresented to the court she represented Mr.
25 Bennett.
26
27 116. Court transcripts will testify Mr. Bennett was pro per, and that the DEFENDANT lied.
28
16
117. DEFENDANT Amanda Founi is heard whispering to the commissioner, that she had a
doubt about Mr. Bennett’s competence.
WN
Ww
118. Commissioner Cintean suspended Mr. Bennett’s jury trial without authority, evidence or
-&
abidance with court rules. The order was unlawful.

WN
NH
119, The DEFENDANT Amanda Founi did nothing to defend Mr. Bennett’s rights, but instead
ws
supported the suspension of Mr. Bennett’s jury trial, as well as supported the order for Mr.
oOo
Bennett to see the court doctor.

Oo
10
11 120. The commissioner ordered Mr. Bennett to see the court doctor to have a psychological
12 evaluation done.
13
14 121. On 3/17/22 court hearing, DEFENDANT Amanda Founi raised the doubt about Mr.
15 Bennett’s competence.
16
17 122. PC 1368(b) required DEFENDANT Founi to provide a statement of specific reasons, but
18 she did not.
19
20 123. The commissioner stated the previous judge had a doubt and that so did he.
21
22 124. The commissioner had to state what the doubt was on record, but he did not.
2
24 125. The commissioner did not have the authority to suspend Mr. Bennett's jury trial.
25
26 126. The trial judge was the only one who had the authority to suspend the jury trial, but only
27 with substantial evidence. There was none.
28
17
127. Judge Peter Southworth on a later hearing relating to Mr. Bennett’s competency, admitted
on record there may have been issues with the commissioner’s determination concerning Mr.
N
Bennett.
WwW
&
128. The pubic defenders did not defend Mr. Bennett’s rights which were violated, even when
WN
Mr. Bennett spelled them out via text.

NHN
wn
129. The pubic defender did not defend Mr. Bennett when court rules were violated, even when
co
com
Mr. Bennett spelled them out via text.

Oo
10
11 130. DEFENDANT Founi refused to file a motion on Mr. Bennett’s behalf when asked via text,
12 but instead claimed there was nothing she could do.

13
14 131. There had to be substantial evidence in order have bona fide doubt to start a competency
@ BENNET TvsSAC
15 hearing, but there was none submitted.
16
17 132. DEFENDANT Founi denied raising the doubt.

18
19 133. The commissioner said he forgot who raised the doubt when asked by Mr. Bennett at the
20 next hearing on 5/19/22.
Z1
22 134, The day of Mr. Bennett's jury trial being suspended, DEFENDANT Founi said the “judge”
23 raised the doubt.
24
25 135. The day of Mr. Bennett's jury trial being suspended, DEFENDANT Founi told Mr. Bennett
26 she no longer would be representing Mr. Bennett.
Zi
28
18
&
136. The new public defender, Melody Aguilar, texted Mr. Bennett telling him DEFENDANT
Founi raised the doubt, but Ms. Founi texted Mr. Bennett saying it was the commissioner who
N
raised the doubt.

WW
Sf
137. Later, DEFENDANT Aguilar said the commissioner raised the doubt.
WN
HD
138. Mr. Bennett asked DEFENDANT Aguilar multiple time who raised the doubt and where
NY
was the evidence.

©
Oo
139. DEFENDANT Aguilar kept saying she was not at the hearing, so did not know.
et
SCS
mm
KY
140. DEFENDANT Aguilar told Mr. Bennett to ask the commissioner who raised the doubt.
mm
NN
mm
WW
141. At the next hearing, Mr. Bennett asked the commissioner who raised the doubt. He did not
fF
mmm
remember.
Nn
A
142. The commissioner asked “Madam clerk” who raised the doubt.
IN
RP
wm
143. The “Madam clerk” confirmed the DEFENDANT Amanda Founi raised the doubt.
YO
wm
NO
SC
144. Mr. Bennett raised questions about procedural rules being violated; the commissioner
NO
KY
muted Austin again.

NO
ND
WW
NO
145. Mr. Bennett was kept on mute the remainder of the hearing, which was via Zoom per
FP
NO
COVID lock-down.
Nn
NO
DN
NO
146. DEFENDANT Amanda Founi, who claims to have been representing Mr. Bennett, did not
Nn
NO
object to Mr. Bennett’s mic being kept on mute.

no
o
19
147. Mr. Bennett asked the DEFENDANT to file a motion to recuse the commissioner who
violated procedural rules, but she said there was nothing she could do.
148. Mr. Bennett refused to see the court doctor on the evidence court rules were violated by the
commissioner.
149. DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar threatened Mr. Bennett if he did see the doctor, he would
be arrested and lawfully could be taken to jail.

10
11 150. Since the order was not lawful, Mr. Bennett could not lawfully be arrested and taken to jail.
12
13 151. DEFENDANT Massimini misrepresented the law to Mr. Bennett, to cause fear in order to
14 obey an order that was not lawful, with the threat of arrest.
15
16 152. DEFENDANT Amanda Massimini threatened Mr. Bennett that if he did see the doctor, he
17 would be remanded and lawfully could be taken to jail.

18
19 153. Since the order was not lawful, Mr. Bennett could not lawfully be arrested and taken to jail.
20
21 154. DEFENDANT Massimini misrepresented the law to Mr. Bennett, to cause fear in order to
22 obey an order that was not lawful, with the threat of arrest.
23
24 155. The DEFENDANT warned Mr. Bennett if he did not see the court doctor he could be
25 arrested.
26
21 156. The DEFENDANT told Mr. Bennett there was nothing she could do concerning the rules
28 being violated, since there would be a real judge in the next hearing.
20
157. The judge admitted there may have been “issues” with the commissioner’s determination,
WN
but nevertheless insisted Mr. Bennett see the court doctor.

WwW
PP
158. The judge said the commissioner raised the doubt.

Mn
NH
159. The DEFENDANT said they raised the doubt.

ms
oO
COM
160. Nobody would show Mr. Bennett any evidence, let alone substantial evidence or exactly
Oo
10 what the doubt was.
1
12 161. Everyone seemed to be pointing the finger as to who raised the doubt.
13
14 162. Mr. Bennett refused to see the court doctor, stating the order was unlawful.
@ BENNETTvsSAC
15
16 163. Later, Judge Peter Southworth said he had doubt about Mr. Bennett's competency based on
17 what he observed in a hearing on 7/21/2022.
18
19 164. Judge Southworth ordered Mr. Bennett to follow the unlawful order to see the court doctor
20
21 165. Judge told Mr. Bennett he would go to jail until he met with the court doctor.
22
23 166. Four officers arrived and put Austin in handcuffs and put Mr. Bennett into the court cage.
24
25 167. Mr. Bennett pointed out a law, that asserts states do not have a right to violate the
26 Constitution, and that if they do, they lose immunity. Judge Southworth retorted Mr. Bennett
27 was threatening the court.
28
21
168. Judge Southworth gave Mr. Bennett another chance if he promised to see the court doctor.
The judge said he would let Mr. Bennett out of the cage and go home if he agreed
N
WwW
169. Mr. Bennett said he would not comply with an unlawful order. He told the judge the court
&
had to obey the rules also.

NN
170. Mr. Bennett was put in jail, locked down 24/7, for six days where he was abused by guards.
NHN
ss
171. The court doctor came to see Mr. Bennett in jail, but Mr. Bennett refused to see her.
©
Oo
10 172. Mr. Bennett was led to the small cell where the doctor was on the other side of the window.
11 While standing in the doorway, Mr. Bennett asked who she was and when she identified, Mr.
12 Bennett simply stated, “I do not consent;” turned around and was led back to his cell.
13
14 173. Mr. Bennett was transported from jail by van to his court hearing, on July 26, 2022.
15
16 174. When Mr. Bennett arrived to the courthouse through the back way and led by a guard,
17 DEFENDANT Juan Contreras introduced himself to Mr. Bennett.
18
19 175. DEFENDANT Contreras took Mr. Bennett to a side room.
20
| 176. DEFENDANT Contreras was wearing a mask, although it was no longer a COVID
22 requirement at the time.
23
24 177. DEFENDANT Contreras told Mr. Bennett he was DEFENDANT Aguilar’s supervisor.
25
26 178. DEFENDANT Contreras told Mr. Bennett he was his new attorney.
z1
28
22
179. Mr. Bennett told DEFENDANT Contreras DEFENDANT Aguilar had been lying to him,
and offered to show him the evidence on his phone.

N
Ww
180. DEFENDANT Contreras showed no interest in seeing the evidence, telling Mr. Bennett he
-
would now be representing him.

MN
NHN
181. DEFENDANT Contreras told Mr. Bennett his case would be dismissed.
NN
Oo
182. DEFENDANT Contreras warned Mr. Bennett that if he pursued the jury trial he would be
@ BENNETT vsSACRAMENTO.com
Oo
10 put into the mental ward.
11
12 183. The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) forbids anyone from
13 interfering by force or by threat of violence with your federal or state constitutional or statutory
14 rights. The acts forbidden by these civil laws may also be criminal acts, and can expose violators
15 to criminal penalties.
16
17 184. The Bane Act provides protection from threats, intimidation, or coercion and for attempts to
18 interfere with someone’s state or federal statutory or constitutional rights.
19
20
21 185. When Mr. Bennett was released, he sent a text to the number each DEFENDANT had been
22 communicating with him prior.

23
24 186. DEFENDANT Aguilar responded, telling Mr. Bennett Juan Contreras received his message
25 that Mr. Bennett wanted to speak with him.
26
at
28
23
187. However, DEFENDANT Aguilar informed Mr. Bennett DEFENDANT Contreras was no
longer his attorney, but that the case with back with her.
- WW
188. This was the fifth time public defenders were switched up on Mr. Bennett.
MN
189. Each time the public defender would tell Mr. Bennett they were not at the hearing, so do not
ND
know what happened.

NN
co
COM
190. Switching attorneys seem to be a tactic by the DEFENDANT, to ensure they had an excuse
Oo
10 in order not to fully inform Mr. Bennett.

11
12 191. Multiple excuses went something like this, “I was not there, so I don’t know who said
13 what.”
14
a BENNETTvsSAC
15 192. There are more than 300 text messages that went back and forth between Mr. Bennett and
16 the DEFENDANTS, starting from February 22, 2021 to June 6, 2023.
17
18 193. DEFENDANT Contreras never responded.
19
20 194. Ms. Aguilar responded, telling Mr. Bennett via text that she was his attorney once again.
Zi
22 195. This was frustrating to Mr. Bennett, since he had a critical court hearing coming up, and he
23 had told DEFENDANT Contreras DEFENDANT Aguilar had been lying to him.
24
25 196. The jail refused to release the video to Mr. Bennett for that day, which shows the doctor
26 never met with Mr. Bennett.
27
28
24
197. The judge in two court hearings admitted Mr. Bennett declined to meet with the court
doctor.
N
Ww
198. Acting DA Sidney Jones admitted on record Mr. Bennett’s refused to see the court doctor.
&
WN
199. DA Sidney Jones admitted on record Mr. Bennett’s refusing to see the court doctor does not
NH
constitute incompetence.
sy
Oo
200. Three letters were left at Mr. Bennett's home, warning him not to self represent or deviate
Oo
10 from the public defenders direction.

11
12 201. The court doctor submitted a fraudulent report, claiming she evaluated Mr. Bennett when
13 she had not.
14
15 202. The doctor's report was never shown to Austin, but instead kept hidden from him.
16
17 203. 99% of all communications between Mr. Bennett and the DEFENDANT were via text
18 message.
19
20 204. 99% of the evidence that will be submitted in this complaint is physical and real evidence.
21
oe 205. Court officials ruled on the fraudulent report and found Mr. Bennett incompetent to face
23 trial.
24
25 206. The law states the court must give the DEFENDANT a trial in order to defend himself and
26 due process.
27
28
25
207. Mr. Bennett was never was given a competency trial, in order to challenge the doctor’s
findings.
WN
Ww
208. The DEFENDANT refused to show Mr. Bennett the evidence that was used against him.
&
MN
209. Mr. Bennett's charges were dismissed for the furtherance of justice, because the judge ruled
NH
Mr. Bennett was too incompetent to face trial.

nN
oOo
210. Mr. Bennett was never given a chance to see the evidence or have a competency trial to
Oo
10 challenge the findings.

11
12 211. The DEFENDANT still refused to give Mr. Bennett the evidence until he threatened to sue
13 the public defenders.
14
15 212. After Mr. Bennett's case was dismissed, he went to the DEFENDANT to ask for the report.
16
17 213. The DEFENDANT texted Mr. Bennett telling him they no longer represented him.
18
19 214. Mr. Bennett testified in court he had not met with the doctor, so there was never a court
20 report that could be used to rule Mr. Bennett was incompetent.

21
22 215. Even if the court doctor had met with Austin, the report could not be used against him.
23
24 216. Court rules instruct Mr. Bennett to be presumed competent and that the court “must” have a
25 competency trial to ensure Mr. Bennett's due process was not violated, and to to bring his own
26 witnesses and doctor.
27
28 217. Mr. Bennett did not have the opportunity to defend himself nor challenge the evidence.
26
218. Mr. Bennett finally was given the report, a month after his cased was dismissed for the
furtherance of justice, because Mr. Bennett was deemed incompetent to face trial.
Ff
219. The report was fraudulent, except for Mr. Bennett's name. Even his birth place was wrong.
Nr
HD
220. The court doctor later said she confused, mixed Mr. Bennett up with another patient who
yn
has the same name. The court doctor claimed the fraudulent report was an error.
fo
Oo
10 221. DEFENDANT Melissa McElheney referred to the report as fraudulent.

11
12 222. The report said Mr. Bennett was never married, but Mr. Bennett has been married nearly 27
13 years to his first wife Caryn. Caryn Bennett was present with Mr. Bennett in court hearings.
14
15 223. Caryn Bennett stood up and introduced herself to the court when Mr. Bennett was put in the
16 court cage, stating she was Mr. Bennett's wife. The judge told Mrs. Bennett to sit down. The
17 judge, DA and DEFENDANT were present to witness her statement.
18
19 224. The DEFENDANTSs knew the report was false.
20
21 225. The report said Mr. Bennett had no children, but he has five and two were present in
22 multiple hearings.
23
24 226. The DEFENDANTSs knew Mr. Bennett was married and had children.
25
26 227. The report said Mr. Bennett was homeless, but Mr. Bennett has lived in the same house he
27 and Mrs. Bennett purchased 26 years, raised their five children and live in their present home.
28
27
228. The report said Mr. Bennett was a nursing school drop out, because he felt discriminated
against and only had an associates degree, but he has a Bachelor of Science in Business
WN
Administration with an emphasis in finance.

WwW
-&
229. DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar was on Mr. Bennett’s social media and commented there,
WN
which fully provides Mr. Bennett’s personal and professional background.

NHN
NY
230. Mr. Bennett owns Bennett Financial Strategies (BennettFS), which was Registered
eo
Investment Advisor, and ran his business for more than 23 years. Less then one percent of
Oo
10 300,000 investment advisors in America qualify for an RIA.
ll
12 231. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, FINRA, reports Mr. Bennett never had a
13 complaint filed against him in the securities industry, a rare testament to Mr. Bennett's integrity,
14 acumen and attentiveness with compliance, detail and people’s investments.
15
16 232. Mr. Bennett's RIA firm was recognized in the Sacramento Magazine as a top wealth
17 manager in 2017.
18
19 233. It takes eight to ten years to acquire all of Mr. Bennett’s credentials.
20
21 234. Mr. Bennett was well known in the financial community and acknowledged in a best seller
22 financial book, which Mr. Bennett helped edit.
23
24 235. It was endorsed by reputable people, including Ron Paul, The Millionaire Next Door
25 author, Thomas J. Stanley, past President Reagan's top advisors U.S. Controller and head of
26 GAO David Walker and David Stockman.
27
28 236. Mr. Bennett was offered a position with CalPERS and Franklin Templeton.
28
237. Mr. Bennett is credited for helping edit best selling financial book and thanked along with
others who endorsed the book, including Ron Paul,
NN
WwW
238. Financial institutions were referred clients to Austin, including a forensic psychologist who
-&
will testify on Mr. Bennett's behalf. Dr. Richard L. was referred to Mr. Bennett by Penn Mutual.
NN
ND
239. Mr. Bennett was sponsored by ING and completed a program taught in collaboration with
NN
UCLA at the campus. Mr. Bennett was certified to audit pension and defined contribution plans.
Co
Mr. Bennett audited a $400 million dollar corporate retirement plan for a well known grocery
oOo
10 chain.
11
12 240. Recently Lafayette Life referred an executive chef who worked in the White House, but
13 Mr. Bennett lost business after being evaluated as mentally incompetent and receiving negative
14 publicity.
15
16 241. The public defenders not defending Mr. Bennett has harmed his practice irreparably.
17
18 242. Media was present in Mr. Bennett's hearings and reported to the public Mr. Bennett was
19 found “coo coo” by an adversarial reporter.
20
21 243. Procedural rules were violated, Mr. Bennett's rights were violated and so was the
ZZ Constitution and state Constitution.
23
24 244. DEFENDANT Founi did not file any motions to defend Mr. Bennett's rights, even when
25 asked to by Mr. Bennett.

26
2] 245. When asked to file a motion, the public defender told Mr. Bennett there was nothing she
28 could do.
29
246. Mr. Bennett was invited to be the Chief Financial Officer in 2017 for a Latino nonprofit,
and to sit on the board which included State Senator Jim Nielsen.
WN
SW
247. The court doctor’s report also said Mr. Bennett was in a coma in 2019, the same year Mr.
Bennett was running a recall campaign against Senator Richard Pan.
MN
NH
248. The court doctor’s report also said Mr. Bennett was in a coma in 2019, the same year the
I
DEFENDANT claimed to be representing Mr. Bennett.

eS
com
oOo
10 249, It is not reasonable to believe the DEFENDANTS believed the doctor’s report was true,
11 since the defendant claims they represented Mr. Bennett for three years.
IZ
13 250. The report said Mr. Bennett reported he was shot and sustained a gunshot in 2022, that was
14 open and leaking for two months. It is not reasonable to believe the DEFENDANT did not
a BENNET TvsSAC
15 realize the report was fraudulent.

16
17 251. Court records show Mr. Bennett was self representing and regularly communicating with
18 the DA in 2020, in 2021 including when Mr. Bennett returned to pro per as confirmed by Nick
19 Karp of the DA’s office; it is not reasonable to believe the DEFENDANT did not know the
20 report was false.
21
22 252. The court doctor’s report said Mr. Bennett was charged with a felony. It is not reasonable to
23 believe the DEFENDANT did not know the court doctor misrepresented their client, since the
24 DEFENDANTs knew Mr. Bennett was charged with a misdemeanor.
25
26 253. If the public defenders had been representing Mr. Bennett for three years, the
27 DEFENDANT had to know Mr. Bennett was married, had five children, ran for the state senate
28
30
and was a financial planner, was never shot, nor put in a coma, nor in and out of the mental ward
with suicidal tendencies.
WN
WW
254. If the public defenders had been representing Mr. Bennett for three years and conferred
>}
with Mr. Bennett as required by Pen C 1368, it would be clear Mr. Bennett was competent.
NN
NHN
255. It is no excuse or rationale that the defendant would have deliberately kept the doctor’s
NN
report from Mr. Bennett, if indeed they wanted to know the truth.
©
Oo
10 256. There is no excusable explanation the doctor’s report was kept hidden from Mr. Bennett, if
ll the defendant wanted to ensure Mr. Bennett’s right were being represented and to ensure he
12 could challenge the doctor’s findings which were later discovered to be fraudulent.
13
14 257. The report said Mr. Bennett was in and out of the mental ward.
15
16 258. The report said Mr. Bennett refused to take showers unless he was given candy.
17
18 259. The report said Mr. Bennett is a schizophrenic.
19
20 260. The report said Mr. Bennett struggles with depression.,
21
22 261. The report said Mr. Bennett treats his depression with methamphetamine.
23
24 262. Mr. Bennett does not smoke or take drugs. The DEFENDANT had to know the report was
25 false.
26
27 263. The report said Mr. Bennett is paranoid.
28
31
N
264. The DEFENDANT saw the errors and had a duty to point them out.
265. Had Mr. Bennett been shown the report, Mr. Bennett would have seen the “errors”
WwW
immediately.
-&
MN
266. The report was never shown to Mr. Bennett, nor did he have a competency trial in order to
NHN
challenge the “errors.”

ss
Oo
267. Mr. Kenneth Austin Bennett hired a private investigator to find the Dr. Marine Jukubowski.
Oo
10
11 268. Mr. Bennett called Dr. Jakubowski who answered her phone. Mr. Bennett pointed out her
12 errors. All she would say, “Call your lawyer.”

13
14 269. The next day Dr. Jakubowski called Mr. Bennett, whose wife, and Ethan their 19 year old
15 son, were present; while on the speaker phone the court doctor profusely apologized, stating she
16 mixed Mr. Bennett up with another patient.
17
18 270. Dr. Jakubowski offered to do “another” evaluation for Mr. Bennett, but he declined,
19 because his case was already dismissed, the order was unlawful and the doctor already proved to
20 be a fraudster.
21
22 271. Dr. Jakubowski promised to redact her false statements.
23
24 272. Mr. Bennett also made it clear to Dr. Jakubowski that he was charged with a misdemeanor,
25 not a felony. Dr. Jakubowski promised to redact her “errors.”

26
27
28
32
273. Dr. Jakubowski also admitted on the phone Mr. Bennett never sat down with her, but
admitted he stood in the doorway and after learning who she was, merely stated “I do not
consent” and led back to his cell by the guard.
274. However, Dr. Jakubowski shockingly submitted a second fraudulent report, claiming she
evaluated Austin. The second report was submitted AFTER Mr. Bennett’s jury trial and charges
NH
were dismissed.
wn
co
COM
275. Mr. Bennett’s jury trial and charges were dismissed, because he was found incompetent to
Oo
10 face trial.
11
12 276. The second report still left Mr. Bennett's charged as a felony.
13
14 277. The second fraudulent report said Mr. Bennett was not aware of the charges he was facing.
@ BENNETTvsSAC
15
16 278. The second fraudulent report said Mr. Bennett is unable to sit still for long.
17
18 279. The second fraudulent report stated Mr. Bennett appreciation of charges is unacceptable,
19 based on his lack of interest.

20
Zi 280. The second fraudulent report stated Mr. Bennett did not have an ability to disclose pertinent
22 facts to his defense attorney, based on his inability to sit for a period of time and discuss his
pe) current factors in a clear manner.
24
25 281. The hundreds of communications between Mr. Bennett and the public defender, which
26 provides physical evidence for the court, proves to the contrary.
27
28 282. Mr. Bennett consistently provided pertinent facts to the DEFENDANT by text.
33
283. The court transcripts when Mr. Bennett appeared in person, will demonstrate Mr. Bennett to
N
be professional and aware of the charges and consequences he was facing (see court court
WwW
transcripts 7/21/22 and 7/26/22).

f&
MW
284. It is obvious the doctor was deliberately not telling the truth.
NH
mn
285. Mr. Bennett fraudulent report said Mr. Bennett stood up, but he never sat down. He stood in
fo
the doorway of the small cell with the guard and when Dr. Jakubowski introduced herself, he
Oo
10 said he did not consent and turned around. The guard walked Mr. Bennett back to his cell.
11
12 286. The fraudulent report, states Mr. Bennett stood up and left the interview room. This would
13 have been impossible, because had Mr. Bennett agreed to sit down, he would have been locked
14 in the small cell, where the doctor sat on the other side of the window. He could not have left
15 any room without the guard having to be contacted to come unlock the door to the room. Mr.
16 Bennett could not have left as stated by the doctor.
17
18 287. The second fraudulent report, Dr. Jakubowski stated it was difficult to engage Mr. Bennett
19 in conversation and that “he immediately stated that he did not wish to consent, stood up, and
20 left the evaluation.”
21
22 288. Mr. Bennett never sat down, never broke the barrier of the door frame to the meeting room
23 where the court doctor sat on the other side of the small narrow cell.
24
25 289. The guard, who opened the door to the cell, stood with Mr. Bennett at the door entrance
26 while Mr. Bennett inquired who the lady was.
27
28
34
290. Mr. Bennett suspected it was the court doctor, because the court told Mr. Bennett she was
coming.
NN
WB
291. Mr. Bennett promised the court he would not meet with the court doctor since the order was
&
unlawful, and he did not.

WN
NHN
292. The judge and DA both admit on record Mr. Bennett did not speak to the court doctor.
ns
fo
293. Mr. Bennett asked the jail for the video to the cell he was led to in order to meet with the
Oo
10 court doctor, but the jail refused and violated the USA Freedom Act.
11
12 294. It is unreasonable to think a psychologist would risk her career to submit a second
13 fraudulent report after alleging she confused Mr. Bennett with another patient who had the same
14 name, unless she was under pressure to find Mr. Bennett incompetent.
15
16 295. The court digital transcripts on 7/21/2022 and 7/26/22 when he appeared in court, will also
17 demonstrate Mr. Bennett's insight, judgment and knowledge of court rules.
18
19 296. Mr. Bennett texted public defenders to show them the outrageous fraudulent report, which
20 was used to find Mr. Bennett incompetent to face trial.

21
22 297. The DEFENDANT, after admitting the report was fraudulent, wanted to get Mr. Bennett
23 back in front of the judge and DA; the same judge and DA who ignored the fact the report was
24 obviously fraudulent.
29
26 298. The DEFENDANT wanted to start the competency hearings all over again, putting Mr.
2 Bennett back in criminal jeopardy. Mr. Bennett's case was already dismissed for the furtherance
28 of justice.
35
299. The DEFENDANT told Mr. Bennett they were filing a motion to reverse his court
WN
dismissal, meet with another court doctor, so they could start the competency hearings again.
WwW
>
300. It is foolish to think Mr. Bennett would put himself in criminal jeopardy again, and face
going to jail a second time if his case was already dismissed.

N
ws
301. As a defense attorney expressed to Mr. Bennett, a person would have to be insane to want
fo
com
to do that, yet this was the DEFENDANT?’s advice to their client.

Oo
10
11 302. Mr. Bennett wants the report expunged and removed from all records and the court doctor
12 admit she was lying.

13
14 303. Mr. Bennett expected and hoped counsel from the public defenders supervisor assistant to
a BENNETTvsSAC
15 serve Mr. Bennett’s best interest.
16
17 304. However, she also tried to mislead Mr. Bennett by putting him in criminal jeopardy a
18 second time.
19
20 305. The DEFENDANT emailed Mr. Bennett telling him they would get another doctor to do the
21 evaluation, after his court was already dismissed for the furtherance of justice.
22
23 306. There is no rationale Mr. Bennett can think of, outside of malicious intent by the
24 DEFENDANT to put him in criminal jeopardy again, after his case was dismissed for the
25 furtherance of justice.
26
27
28
36
307. Mr. Bennett should never have been ordered to meet with the court doctor, since he never
did anything that could constitute substantial evidence to even start a competency hearing, let
WN
alone justify suspending his jury trial.

WwW
--&
308. The DEFENDANT’s actions were malicious in nature.

vA
NH
309. The DEFENDANT tried to put Mr. Bennett back into criminal jeopardy.
NN
Oo
COM
310. The DEFENDANT tried to put Mr. Bennett back into criminal liability.
Oo
10
11 C. Mr. Bennett Charged for a Harmless Push
12
13 311. On 08/21/19, Kenneth Mr. Bennett was accused of pushing Senator Richard Pan.
14
a BENNETTvsSAC
15 312. Mr. Bennett was running a political recall to have Senator Pan removed from office.
16
17 313. Mr. Bennett had previously run for the state senate against the incumbent, who was Senator
18 Pan at the time.
19)
20 314. The “push” was reported in all major mainstream networks, including the Spanish and
21 Chinese new outlets.
22
23 315. The event was politically charged.

24
25 316. Mr. Bennett was accused of one count of misdemeanor simple battery, California Penal
26 Code §242.
27
28
37
317. Mr. Bennett faced a penalty, if convicted, of up to six months in the county jail or a fine of
$1,000.
WN
WwW
318. Mr. Bennett was told the DA was under political pressure to prevent the senator from being
-&
forced take the witness stand, by an attorney who worked in the DA’s office. She will testify.
MN
ND
D. Judge Recuses Herself for speaking to Senator Pan

NN
Oo
com
319. On the October 23, 2019 arraignment (court TS 7:10), Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell
Oo
10 disclosed she saw Senator Pan at a public event and had spoken to him, but could not recall if
11 “this particular issue was raised.”
12
13 320. On the November 18, 2019 hearing, (court TS :31), Judge Rockwell admitted she had
14 spoken to Senator Pan at an event but did not recall about what, but later remembered she also
a BENNET TvsSAC
15 “talked to the head of the senate sergeant that day at the same event.” She recused herself and
16 sent Mr. Bennett to Department 3, where Judge Pamela Smith-Steward was presiding.
17
18 321. Judge Pamela L. Smith-Steward replaced Judge Rockwell as trial judge
19
20 E. Mr. Bennett Granted Trial by Jury
21
22 322. Mr. Bennett was granted a trial by jury.
23
24 323. These rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
25
26 324. These rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of California.
28 325. Mr. Bennett wanted to exercise his right to a jury trial to determine his innocence or guilt.
38
326. Mr. Bennett could have presented affirmative defenses.
327. Mr. Bennett wanted to exercise the right to question Senator Richard Pan, his accuser, who
was the state senator.
328. Richard Pan would be required to testify.

NHN
s
329. Mr. Bennett ran for the state senate against Senator Pan.
fo
Oo
10 330. Mr. Bennett and Richard Pan are presently candidates for mayor of Sacramento.
11
12 F. Mr. Bennett Declared Competent, Faretta Waiver Signed
13
14 331. Mr. Bennett petitioned the court to act as his own attorney.
15
16 332. Prior to granting the Faretta motion, Judge Pamela Smith-Steward ensured Mr. Bennett was
17 acting knowingly, intelligently, and with awareness of the risks associated with self-
18 representation.
19
20 333. Judge Pamela Smith-Steward evaluated and assessed Mr. Bennett competent self represent.
21
22 334. Judge Pamela Smith-Steward approved Mr. Bennett's Faretta motion to go pro per.
93
24 335. Judge Pamela Smith-Steward signed the Faretta waiver on 11/18/2019, validating her due
25 diligence.
26
27 336. As required by law, Judge Smith-Steward did her due diligence to find Mr. Bennett
28 competent to self represent
39
337. Mr. Bennett was pro per from 11/18/2019 through 02/22/2021, and communicated directly
N
with the DA through his court appointed liaison.

WwW
Fb
G. Defendant Founi Raises Doubt Per Mr. Bennett’s Competence

nA
NHN
338. The trial judge, per CA Judges Benchguide, gives a procedural checklist for judges before a
ws
trial can be suspended; “Has a doubt arisen in the judge’s mind about the public defender’s
Oo
competence to be tried or punished? Ask the DEFENDANT questions to assess competence.

Oo
10 [63.6.]”
11
12 339. Judge Smith-Steward not only ignored the procedural checklist, she did it behind Mr.
13 Bennett's back.
14
15 340. It was Judge Smith-Steward duty to be the one to question Mr. Bennett and if there was
16 substantial evidence to order a competency hearing, but failed to appear.
17
18 341. As far back as 1961 — one year after the Supreme Court decided Dusky — a federal district
19 court offered an eight-part test for competency. The court suggested that “a person, from a
20 consideration of legal standards, should be considered mentally competent to stand trial under
21 criminal procedure” when record evidence demonstrates:
22
23 342. (1) that he has mental capacity to appreciate his presence in relation to time, place and
24 things;
25 343. (2) that his elementary mental processes are such that he apprehends (i.e. seizes and grasps
26 with what mind he has) that he is in a Court of Justice, charged with a criminal offense;
27 344. (3) that there is a Judge on the Bench;
28 345. (4) a Prosecutor present who will try to convict him of a criminal charge;
40
346. (5) that he has a lawyer (self-employed or Court- 11 appointed) who will undertake to
defend him against that charge;

N
347. (6) that he will be expected to tell his lawyer the circumstances, to the best of his mental
WwW
ability, (whether colored or not by mental aberration) the facts surrounding him at the time and
&
place where the law violation is alleged to have been committed;

MN
348. (7) Consider appointing a mental health expert

NHN
349. (8) If there is substantial evidence of public defender’s incompetence, order a competency
wn
hearing and suspend the criminal proceedings.10. The CA Judges Benchguides gives a
co
procedural checklist for judges before a trial can be suspended; “Has a doubt arisen in the
Oo
10 judge’s mind about the public defender’s competence to be tried or punished? Ask the
11 DEFENDANT questions to assess competence. [63.6.]”
12
13 350. Neither the said judge or commissioner motioned to question Mr. Bennett in order to
14 evaluate him. Judge Smith-Steward ignored the procedural checklist.

15
16 351. According to Penal Code section 1369, subdivision (f), “[i]t shall be presumed that the
17 DEFENDANT is mentally competent unless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
18 the DEFENDANT is mentally incompetent.” (Pen. Code, § 1369, subd. (f);
19
20 352. Mr. Bennett was eventually found incompetent to face trial, without any evidence
21 whatsoever, let alone preponderance of evidence.
22
23 353. Mr. Bennett denied any opportunity to see what evidence was being used against him, or
24 opportunity to challenge the findings. Mr. Bennett did not have a trial in order to defend himself
25 and bring his own witnesses and psychologist as required by law.
26
27 354. See also People v. Rells (2000) 22 Cal.4th 860, 869 [““The Fourteenth Amendment’s due
28 process clause in fact permits the presumption that the DEFENDANT is mentally competent
41
unless he is proved by a preponderance of the evidence to be otherwise”]; accord Medina v.
California (1992) 505 U.S
355. There was never a psych evaluation even started on AUSTIN, because he declined to meet
>
with the court doctor.

NN
NN
356. Behind Mr. Bennett's back, without questioning him, Judge Smith-Steward put the order
NY
out, 1368 would be ordered.

©
com
Oo
10 357. The public defender, who claimed to be representing Austin, kept this behind Mr. Bennett's
i back, rather than confer with Austin, as required by Penal 1368, in order to inform Mr. Bennett
12 and assess his defense.
13
14 358. The judge acted outside of her authority and the DEFENDANT colluded with the court.
a BENNET TvsSAC
15
16
17 H. Blind Sided by Defendant Amanda Founi
18
19
20 359. March 17, 2022 hearing Commissioner Cintean filled in. Mr. Bennett was on a Zoom call
21 and per COVID court backlog delays.
22
23 360. Mr. Bennett let the commissioner know he would be going pro per.
24
25 361. A woman’s voice can be heard whispering to the commissioner, directing him to raise
26 doubt about Mr. Bennett's competence.
27
28
42
362. In a later court hearing on May 19, 2022, the court clerk declares on record it was Amanda
Founi who raised the doubt.

NY
WwW
363. On the 5/19/2022 hearing, (transcript TS 3:09) the court clerk confirmed to the
>
commissioner, “Your honor, March 17, 2022 in front of DEFENDANT Amanda Founi, she
nA
expressed doubt pursuant Code 1369.”

NH
ns
364. On 5/17/22, public defender, DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar, attested Ms. Founi raised the
oOo
BENNE ‘T'TvsS ACRAMENTO.com
doubt texting, “Once a doubt is declared pursuant to penal code 1368, in this case by your
Oo
10 attorney,”
11
12 365. Mr. Bennett unaware of any doubt, never had spoken to DEFENDANT Ms. Founi about
13 the subject. He felt blindsided.
14
15 366. The Commissioner stated the previous judge had a doubt about Mr. Bennett's competence
16 and so did he, citing Pen C 1368.
17
18 367. DEFENDANT Amanda Founi can be heard raising doubt, but Mr. Bennett could not see
19 her in the Zoom call.
20
21 368. Pen C 1368 (a), orders the judge to state what the doubt is on record, but Commissioner
22 Cintean did not.

23
24 369. Mr. Bennett accused of doubt per his competence, but no evidence was produced or shown
25 to him, nor stated on record as required by Pen C 1368(a)
26
27 370. Pen C 1368(a) asserts in part, if “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental
28 competence of the public defender, he or she shall state that doubt in the record.”
43
371. Judge Pamela Smith-Steward raised the doubt in a previous hearing behind Mr. Bennett's
back, giving no specific reason what justified her doubt. Simply stating “possible competency
issues” does not justify the suspension of Mr. Bennett's jury trial.
>
MN
372. Mr. Bennett was not asked any questions and blindsided.
NHN
wy
373. Without giving any specific reason what prompted the doubt by DEFENDANT Founi,
fo
Judge Pamela Smith-Steward or the Commissioner Cintean, Mr. Bennett's jury trial was
@ BENNET TvsSACRAMENTO.com
oOo
10 dismissed and he was ordered to see the court doctor.
11
12 374. Mr. Bennett had no idea what the doubt was, nor what could have compelled the
13 commissioner to act outside of his authority to suspend his trial, as well as ignore court rules to
14 do so.
[5
16 375. Both federal due process and state law require a “trial judge” to suspend trial proceedings
17 and conduct a competency hearing whenever the court is presented with substantial evidence of
18 incompetence. (See, e.g., People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847)”
19
20 376. No evidence, let alone substantial, was ever presented by the court, stated on record or
21 shown to Austin.
22
23 377. According to People v. Welch, “the function of the trial court in applying Pate’s substantial
24 evidence test is not to determine the ultimate issue: Is the DEFENDANT competent to stand
2 trial? [Its] sole function is to decide whether there is any evidence which, assuming its truth,
26 raises a reasonable doubt about the public defender’s competency. At any time that such
27 evidence appears, the trial court sua sponte must order an evidentiary hearing on the competency
28 issue. 9 It is only after the evidentiary hearing, applying the usual rules appropriate to trial, that
44
the court decides the issue of competency of the DEFENDANT to stand trial.” (Ibid.; see also
People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 738.)
378. The judge, commissioner and public DEFENDANT skipped every procedural step, one
>
through six, and went to the very last steps by suspending Mr. Bennett's jury trial and ordering a
MN
competency trial.
NHN
wn
379. The other steps were not supposed to be skipped, but it seemed the court was determined to
fo
suspend Mr. Bennett's jury trial, with the help of the DEFENDANT who seemed to completely
oOo
10 turn on Austin.
11
12 380. There were thousands of words in communications between Mr. Bennett and the public
13 defender, which demonstrates Mr. Bennett had the mental capacity to appreciate his presence in
14 relation to time, place and things.
15
16 381. It was obvious Mr. Bennett understood he was in a Court of Justice and charged with a
17 criminal offense. The texts messages prove so, as well as his court cases when he appeared in
18 person before a judge.
19
20 382. It was obvious Mr. Bennett knew there was a judge on the bench and a prosecutor present
21 who was trying to convict him of a simple misdemeanor battery, for pushing Senator Pan.
22
23 383. If Mr. Bennett did not meet those requirements, the last things on the procedural checklist
24 was to suspend his jury trial and order a competency hearing.
Ze
26 384. The commissioner suspended Mr. Bennett's jury trial, although Austin did not meet the
27 requirements to raise doubt about his competence per procedural checklist as required in the
28 judges bench guide, and there was no substantial evidence to raise doubt about his competence.
45
385. The DEFENDANT did nothing to defend Mr. Bennett's rights, which she was required to
WN
do since DEFENDANT Founi claimed to represent Austin.

WwW
>
386. Mr. Bennett continually demonstrated his competence, as he challenged the public
NN
defenders for ignoring the rules of procedure which were being violated by the court. Again,
NH
physical evidence via many texts proves this.

ss
Oo
387. Not only do texts messages substantiate Mr. Bennett was aware, the court transcripts prove
oOo
10 Mr. Bennett recognized the flagrant disregard for court rules and his rights, which were taking
ll place in court and public defenders.
12
13 I. Who Raised the Doubt was like a Hot Potato
14
15 388. Who raised the doubt was like a hot potato nobody wanted to take credit for.
16
17 389. Commissioner Cintean did not remember (see 5/19/2022 digital transcript) who raised the
18 doubt when Mr. Bennett asked him in court, though he stated on record the previous judge had
19 doubt and that so did he.
20
21 390. Mr. Bennett asked, because the new public defender, DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar,
22 claimed it was DEFENDANT Amanda Founi, then later claimed it was the commissioner and
23 then later that she did not know, because she was not at Mr. Bennett's hearing she claimed.
24 391.
25 When Mr. Bennett asked the commissioner who raised the doubt, the commissioner questioned
26 the court clerk, “Madam clerk, who....” but stopped in midsentence and said to Mr. Bennett that
27 he needed to look at the file and would let him know. The court clerk then states on record it was
28 Amanda Founi, the public defender.
46
392. On the 5/19/2022 hearing, (timestamp 3:09) Madam clerk declared on record, “Your honor,
March 17, 2022 in front of DEFENDANT Amanda Founi, she expressed doubt pursuant Code
1369.”
>
WN
393. By text on 5/17/22, DEFENDANT DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar, attested Ms. Founi
NHN
raised the doubt on stating, “Once a doubt is declared pursuant to penal code 1368, in this case
nN
by your attorney, the court will order an evaluation and that whole procedure is laid out in PC
Oo
com
1368. The commissioner correctly suspended proceedings while your evaluation is done.”
Oo
10
11 394. The commissioner did not correctly suspend proceedings, because he ignored the
IZ procedural checklist to inquire of Austin, but did not.
13
14 395. Public defender, Amanda Founi, prompted the court to suspend Mr. Bennett's jury trial,
a BENNETTvsSA
IS without providing the court a statement of reasons as required by law, nor did she confer with
16 Austin.
17
18 396. According to CA rules of court 4.130 per mental competency proceedings, “(2) The opinion
19 of counsel, without a statement of specific reasons supporting that opinion, does not constitute
20 substantial evidence.”
21
22 397. In order to suspend Mr. Bennett's jury trial, there had to be substantial evidence.
23
24 398. In order to have substantial evidence, there would have to be a statement of specific reasons
25 from Amanda Founi, as required by statutory law and court rules.
26
27 399. Pubic defender Founi, did not give one specific reason in court.
28
47
400. Mr. Bennett's rights were violated, public Founi had a fiduciary duty to defend Mr.
Bennett's rights, but instead sabotaged them.
401. No specific reasons were given by any court official, Mr. Bennett's jury trial was unlawfully
>
suspended.
MN
WD
402. Court rules 4.130 per mental competency proceedings:

NN
fe
BENNE 'T'TvsS, ACRAMENTO.com
403. (1) The court must initiate mental competency proceedings if the judge has a reasonable
Oo
10 doubt, based on substantial evidence, about the public defender's competence to stand trial.
11
12 404. (2) The opinion of counsel, without a statement of specific reasons supporting that opinion,
13 does not constitute substantial evidence.
14
15 405. DEFENDANT Amanda Founi via Text told Mr. Bennett the “judge” raised the doubt.
16
17 406. DEFENDANT Founi also misrepresented the commissioner three times to Austin, each
18 time calling Commissioner Cintean a judge.
19
20 407. Without substantial evidence, Mr. Bennett's trial to never have been suspended.
21
22 408. DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar, who replace Amanda Founi the day Mr. Bennett's trial was
23 suspended, told Mr. Bennett Amanda Founi raised the doubt. Then in a later text, told Mr.
24 Bennett the judge raised the doubt. Then again told Mr. Bennett they raised the doubt. Then one
25 more time told Mr. Bennett before his hearing started, she made a mistake and it was the judge
26 who raised the doubt.
27
28
48
409. Judge Southworth stated on record Commissioner Cintean raised the doubt and there may
have been issues with that.

WN
WW
410. DEFENDANT Aguilar changed her mind again, stating on record that Amanda Founi had
Fb
raised the doubt.

On
N
411. Mr. Bennett is heard many times asking to see the evidence, since there was none ever
ny
presented to the court. Nothing that met the requirement for substantial evidence.
oO
Oo
10 J. Mr. Bennett Ruled Incompetent without Trial or Due Process
ll
12 412. Mr. Bennett went from competent to self represent, to incompetent to face trial.
13
14 413. Mr. Bennett was found incompetent to face trial on 8/17/22, and denied a competency trial
15 as required by law.
16
17 414. California court rules state if the parties waive the right to a jury trial, the court's findings
18 must be made in writing or placed orally in the record. Not only did Mr. Bennett not waive his
19 rights, but the court’s findings were not put in writing nor stated orally on record.
20
21 415. Mr. Bennett was found incompetent to face trial on 8/17/22, without a competency trial to
2 defend himself.
23
24 416. Mr. Bennett's Constitutional right to due process was ignored. See Pen C 1386; People v.
25 Pennington (1976) 66 C2d 508, 520, 58 CR 374."

26
27 417. Pen C 1386; People v. Pennington, "A mental health expert appointed by the court should
28 be ordered to provide a report to the court, with copies for defense council and the prosecutor.
49
The purpose of the report is to guide the court in determining whether to order a competency
hearing If the hearing is ordered, one or two additional expert must be appointed and the
DEFENDANT must be afforded due process to challenge their conclusions as part of the
hearing.
>
WN
418. DEFENDANTs hid the report from Mr. Bennett.

NHN
nN
419. According to the United States Supreme Court, when a criminal DEFENDANT “has come
fo
forward with substantial evidence of incompetence to stand trial, due process requires that a full
Oo
10 competency hearing be held.” (People v. Stankewitz (1982) 32 Cal.3d 80, 92, citing Pate v.
11 Robinson, supra, 383 U.S. 375.)
12
13 420. There never was substantial evidence presented to the court or stated on record.
14
15 421. Mr. Bennett was never shown any evidence to have raised doubt about his competency.
16
17 422. Mr. Bennett's was found and ruled incompetent, without a trial on the mental competency.
18
19 423. REGARDLESS of conclusions or findings of the court-appointed expert, the court must
20 conduct a trial on the mental competency! Penal Code section 1369 affords criminal public
21 defenders a statutory right to a jury trial on the issue of mental competence. (Pen. Code, § 1369.)
22
23 424. The judge ignored court rules by denying Mr. Bennett his right to a competency trial.
24
25 425. The judge ignored the state Federal Constitution by depriving Mr. Bennett his right to a
26 competency trial.
27
28
50
426. The DEFENDANTSs did not defend Mr. Bennett's right to a jury trial on the issue of mental
competency.
WN
WwW
427. Judge Peter Southworth recognized and affirmed Mr. Bennett's right to have a competency
&
trial to defend himself.

MN
NHN
428. Judge Peter Southworth affirmed Mr. Bennett's right to have his own doctor at his
ws
competency trial.
oOo
oOo
10 429. Judge Southworth, on 7/21/22 (timestamp 26:35), attested the legal duty of the court to
11 have a competency trial for AUSTIN, in order so he could defend himself and challenge the
12 court’s findings, and bring his own doctor.
13
14 Judge Southworth assured Mr. Bennett on 7/21/22 (timestamp 26:35),“We will address the
15 appointment of mental health professionals and you are entitled to a trial of competency and
16 bring your own mental health professional. That’s down the road.”
17
18 430. However without justification or regard for the law, Judge Southworth denied Mr. Bennett
19 his right to a competency trial. The so-called down the road trial never came.
20
21 431. The DEFENDANT refused to defend Mr. Bennett's right to a competency trial, as required
22 by court rules.
23
24 432. Mr. Bennett never had the chance to see or challenge the fraudulent doctor’s report, nor
zs afforded the right to bring his own expert.

26
ai 433. The judge, DA and public defenders violated CA Rules of Court, Rule 4.130, per mental
28 competency proceedings; by submitting on a fraudulent report that Mr. Bennett was
51
incompetent, when he had not seen the evidence, nor had a trial to challenge the findings or
defend himself.
WN
WwW
434. Section (e) asserts “regardless of the conclusions or findings of the court-appointed expert,
>
the court must conduct a trial on the mental competency of the DEFENDANT if the court has
MN
initiated mental competency proceedings under (b).”

NHN
Nn
435. Rule 4.130 section (e) orders the court that it “must” conduct a trial on the mental
©
competency of the public defender.

Oo
10
11 436. Without the trial, Mr. Bennett was denied due process and the California court rules also
12 violated.
13
14 437. The court rules maintain the court must permit the DEFENDANT to bring his own doctor,
15
16 438. Rule 4.130 section (e) (3) asseverates “in addition to the testimony of the experts appointed
17 by the court under (d), either party may call additional experts or other relevant witnesses.
18
19 439. The DEFENDANT did nothing to defend Mr. Bennett’s rights, but instead supported the
20 court denying Mr. Bennett's right to a trial.
21
22 K. Mr. Bennett Denied the Right to See the Evidence Used Against Him
23
440. Pen C 1386 stated Mr. Bennett must be afforded the right to see the evidence used against
24
him and challenge the findings, to ensure due process. He never saw the evidence, nor had due
25
process to challenge the findings that he was incompetent to face trial.
26
27
28
52
441. The DEFENDANT refused to show Mr. Bennett the doctor’s report, which later was proven!
to be fraudulent.
442. Mr. Bennett was never shown the report, though you can hear him in each court hearing,
>
telling the judge “where’s the so-called smoking gun? There is no evidence your honor.”
MN
NH
443. DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar did not even bother meeting the minimum requirement per
NY
her fiduciary obligation to Mr. Bennett, by not even bothering knowing the facts which occurred
Oo
in his hearing.
Oo
10
11 444. DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar advised Mr. Bennett to obey an order, which he pointed out
12 to her was unlawful.

13
14 445. DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar clearly she was not interested in defending Mr. Bennett,
15 since she was not interested in looking at the transcripts.
16
17 446. The Sacramento County Public Defenders had a fiduciary duty to show Mr. Bennett all the
18 facts that would materially impact his rights and interests; but instead, they showed him no
19 evidence at all.
20
21 447. Beal Bank SSB v. Arter & Hadden LLP, 42 Cal. 4th 503, 514 (2007) (citing Neel v.
ze Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand, 6 Cal. 3d 176, 188-89 (1971)). “This disclosure
23 obligation was recognized by the California Supreme Court in Neel over fifty years ago.
24 Fiduciary duty includes the obligation to render a full and fair disclosure to the client of all facts
25 that materially affect the client’s rights and interests.”
26
Zt
28
53
448. Fiduciary duty includes “the obligation to render a full and fair disclosure to the client of all
facts that materially affect the client’s rights and interests.”

N
WwW
449. Instead honoring their fiduciary obligation to Austin, the public defenders behaved in a way
ff
meant to prevent Mr. Bennett from seeing the evidence, which was being used against him.
Mn
NH
450. Pen C 1386; People v. Pennington, "A mental health expert appointed by the court should
ws
be ordered to provide a report to the court, with copies for defense council and the prosecutor.
co
The purpose of the report is to guide the court in determining whether to order a competency
Oo
10 hearing If the hearing is ordered, one or two additional expert must be appointed and the
11 DEFENDANT must be afforded due process to challenge their conclusions as part of the
12 hearing."
13
14 451. By law, the public defenders were supposed to show Mr. Bennett the report to help guide
15 the court process, including ensuring Mr. Bennett's due process. He was not shown the report,
16 nor did he receive due process.
17
18 452. DEFENDANT Aguilar declared in a life-stream the judge had the right to deny Mr. Bennett
19 a competency trial, confirming the public defender’s intent to commit fraud, corruption and
20 malice against Austin.

21
22 453. Judge Southworth was not authorized to declare Mr. Bennett incompetent to face trial
23 without a hearing.
24
25 454. The trial judge, Pamela Smith-Steward, was required to preside over Mr. Bennett's hearing.
26
27
28
54
455. On 8/17/22,when the judge, DA and DEFENDANT submitted on the doctor’s report and all
agreed Mr. Bennett was incompetent to face trial, Mr. Bennett still had not seen the report nor
WN
permitted to challenge its findings.

Ww
-f
L. Psych Eval Proven Fraudulent, Doctor Claims it was an Accident

MU
N
456. Concerning the doctor’s report, the law says its purpose is to “guide the court in
ws
determining whether to order a competency hearing. If the hearing is ordered, one or two
oO
com
additional experts must be appointed and the DEFENDANT must be afforded due process to
Oo
10 challenge their conclusions as part of the hearing. See Pen C 1386; People v. Pennington (1976)
11 66 C2d 508, 520, 58 CR 374.”
12
13 457. Mr. Bennett was denied due process.
14
a BENNET TvsSAC
15 458. At the final hearing when Mr. Bennett's case was dismissed for the furtherance of justice,
16 because he was ruled incompetent to face trial, Mr. Bennett demanded to know how a court
17 doctor could submit an evaluation without having ever met with Mr. Bennett and the judge
18 answered, “By looking at other reports and based on court officials observations.”
19
20 459. Mr. Bennett was never shown the “other reports” nor see the evidence the court officials
21 had submitted concerning Mr. Bennett’s competence.
22
23 460. Mr. Bennett asked his public defender, the public defender, more than a dozen times via
24 text to see the evidence, but was ignored each time.
25
26 461. May 17, 2022, the same day his jury trial was suspended, Mr. Bennett texted the
27 DEFENDANT Founi inquiring about procedural rules which were violated. He asked her to file
28 a motion.
55
DEFENDANT Founi, said there was nothing she could do, and that she no longer would be Mr.
Bennett’s attorney, and that he would have a new one.
462. Mr. Bennett asked the new public defender, DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar, pertinent
questions concerning who raised the doubt, Ms. Aguilar simply stated she was not there, so she
N
did not know.

ss
©
463. Mr. Bennett pointed to the court rules that were violated to his new public defender, but the
Oo
10 DEFENDANT refused to answer Mr. Bennett ’s questions by stating she did not know since she
11 was not the attorney at the hearing.
12
13 464. Mr. Bennett asked to see the evidence that was used against him, but Ms. Aguilar showed
14 him nothing and told him to ask the judge.
LS
16 465. The DEFENDANTs kept insisting Mr. Bennett to see the court doctor, ignoring his many
17 texts telling her the rules were violated and the order was unlawful.
18
19 M. Evidence Shows Ms. Founi Raised the Doubt, but Denies it
20
466. Evidence shows the DEFENDANT Amanda Founi raised doubt concerning Mr. Bennett's
21
competence on 3/17/22, but she and the court ignored the rules of procedure requiring the
22
counsel to submit a statement of specific reasons supporting that opinion, otherwise the doubt
2
does not constitute substantial evidence and Mr. Bennett's trial could not be suspended and it
24
was.
25
26
467. Mr. Bennett's multiple texts to DEFENDANT Aguilar claiming there was no evidence to
27
raise the doubt and that the rules of procedure were violated, the DEFENDANT instead states
28
56
N
Mr. Bennett was in error because there were witnesses who saw Mr. Bennett push Senator Pan.
468. The push had nothing to do with the competency hearing nor evidence in question. It
WwW
seemed like either Aguilar was confused or she was gaslighting Austin.
&
MN
469. Judge Peter Southworth relied on the court doctor’s report, later proven fraudulent.
NH
sy
470. Dr. Marine Jakubowski submitted a fraudulent report, claiming she met with Mr. Bennett
co
com
when she did not.

Oo
10
11 471. The judge and DA both admitted on record, 7/26/22, Mr. Bennett refused to meet with the
12 court doctor.
13
14 472. Judge Southworth also admitted on record, 8/17/22, Mr. Bennett respectfully declined to
@ BENNETTvsSAC
15 meet with the court doctor.
16
17 473. The Judge, DA and DEFENDANT submitted on the doctor’s fraudulent report on 8/17/22.
18
19 474. It was stated multiple times in court Mr. Bennett did not meet with the court doctor,
20 including by the judge, DA and Austin

21
22 475. The DEFENDANT did nothing to stand up for Mr. Bennett right to a trial, in order to
23 challenge the court’s findings.
24
25 476. The DEFENDANT did nothing to stand up for Mr. Bennett right to a trial, in order to
26 challenge the doctor’s report.

27
28 N. Defendants Refused to Showed Mr. Bennett any Evidence
57
477. The DEFENDANTSs continued to break the law and deny Mr. Bennett his right to see the
WN
evidence, nor court rule to confer with him.

WwW
Fb
478. The court doctor Marine Jukubowski, later confessed in writing she made an “error,”
Mn
claiming she confused Mr. Bennett with another patient who had the same name.
NHN
~~
479. Mr. Bennett told the public defender, his court appointed public defender, multiple times he
co
never met with the court doctor.

oOo
10
480. The Judge admitted twice on record Mr. Bennett did not speak with the court appointed
11
psychologist.
12
13
481. The DA admitted on record Mr. Bennett did not speak with the court appointed
14
psychologist.
15
16
482. DEFENDANT referred to the report as fraud in writing via email.
17
18
483. Mr. Bennett was denied a competency trial, required by court rules and as required by state
19
and Federal law.
20
21
484. Mr. Bennett was prevented from seeing the evidence used against him.
22
23
O. Evidence Demonstrate Fraud, Corruption and Malice
24
25 485. Judge Southworth took the law into his own hands, and without a trial as required by court
26 rules, California law and the Constitution of the United States, the judge ruled Mr. Bennett was
27 incompetent to face trial and dismissed his case.
28
58
WN
486. The DEFENDANTs supported the judge’s decision, to deny Mr. Bennett his right to a trial.
487. The DEFENDANTs did object one time on Mr. Bennett's behalf, but instead colluded to
&WwW
deny Mr. Bennett's right to a competency trial.

MN
P. Defendant Juan Contreras Threatened Mr. Bennett Not to Pursue Jury Trial
NH
ss
488. Mr. Bennett was striped naked, mocked by guards and thrown in jail. He was told he would
Oo
stay there until he met with the court doctor.

Oo
10
11 489. Mr. Bennett court appointed attorney undermined Mr. Bennett's right to a competency trial.
12
13 490. Mr. Bennett court appointed attorney ignored the law that states Mr. Bennett must be
14 presumed competent, until there was a competency trial in order for Mr. Bennett to challenge the
15 findings.
16
17 491. On 7/26 when Mr. Bennett was brought to his hearing from his jail cell, DEFENDANT
18 Juan Contreras took Mr. Bennett to a side room. The DEFENDANT told Austin his case would
19 be dismissed, but if he pursued a jury trial, that Mr. Bennett would be put in the mental ward.
20
21 492. Mr. Bennett has explained to DEFENDANT Contreras, that DEFENDANT Aguilar had
22 been lying to him via text, offered to show it to him and also, Mr. Contreras was the first to hear
23 it from Mr. Bennett, that he never met with the court doctor.
24
25 493. The court already knew Mr. Bennett had not seen the court doctor, because the judge and
26 DA both admitted the same day Mr. Bennett had declined to meet with the doctor.
27
28
59
494. Judge Southworth also admitted a second time, the first on 7/26/22 and the second on
08/17/2022.
N
Ww
495. DEFENDANT Contreras told Mr. Bennett his case would end up being dismissed.
>
WN
496. DEFENDANT Contreras also warned Mr. Bennett if he pursued a jury trial, Mr. Contreras
aNWN
stated Mr. Bennett would be put into the mental ward.
497. August 17, 2022 hearing (timestamp 3:08), Mr. Bennett is heard testifying to the judge,
a BENNET TysSACRAMENTO.com
10 “,..then the psychologist comes to see me, I didn’t speak to her. All I said, ‘I do not consent.’...
11 it takes at least an hour up to four hours to evaluate someone. This psychologist didn’t speak to
12 me, and she’s given you back an evaluation that I’m incompetent? We have a problem here.”
13
14 498. The judge answered, “Sir, sir, I’ve read the report I understand you respectfully decide, did
15 decide not to talk to her; so I understand the circumstances (Timestamp 3:25).”
16
17 499. Judge Peter Southworth admitted Mr. Bennett did not speak to the court doctor.
18
19 500. Without a trial as required by law, at the hearing on 8/17/22, DEFENDANT Melody
20 Aguilar declared she and other public defender, Amanda Founi, agree with the court and
pal declared Mr. Bennett was incompetent to face trial.
22
23 501. PD Aguilar stated in court, “He’s had to be muted multiple times by commissioners and
24 judges, because he talks about vaccines and goes and rants about that.”
25
26 502. Mr. Bennett was never “muted by commissioners and judges” as Ms. Aguilar attested and
Za declared in court, because of rants concerning vaccines.
28
60
503. PD Aguilar twisted and used Mr. Bennett's accurate knowledge of the law, to discredit him
in court by claiming he was ranting about law; implying he did not know what he was talking
about.
-
504. PD. Aguilar committed this malicious and intentional fraud, in order to support Judge
UN
Southworth ruling Mr. Bennett was incompetent to face trial and have him remanded into jail,
NHN
where he was severely abused.

ss
Oo
Q. Defendant Melody Aguilar Ensured Mr. Bennett’s False Imprisonment

Oo
10
11
505. PD Aguilar lied to the judge, in order to have Mr. Bennett arrested and remanded into jail,
12
where he was abused and tortured by guards.
13
14
506. Ms. Aguilar stated he rants about law and implied Mr. Bennett made no sense.
15
16
507. It was becoming evident around this time PD Aguilar was not interested in focusing on Mr.
17
Bennett's case, but simply going along with PD Founi’s declaration of Mr. Bennett's doubt.
18
19
508. DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar misrepresented Mr. Bennett to the court, in order to ensure
20
he would be taken to jail.
21
22
509. When Mr. Bennett was placed in the cage on an unlawful order, the DEFENDANT said
23
nothing to defend Mr. Bennett, but the contrary, supported false findings to guarantee Mr.
24
Bennett was taken to jail.
Zo
26
R. Austin’s Texts Demonstrate His Understanding of Court Procedural Rules
27
28
61
510. Any reasonable person could conclude Mr. Bennett was competent and well aware of the
laws having been violated by the commissioner.
WN
WwW
511. Mr. Bennett recognized the commissioner most likely acted outside of his authority to
-&
nullify the Faretta waiver already signed by a judge.

MN
HD
512. Mr. Bennett did nothing to justify raising doubt about his competence, nor the laws justified
NY
suspending his trial and ordering Mr. Bennett to see the court doctor.
©
Oo
10 513. Repeating an excerpt of Mr. Bennett's text to PD Aguilar, Mr. Bennett insisted Aguilar
11 inform herself and become aware of his case, before trying to enforce an order that was based on
12 broken rules. Mr. Bennett texted, “As far as seeing a psychologist, don't you think it would be
13 wise to go over the transcripts first? I do and any attorney I've spoken to says the same thing. If
14 you are going to force me by your said representation to make a move not in my best interest, let
15 it be noted here.”
16
17 514. In another text one week later, PD Aguilar wrote on May 17, 2022, “I told you I don’t know
18 who said what because I was not there.”
19
20 515. “On May 19, 2022 Aguilar texted, “Again, for the third or 4th time, I was not at the last
21 court date and do not know what specifically happened. If your previous attorney from my office
a2 declared a doubt then you have to abide and complete the evaluation now that the commissioner
23 ordered it.”
24
25 516. PD Aguilar ignored Mr. Bennett’s question, telling him that for the “third or 4th time she
26 does not know what was stated in court, who raised the doubt for sure,” because she was not
27 there.
28
62
517. However, DEFENDANT Aguilar insisted Mr. Bennett abide by an order by the
commissioner, even after Mr. Bennett showed her the penal code invoked was violated by
Commissioner Cintean.
_
518. PD Aguilar should have known, even after Mr. Bennett shared Penal Code 1368, that there
WN
should have been a statement of reasons submitted by PD Founi.

NHN
519. PD Melody Aguilar ignored Mr. Bennett and refused to take the time to listen to the
CO
transcripts, and ignored the court rules Mr. Bennett shared with her that made it clear Founi had
Oo
10 to submit a statement of reasons to bring forth substantial evidence, which is required to have a
11 bona fide doubt, as required by law. Otherwise the court was not authorized to suspend Mr.
12 Bennett's trial, nor force him to see a doctor against his will.
13
14 520. It was clear by PD Aguilar’s multiple text responses that she had not even bothered to learn
15 what the facts to Mr. Bennett's case were?
16
17 521. The DEFENDANT was not in any position to represent Mr. Bennett while, demonstrated
18 by DEFENDANT Aguilar many texts, since she claimed not to know all the facts.
19
20 522. Yet, DEFENDANT Aguilar still insisted Mr. Bennett see the court doctor.
21
22 523. DEFENDANT Aguilar was in no position to represent AUSTIN, while ignoring his
23 concerns and not answering any of his questions as to who exactly raised the doubt or rules that
24 were being violated.

25
26 524. As demonstrated, by law Mr. Bennett was entitled to see what specifically the doubt raised
27 against him. Instead, he was kept in the dark.
28
63
525. Court records show, 5/19/22, when Mr. Bennett raised his concerns to the commissioner,
the commissioner told Mr. Bennett not to state it on record, because anything he said could be
WN
used against him and shortly afterwards muted Mr. Bennett for the rest of the hearing.
Ww
526. Neither he nor the public defender, Mr. Bennett's attorney, would answer Mr. Bennett's
wn
questions. Let the court transcript, 5/19/22, show this statement is true.
NH
nN
527. If PD Aguilar at a bear minimum did her fiduciary duty to AUSTIN, she would have
Co
researched to know who said what and disclosed the facts to Mr. Bennett.
Oo
10
11 528. If PD Aguilar at a bear minimum did her fiduciary duty to Mr. Bennett, she would have
12 gone over the written statements with him.
13
14 529. However, DEFENDANT Aguilar either did not ever bothered looking, or she wanted to
15 keep Mr. Bennett in the dark because she knew there was no written reasons of facts as required
16 by law.
17
18 530. If PD Founi had concerns about Mr. Bennett's competence, she should have consulted him.
19
20 531. It was DEFENDANT Aguilar's duty by law to do her due diligence, not to hide her
21 intentions and then blindside Mr. Bennett in court.
22
23 S. Defendant Founi Never Submitted a Statement of Reasons
24
25 532. By law, there should have been a statement of reasons written by DEFENDANT Founi. As
26 Penal Code 1368 states, counsel’s opinion does not constitute substantial evidence without a
27 statement of “specific” reasons written down by Ms. Founi.
28
64
533. “(2) The opinion of counsel, without a statement of specific reasons supporting that
opinion, does not constitute substantial evidence. 2023 California Rules of Court Rule 4.130.
WN
Mental competency proceedings.

WwW
-&
534. On record Mr. Bennett asked, “Where’s the smoking gun? There is no evidence your
VN
honor.” Despite the statements, nobody presented any. The court digital transcripts prove this
HD
statement true.
sa
eS
com
535. PD Aguilar's insisted Mr. Bennett see the court doctor at least a dozens times, while
Oo
10 ignoring Mr. Bennett's many texts showing the law, concerns and complaints the law was
11 broken.
12
13 536. In order for there to have been substantial evidence, the statement of facts should have been
14 disclosed to Mr. Bennett by law, before his trial could be suspended. First step should have been
a BENNETTvsSAC
15 to recess proceeding, if indeed there was bona fide doubt, which there never was.
16
17 537. Had Commissioner had legitimate authority to suspend Mr. Bennett's trial and reject the
18 Faretta waiver signed by the judge, the written statements of facts should have been presented to
19 Mr. Bennett and the attorney conferred with him. See Penal Code 1368(a).
20
21 538. The only plan of action PD Aguilar showed, was an agendum to get Mr. Bennett in front of
22 the court doctor at all costs, despite the facts surrounding the unlawful order.
23
24 539. At a minimum, PD Aguilar’s communications demonstrated a wanton disregard for Mr.
25 Bennett's rights and his concerns.
26
27 540. PD Aguilar was not in a position to counsel Austin; she did not meet the minimum
28 requirement per her fiduciary obligations to Mr. Bennett, since she kept claiming she did not
65
know the facts surrounding his hearing; stating many times she did not know who said what and
what took place in court.
WN
WwW
541. It was apparent PD Aguilar sole objective was to get Mr. Bennett to obey an unlawful order
>
to see the court doctor, since she refused to listen to court digital transcripts, or consider the
WN
court rules the commissioner violated despite Mr. Bennett's pleadings for PD Aguilar to do so.
NHN
nN
542. Further, it fully exposes DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar’s deliberate and malicious judicial
eo
com
misconduct, as she misrepresents her client to the court on July 26, 2022, claiming Mr. Bennett
Oo
10 made no sense about the law he pointed out to Ms. Aguilar, and that he was not able to have a
11 conversation and ranted about vaccines.
12
13 543. It is clear DEFENDANT Aguilar lied to the court, with malicious intent to get Mr. Bennett
14 remanded into jail.
@ BENNETTvsSAC
15
16 544, Mr. Bennett and Ms. Aguilar never spoke on the phone, not once.
17
18 545. Therefore, for Ms. Aguilar to declare a doubt on record about Mr. Bennett's competence,
19 because “she tried to have conversations and was not able to complete one,” is an indictment on
20 her honesty.
21
Zz 546. Clearly the intent of the DEFENDANT was fraud and malice against her Mr. Bennett.
23
24 547. On July 26, 2022 it became clear to Mr. Bennett the DEFENDANT misrepresentations
25 were intentional fraud and malice, after DEFENDANT Juan Contreras threatened Mr. Bennett
26 he would be placed into the mental ward, if he pushed for his jury trial.
27
28
66
548. On July 21, 2022, Ms. Aguilar’s deception caused Mr. Bennett great harm. Her misleading
declarations ensured Mr. Bennett was wrongly imprisoned.
WN
WwW
549. Jail guards locked down Mr. Bennett for 24/7 and physically, emotionally and mentally
-&
abused him for six days.

MN
ND
NN
550. DEFENDANT Melody Aguilar, conspired to have Mr. Bennett wrongly imprisoned, in
fo
com
order to force him to follow an unlawful order by a commissioner, who had no authority to begin
Oo
10 with, as well as egregiously violated court rules to unjustly require Mr. Bennett to see the court
11 doctor.
12
13 551. The court doctor proved to be dishonest, by misrepresenting the truth when she claimed to
14 have evaluated Austin, when she never met with him.
@ BENNETTvsSAC
15
16 552. Instead of defending Mr. Bennett, DEFENDANT Aguilar went along with the judge, who
17 was relying on false testimony by the DEFENDANTs.
18
19 553. Extortion was used to force Mr. Bennett to see the court doctor and follow an unlawful
20 order.
21
22 554. Judge threatened Austin, “I’m warning you, you are going to go and be in custody until you
23 meet with the doctor.”
24
25 555. The judge relied on false testimony by the DEFENDANTs.
26
27 556. The DEFENDANTSs remained silent and chose not to defend Austin.
28
67
N
T. Defendant Melissa McEleheney Admits Doctor’s Report was Fraudulent
557. The DEFENDANT admits the report is fraudulent.

WwW
&
558. The DEFENDANT admits the report is either fraudulent, or at least negligent.
MN
HD
559. Ms. McElheney encouraged Mr. Bennett to put himself in criminal jeopardy again.
nN
Oo
560. The DEFENDANT told Mr. Bennett, had they known the report was fraudulent or at least
Oo
10 had errors, they would not have submitted on it.
11
12 561. On November 9, 2022 DEFENDANT Melissa McElheney emailed Mr. Bennett admitting
13 Dr. Jakubowski's report was fraudulent or at the very least negligent. She goes on to state that
14 they and the court would not have submitted on Dr. Jakubowski's report had they known.
15
16 562. Mr. Bennett told the public defenders many times, including by text, that he had not met
17 with the doctor and to please give him the doctor’s report so he could go over it. However, they
18 refused. For
19
20 563. For the DEFENDANT to say they did not know it was fraudulent, and had they known they
21 would not have submitted on it is disingenuous based on the public defenders actions.U.
22 Defendant McElheney admits report fraudulent
23
24 564. On December 14, 2022 DEFENDANT Melissa attempts to put Mr. Bennett in double
25 jeopardy when she emailed him writing, “Basically, I am asking the court to reinstate criminal
26 proceedings; withdraw the court’s finding of incompetence; withdraw the parties submission on
27 the inaccurate report; make Dr. J’s letter admitting her inaccuracies and mistake part of the court
28
68
file; allow you to make a Marsden motion to the court so you can express what you want to say
to the court; and allow you to be deemed competent and proceed to trial on these charges.”
N
&WwW
COUNT I: LEGAL MALPRACTICE

NN
565. Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations set forth in statements of facts - above and incorporates
HD
same herein by reference.

ss
©
com
566. Mr. Bennett was charged with a single count of simple battery.
Oo
10
11 567. Mr. Bennett was not charged with any felony or any other crime.
12
13 568. Mr. Bennett was assigned the DEFENDANT for certain parts of his court hearings. The
14 quality of the representation that Mr. Bennett received was so low that it breached the minimal
a BENNET TvsSAC
15 professional standard of care expected from clients of a public defender.

16
17 569. Additionally the DEFENDANTs said under penalty of perjury they thought that the client
18 was mentally incompetent to stand trial. A DEFENDANT or attorney representing a client in a
19 criminal case can so indicate to the Court, but they must have observed something that so
20 indicates and specifically that they are not sufficiently competent to understand the proceedings
21 and assist their attorney in preparing the case.
22
23 570. Mr. Bennett clearly understood proceedings and had ability to assist the DEFENDANT in
24 preparing his case.

25
26 571. The DEFENDANT knew that Mr. Bennett did not want to be found mentally incompetent.
27
28
69
572. The DEFENDANT had no legal basis for believing that Mr. Bennett was mentally
incompetent.
N
WwW
573. The DEFENDANT submitted on a report by Dr. Marine Jakubowski finding Mr. Bennett
&
mentally incompetent.
MN
NHN
574. The report was false, called Mr. Bennett, homeless, a felon, unmarried (after his wife was in
~~
court), diagnosed with mental illness.

oOo
oOo
10 575. Any attorney who read the report would know that the report was false.
11 576. A reasonable attorney should raise questions about a report from a doctor that says that their
12 client is charged with a felony when their client had no such charge pending against him.
13
14 577. The DEFENDANT did not raise questions about the report saying that Mr. Bennett was
15 charged with a felony.
16
17 578. The DEFENDANT submitted on the report that said Mr. Bennett was charged with a
18 felony.
19
20 579. A reasonable attorney should raise questions about a report that says their client is
21 unmarried when their client’s wife has been in court.
22
23 580. The DEFENDANT did not raise questions with the report saying that Mr. Bennett was
24 unmarried.
25
26 581. The DEFENDANT submitted on the report that said Mr. Bennett was unmarried.
27
28 582. The DEFENDANT did not allow Mr. Bennett to see the report from Dr. Jakubowski.
70
583. The DEFENDANT did not allow Mr. Bennett to see report from Dr. Jakubowski before he
was found incompetent.

WN
WwW
584. Mr. Bennett was unable to dispute the contents of the report because he was unable to see
&
the report before he was found incompetent.

WN
NHN
585. This resulted in Mr. Bennett being held in the Sacrament County jail for almost a week and
~~
ultimately found incompetent to stand trial.

fo
oOo
10 586. Mr. Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress and humiliation from being declared
11 incompetent to stand trial.
12
13 587. Mr. Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress and believed that he would be
14 institutionalized for many years after seeing people in jail go to the psychiatric section of the jail
15 and come back almost comatose.
16
17 588. The extreme emotional distress that Mr. Bennett suffered made was worse because Mr.
18 Bennett had bad reactions to medical procedures and pharmaceutical drugs in the past and was in
19 fear that this was going to happen again because he would be forcibly drugged in a mental
20 institution.
21
22 589. Mr. Bennett lost clients and stopped receiving referrals from large institutions because of
23 being found incompetent to stand trial.
24
25 590. At the beginning of the incompetency proceedings when Judge Southworth asked the
26 DEFENDANT who raised the doubt of competency the DEFENDANT said that they did not
27 know.
28
71
591. This led the judge to believe that a commissioner raised doubts about Mr Bennett’s
competency.
WwWN
592. The DEFENDANT later admitted in open court that it was their office that raised the doubts
b&b
of competency.
MN
NHN
593. The DEFENDANT further went on to tell the court that they believed that Mr. Bennett was
nN
incompetent.
fo
Oo
10 594. Ms. Aguilar did not dispute the competency of Mr. Bennett when asked by Judge Peter
11 South Worth on 7/21/22 in court and further said that Mr. Bennett was incompetent because he
12 talks about vaccines and rants about that, because Mr. Bennett did not want to talk by phone
13 [because he preferred to communicate by text] and confirms that Mr. Bennett sent many texts
14 about the file. Mr Aguilar further goes on to say that Mr. Bennett is not competent because he
15 asks questions about law via text and call’s Mr. Bennett’s texts “further rants”.
16
17 595. The above reasons for incompetency are not legally valid reasons for believing someone is
18 incompetent.
19
20 596. A competent attorney should know what is grounds for believing someone is incompetence.
21
22 597. By failing to properly represent Mr. Bennett as well as telling the court that Mr. Bennett
23 was incompetent, without a basis the DEFENDANT breached the duty of care owed to someone
24 being represented by an attorney.
25
26 598. Saying that they did not know who raised the doubt of competency and then admitting that
27 they were indeed the ones who raised the doubt of competency after Mr. Bennett was in
28 handcuffs ready to go to jail for a competency evaluation after the judges mind is made up is
72
perjury. Allowing the judge to think that a court raised the doubt of competency vs being honest
and saying that the doubt was raised by the DEFENDANT could significantly alter the judges
decision.
-_
599. No client, with even the lowest quality attorney should have to deal with an attorney that
WN
says one thing under oath and then later conflicts them self in a single court hearing.
NHN
nN
600. Furthermore the DEFENDANT led Mr. Bennett to believe that the commissioner raised the
©
doubt of competency, even though they raised the doubt of competency.

Oo
10
11 601. Misleading a client about the laws of the facts is legal malpractice.
12
13 602. “(a) A lawyer shall: (3) keep the client reasonably informed about significant developments
14 relating to the representation, including promptly complying with reasonable requests for
15 information and copies of significant documents when necessary to keep the client so informed”
16
17 603. “RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Chapter 1. Lawyer-Client Relationship (Rules
18 1.1 — 1.18) 1 Rule 1.1 Competence (a) A lawyer shall not intentionally, recklessly, with gross
19 negligence, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.”
20
21 604. Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority (a) Subject to rule 1.2.1, a
22 lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as
23 required by rule 1.4, shall reasonably consult with the client as to the means by which they are to
24 be pursued. Subject to Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) and rule
25 1.6,
26
27 605. Rule 3-700(D) of the State Bar of California Rules of Professional Conduct provides, in
28 pertinent part, as follows: Subject to any protective order or non-disclosure agreement, [the law
73
firm must] promptly release to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and
property. 'Client papers and property’ includes correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts,
WN
exhibits, physical evidence, expert's reports, and other items reasonably necessary to the client's
WwW
representation, whether the client has paid for them or not."

Fb
OT
606. Beal Bank SSB v. Arter & Hadden LLP, 42 Cal. 4th 503, 514 (2007) (citing Neel v.
NHN
Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand, 6 Cal. 3d 176, 188-89 (1971)). “This disclosure
ns
obligation was recognized by the California Supreme Court in Neel over fifty years ago.
oO
Fiduciary duty includes the obligation to render a full and fair disclosure to the client of all facts
Oo
10 that materially affect the client’s rights and interests.”
11
12 COUNT II: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

13
14 607. Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations set forth in statements of facts - above and incorporates
15 same herein by reference.
16
17 608. Mr. Bennett was charged with a single count of simple battery.
18
19 609. Mr. Bennett was not charge with any felony or any other crime.
20
24
25 611. The DEFENDANT said under penalty of perjury that they thought that the client was
26 mentally incompetent to stand trial.
27
74
613. The DEFENDANT had no legal basis for believing that Mr. Bennett was mentally
WN
incompetent.
WwW
SS
UN
NHN
ND
fo

Oo
10
12
15
18
20 felony.
21
23 unmarried.
24
a 621. The DEFENDANT submitted on the report that said Mr. Bennett was unmarried.
26
28
75
623. The DEFENDANT did not allow Mr. Bennett to see report from Dr. Jakubowski before he
was found incompetent.

N
WwW
fF

Oa
NWN
NN

Oo
Oo
i2
16
20 institution.
21
22 629. Joshua Coleman, a journalist known for following and jeering Mr. Bennett in the media,
23 was in the court room recording the incompetency procedure.
24
25 630. Mr. Bennett did not want Joshua Coleman to record the incompetency procedure.
26
27 631. The DEFENDANT did not ask the judge to disallow the recording of the incompetency
28 proceedings.
76
632. Joshua Coleman recorded the incompetency proceedings and posted them on the internet.
WN
WwW
633. Joshua Coleman reported the court found Mr. Bennett “Coo coo.”
fF
na
634. Joshua Coleman has a large following.

N
ws
635. Mr. Bennett lost clients and stopped receiving referrals from large institutions because of
CO
being found incompetent to stand trial.

Oo
10
13 know.
14
15 637. This led the judge to believe that a commissioner raised doubts about Mr Bennett’s
16 competency.
17
18 638. The DEFENDANT later admitted in open court that it was their office that raised the doubts
19 of competency.
20
21 639. The DEFENDANT further went on to tell the court that they believed that Mr. Bennett was
Zz incompetent.
23
28
77
about the file. Mr Aguilar further goes on to say that Mr. Bennett is not competent because he
asks questions about law via text and call’s Mr. Bennett’s texts “further rants”.
N
-WwW
641. The above reasons for incompetency are not legally valid reasons for believing someone is
incompetent.
nA
NH
642. Saying that they did not know who raised the doubt of competency and then admitting that
NN
they were indeed the ones who raised the doubt of competency after Mr. Bennett was in
fo
handcuffs ready to go to jail for a competency evaluation after the judges mind is made up is
oOo
10 perjury. Allowing the judge to think that a court raised the doubt of competency vs being honest
11 and saying that the doubt was raised by the DEFENDANT could significantly alter the judges
12 decision.
13
14 643. The DEFENDANT acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Mr. Bennett would
15 suffer emotional distress.
16
17 644. Mr Bennett suffered emotional distress.
18
19 645. The public defenders’ conduct was a substantial factor factor in causing that emotional
20 distress.
24
27 required by rule 1.4, shall reasonably* consult with the client as to the means by which they are
28
78
to be pursued. Subject to Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) and
rule 1.6,
COUNT III: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
NH

Nn
fo
Oo
10
11 650. Mr. Bennett was not charge with any felony or any other crime.
12
16
17 652. The DEFENDANT said under penalty of perjury that they thought that the client was
18 mentally incompetent to stand trial.
19
21
22 654. The DEFENDANT had no legal basis for believing that Mr. Bennett was mentally
23 incompetent.
24
25 655. The DEFENDANT submitted on a report by Dr. Marine Jakubowski finding Mr. Bennett
26 mentally incompetent.
Zi
28
79

N
WD
657. Any attorney who read the report would know that the report was false.
fF
VU
658. A reasonable attorney should raise questions about a report from a doctor that says that their,
HD
client is charged with a felony when their client had no such charge pending against him.
NN
©
com
659. The DEFENDANT did not raise questions about the report saying that Mr. Bennett was
Oo

11
13 felony.
14
a BENNET TvsSAC
16 unmarried.
17
19
21
22 664. The DEFENDANT did not allow Mr. Bennett to see report from Dr. Jakubowski before he
24
25 665. Mr. Bennett was unable to dispute the contents of the report because he was unable to see
26 the report before he was found incompetent.
27
28
80

N
WwW
667. Mr. Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress and humiliation from being declared
-&
incompetent to stand trial.

MN
NH
668. Mr. Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress and believed that he would be
NN
institutionalized for many years after seeing people in jail go to the psychiatric section of the jail
CO
and come back almost comatose.

Oo
10
14 institution.
15
16 670. Joshua Coleman, a journalist known for following and jeering Mr. Bennett in the media,
17 was in the court room recording the incompetency procedure.

18
20
22 proceedings.
23
24 673. Joshua Coleman recorded the incompetency proceedings and posted them on the internet.
25
26 674. Joshua Coleman reported the court found Mr. Bennett “Coo coo.”
27
28 675. Joshua Coleman has a large following.
81
>
677. At the beginning of the incompetency proceedings when Judge Southworth asked the
WN
DEFENDANT who raised the doubt of competency the DEFENDANT said that they did not
NHN
know.
ws
fo
Oo
10 competency.
11
12 679. The DEFENDANT later admitted in open court that it was their office that raised the doubts
13 of competency.
15 incompetent.
16
23
23 incompetent.
26
28 they were indeed the ones who raised the doubt of competency after Mr. Bennett was in
82
N
Ww
decision.
>
MN
684. The public defenders’ negligence and/or recklessness was a substantial factor in causing
NHN
Mr. Bennett’s emotional distress.

mn
Oo
com
685. Mr Bennett suffered emotional distress.

Oo
10
11 686. Mr. Bennett was under duress, because the DEFENDANTSs failed to consult with him and
12 accomplish his objective, to address the court rules which were violated.
13
14 687. The public defenders’ conduct was a substantial factor factor in causing that emotional
a BENNETTvsSAC
15 distress.
16
20
23 required by rule 1.4.

24 690. Rule 1.4 Communication with Clients (Rule Approved by the Supreme Court (a) A lawyer
25 shall: (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which to accomplish the client’s
26 objectives in the representation;
27
28
83
N COUNT IV: ABUSE OF PROCESS
WwW

>
UN
692. On January 1, 2018 Dr. Marine Jakubowski declared bankruptcy.

ND
NN
693. The DEFENDANT was annoyed at all the questions that Mr. Bennett asked.
CO
Oo
10 694. The DEFENDANT was annoyed at all the questions that Mr. Bennett asked about the law.
11
12 695. The DEFENDANT said in open court that one of the reasons why Mr. Bennett was
13 incompetent to stand trial was because he asked a lot of questions about the law.
14
15 696. The DEFENDANT did not want a client who asked a lot of questions about the law.
16
17 697. The DEFENDANT did not like the way that Mr. Bennett communicated.
18
19 698. The DEFENDANT represented to Judge Peter Southworth that they believed that Mr.
20 Bennett was incompetent to stand trial.
21
Ze 699. The DEFENDANT mislead Judge Peter Southworth into believing that Commissioner
Z3 Cintean was the one who raised competency doubts when in fact it was their office.
24
25 700. The DEFENDANT later admitted in open court that they were the ones who raised
26 competency issues.
21
28 701. The DEFENDANT submitted on a report from Dr. Jakubowski that was false.
84
702. The report was clearly false.
WN
703. Mr. Bennett asked to see the report, but was denied.
WwW
&
704. It was not difficult to tell that the report was false.
MN
ND
705. The DEFENDANT submitted on the report anyway.

NN
oOo
706. Judge Peter Southworth of the Sacramento County Superior Court relied on these
Oo
10 representations and found Mr. Bennett incompetent to stand trial based on these representations.
11
12 707. By having Mr. Bennett declared incompetent the DEFENDANT did not have to allow Mr.
13 Bennett to make decisions in his case.
14
15 708. By having Mr. Bennett declared incompetent the DEFENDANT did not have to answer Mr.
16 Bennett’s questions about the laws.
17
18 709. By having Mr. Bennett declared incompetent the DEFENDANT did not have to
19 communicate with Mr. Bennett.
20
21 710. The DEFENDANT did not like Mr. Bennett’s personal beliefs about vaccines and called
22 these “a rant”
23
24 711. The DEFENDANT did not like dealing with Mr. Bennett.
25
26 712. The DEFENDANT did not like Mr. Bennett.
28
85
713. By having Mr. Bennett declared incompetent the DEFENDANT would not have to listen to
any of what they called “rants” about the law or Mr. Bennett’s beliefs.
WN
WwW
714. Mr. Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress, was denied his right to face his accuser,
&
denied his right to a jury trial, lost clients and was humiliated because of these representations.
WN
NHN
715. These representations were the main reason why Judge Peter Southworth found Mr. Bennett
~
incompetent to stand trial. No other evaluations were used.

CO
com
oOo
10 716. Raising competency doubts without basis, submitting on false reports or telling a judge that
11 you believe your client is incompetent when you have no legal basis to believe that is an abuse
12 of the power of the court.

13
14 COUNT V: FRAUD & INTENTIONAL DECEIT

a BENNETTvsSAC
15
18
19 718. The DEFENDANT raised doubts of Mr. Bennett’s competency.
20
aa 719. The DEFENDANT led Mr. Bennett as well as Judge Peter Southworth to believe that these
22 doubts came from Commissioner Cintean.
23
24 720. Dr. Marine Jakubowski made material misrepresentations in her report that she submitted
25 to the Sacramento County superior court that were outrageous and false, including putting in her
26 report that Mr. Bennett was accused of a felony when he was accused of a misdemeanor, stating
Zl that Mr. Bennett was a transient and unmarried when he had a house, a business, a wife and
28 children, stating in her report that Mr. Bennett had previously diagnosed psychiatric problems
86
when he had never been diagnosed with any psychiatric problems and other things that were
false.
WN
WwW
721. The DEFENDANT read this report and submitted on this report.
-F
mn
722. The DEFENDANT knew that these allegations were false.

NH
mn
723. The DEFENDANT further told Judge Peter Southworth that they believed that Mr. Bennett
co
was mentally incompetent.

Oo
10
11 724. The DEFENDANT had no legal basis for these beliefs.

12
13 725. Judge Peter Southworth of the Sacramento County Superior Court relied on these
15
16 726. By having Mr. Bennett declared incompetent the DEFENDANT did not have to allow Mr.
17 Bennett to make decisions in his case.
18
19 727. The DEFENDANT did not like Mr. Bennett’s personal beliefs about vaccines and called
20 these “a rant”
21
22 728. The DEFENDANT did not like dealing with Mr. Bennett.
23
24 729. The DEFENDANT did not like Mr. Bennett.
25
26 730. By having Mr. Bennett declared incompetent the DEFENDANT would not have to listen to
27 any of what they called “rants” about the law or Mr. Bennett’s beliefs.
28
87
731. These representations were the main reason why Judge Peter Southworth found Mr. Bennett!
incompetent to stand trial. No other evaluations were used.

WN
WwW
FP
Un
NH
COUNT VI: CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

ss
©o
Oo
11
12 734. The DEFENDANT was representing Mr. Bennett for the purpose of a competency hearing.
13
14 735. The DEFENDANT aced on behalf of Mr. Bennett at the competency hearing.
15
16 736. Dr. Marine Jakubowski is a psychotherapist that was evaluating Mr. Bennett to determine
17 competency.
18
19 737. This evaluation was ordered by the Sacramento County Superior Court.
20
21 738. Dr. Marine Jakubowski made material misrepresentations in her report that she submitted
22 to the Sacramento County superior court that were outrageous and false, including putting in her
23 report that Mr. Bennett was accused of a felony when he was accused of a misdemeanor, stating
24 that Mr. Bennett was a transient and unmarried when he had a house, a business, a wife and
25 children, stating in her report that Mr. Bennett had previously diagnosed psychiatric problems
26 when he had never been diagnosed with any psychiatric problems and other things that were
Zt false.
28
88
739. The DEFENDANT did not give Mr. Bennett a copy of this report before his competency
evaluation.
740. Mr. Bennett asked to see the copy of the report numerous occasions, but was denied each
>
time.
WN
NHN
741. The DEFENDANT then submitted on this report in open court.

ss
©
com
742. The DEFENDANT then told Judge Peter Southworth that they believed that Mr. Bennett
Oo
10 was incompetent.
11
12 743. The DEFENDANT mislead Judge Southworth into believing that a commissioner raised
13 competency doubts.
14
a BENNET TvsSAC
15 744. The DEFENDANT later admitted in open court that their office were the ones that raised
16 the doubts.
17
18 745. The DEFENDANT concealed the full extent of the misrepresentations in the report and
19 made it impossible for Mr. Bennett to dispute these representations.
20
23
24 747. These representations were the main reason why Judge Peter Southworth found Mr. Bennett
25 incompetent to stand trial. No other evaluations were used.
26
27 748. Mr. Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress, was denied his right to face his accuser,
28 denied his right to a jury trial, lost clients and was humiliated because of these representations.
89
749. The DEFENDANT knew or should have known that these representations were false.
COUNT VII: NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
NH

ns
Oo
751. The DEFENDANT was representing Mr. Bennett at certain stages of pretrial proceedings
Oo
10 for a simple battery as well as a competency hearing.
11
12 752. The charges against Mr. Bennett were later dismissed.

13
14 753. This evaluation was ordered by the Sacramento County Superior Court.
15
16 754. The DEFENDANT had a duty to be honest to Mr. Bennett and accurately represent the law
17 and facts to Mr. Bennett.

18
19 755. The DEFENDANT had a duty to be honest to the court and accurately represent the facts to
20 the court.
21
Ze 756. The DEFENDANT made material misrepresentations to Mr. Bennett about the law and the
23 facts.
24
25 757. The DEFENDANT made material misrepresentations to the court about who raised the
26 doubts of Mr. Bennett’s competency.
Zi
28 758. The DEFENDANT led the court to believe that the doubts were raised by the court.
90
759. The DEFENDANT later admitted in open court that they were the ones who raised the
doubts.
760. Dr. Marine Jakubowski made material misrepresentations in her report that she submitted
>
to the Sacramento County superior court that were outrageous and false, including putting in her
MN
report that Mr. Bennett was accused of a felony when he was accused of a misdemeanor, stating
NHN
that Mr. Bennett was a transient and unmarried when he had a house, a business, a wife and
wn
children, stating in her report that Mr. Bennett had previously diagnosed psychiatric problems
co
com
when he had never been diagnosed with any psychiatric problems and other things that were
Oo
10 false.
ll
12 761. The DEFENDANT later submitted on the false report.
13
14 762. The DEFENDANT later represented to the court that they believed that Mr. Bennett was
a BENNETTvsSAC

16
17 763. The DEFENDANT had no legal reason to believe that Mr. Bennett was incompetent to
18 stand trial.
19
22
23 765. These representations were the main reason why Judge Peter Southworth found Mr. Bennett
24 incompetent to stand trial. No other evaluations were used.

25
28
91
WN 767. The DEFENDANT knew that these representations were false.
COUNT VIII: DEFAMATION PER SE

WwW
-&
WM

NHN
NI
769. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett represented to the Sacramento County
fo
com
Superior court that they believed that Mr. Bennett was incompetent to stand trial.
oOo
10:
11 770. The public defenders further said that Mr. Bennett went on “rants”
12
13 771. Saying that Mr. Bennett went on “rants” in this context is intended to make Mr. Bennett
14 look mentally incompetent, mentally insane.

a BENNETTvsSAC
15
16 772. Judge Peter Southworth as well as the audience (in the court room and online) reasonably
17 believed these statements to be about Mr. Bennett.
18
19 773. The public defenders making these statements failed to use reasonable care in determining
20 the truth in these statements and how they portrayed Mr. Bennett.
21
Ze 774. These representations were a big part of the reason why Judge Peter Southworth found Mr.
23 Bennett incompetent to stand trial.
24
27
28 776. The representations were maid in a court of record and became public record.
92
777. The representations were put on social media and broadcast by Joshua Coleman which
made these representations cause a large amount of damage to Mr. Bennett's business and
WN
reputation that are difficult to ascertain in addition to the above damages.

WwW
&
COUNT IX: LIBEL

WN
NHN
~~

co
com
Oo
10 779. The defendant made false and defamatory statements in writing about Mr. Bennett, which
11 were included in the doctor’s report to find Mr. Bennett incompetent.

12
13 780. The false written report by the defendant, was included in the doctor’s report used to find
14 Mr. Bennett incompetent.

a BENNET TvsSAC
15
16 781. In the doctor’s false report, the DEFENDANT Founi states her contacts with Mr. Bennett
17 following her “long first discussion” was him interrupting her every few seconds.
18
19 782. This would be impossible, since they never spoke again after the so-called hour long
20 conversation.
21
22 783. DEFENDANT Amanda Founi committed libeled Mr. Bennett in the court doctor’s report.
23
24 COUNT X: SLANDER
25
28
93
785. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett represented to the Sacramento County
Superior court that they believed that Mr. Bennett was incompetent to stand trial.
786. The public defenders further said that Mr. Bennett went on “rants”
>
WN
787. Saying that Mr. Bennett went on “rants” in this context is intended to make Mr. Bennett
NHN
look mentally incompetent, mentally insane.

NI
Oo
com
788. Judge Peter Southworth as well as the audience (in the court room and online) reasonably
Oo
10 believed these statements to be about Mr. Bennett.
11
12 789. The public defenders making these statements failed to use reasonable care in determining
13 the truth in these statements and how they portrayed Mr. Bennett.
14
a BENNETTvsSAC
15 790. These representations were a big part of the reason why Judge Peter Southworth found Mr.
16 Bennett incompetent to stand trial.
17
20
22
23 793. The representations were put on social media and broadcast by Joshua Coleman which
24 made these representations cause a large amount of damage to Mr. Bennett's business and
25 reputation that are difficult to ascertain in addition to the above damages.
26
oT COUNT XI: FALSE LIGHT
28
94
794, Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations set forth in statements of facts - above and incorporates
WN
WwW
795. The DEFENDANT representing Mr. Bennett portrayed Mr. Bennett as a mentally
>
incompetent crazy person who went on “rants”.

WN
NHN
796. This portrayal was done in a court of record and broadcast on the internet.
nN
eo
com
797. The portrayal was false.

oOo
10
11 798. No reasonable person would want to be portrayed as a mentally incompetent crazy person
12 who went on “rants”
14 799. Mr. Bennett was very clear that he was not incompetent or crazy and did not want to peruse
a BENNET TvsSAC
15 a defense strategy of being found incompetent to stand trial.

16
17 800. The DEFENDANT acted with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement and had no
18 legal basis to make these statements.
19
20 801. The DEFENDANT presented no legal basis for thinking that Mr. Bennett was incompetent
21 to stand trial.
22
25
26 803. These representations were a big part of the reason why Judge Peter Southworth found Mr.
at Bennett incompetent to stand trial. No other evaluations were used.
28
95
WN
WwW
805. The representations were maid in a court of record and became public record.
>WN
806. The representations were broadcast on social media and broadcast by Joshua Coleman
NHN
which made these representations cause a large amount of damage to Mr. Bennett’s business and
nN

©
oOo
10 COUNT XII: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BY ATTORNEY

11
14
15 808. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett owed Mr. Bennett a fiduciary duty to take
16 reasonable care in preparing anything related to his case, act in the best interests of Mr. Bennett,
17 disclose to Mr. Bennett all relevant facts, documents and reports and act in good faith.
18
19 809. The DEFENDANT tried to prevent the disclosure of documents to Mr. Bennett. The
20 DEFENDANT also made it difficult to get documents for Mr. Bennett.

21
22 810. The DEFENDANT acted in their own interest instead of Mr. Bennett’s.
23
24 811. It was easier for the public defenders to get Mr. Bennett found incompetent than represent
25 him.
26
27 812. The DEFENDANT prepared motions that were not in Mr. Bennett’s best interests and
28 almost filed these motions.
96
813. Because of this conduct Mr. Bennett lost the ability to exercise his right to a jury trial.
WN
WwW
814. Because of this conduct Mr. Bennett lost the ability to exercise his right to present
-&
affirmative defenses.
MN
ND
815. Because of this conduct Mr. Bennett lost the ability to gather and examine evidence against
nN
him.
fo
COM
Oo
10 816. Because of this conduct Mr. Bennett lost the ability to question his accuser.
11
12 817. Because of this conduct Mr. Bennett was found incompetent to stand trial.
13
14 818. Mr. Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress.

a BENNETTvsSAC
15
17
18 820. The representations were broadcast on social media and broadcast by Joshua Coleman
19 which made these representations cause a large amount of damage to Mr. Bennett's business and
20 reputation that are difficult to ascertain in addition to the above damages.
21
22 821. “(a) A lawyer shall: (3) keep the client reasonably informed about significant developments
23 relating to the representation, including promptly complying with reasonable requests for
24 information and copies of significant documents when necessary to keep the client so informed”
29

97
823. Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority (a) Subject to rule 1.2.1, a
lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as
N
required by rule 1.4, shall reasonably consult with the client as to the means by which they are to
WwW
be pursued. Subject to Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) and rule
-&
1.6,
MN
NHN
824. Rule 3-700(D) of the State Bar of California Rules of Professional Conduct provides, in
NN
pertinent part, as follows: Subject to any protective order or non-disclosure agreement, [the law
CO
com
firm must] promptly release to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and
oOo
10 property. 'Client papers and property’ includes correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts,
11 exhibits, physical evidence, expert's reports, and other items reasonably necessary to the client's
12 representation, whether the client has paid for them or not."
13
14 825. The preamble of the American Bar Association makes clear the DEFENDANTs’
a BENNET TvsSAC
15 responsibility is to advocate zealously on Mr. Bennett’s behalf.

16
18 responsibility is to assert Mr. Bennett’s position under the rules of the adversary system.
19
20 827. The DEFENDANT did not honor their obligation or duty to Mr. Bennett, but instead
21 undermined his rights but not defending them.
22
23 828. Further, the ABA states the DEFENDANT was to seek a result advantageous to Mr.
24 Bennett, consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others, but the DEFENDANT did
25 not.
26
27 829. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client's legal affairs and reporting about them
28 to the client or to others.
98
WN
830. The DEFENDANT did not seek the administration of justice for Mr. Bennett
COUNT XIII: PERSONAL INJURY

WwW
-&
WN

NHN
sy
832. The DEFENDANT instigated incompetence proceedings against Mr. Bennett.

Oo
833. These proceedings ultimately were the cause of Mr. Bennett being found incompetent to
Oo
10 stand trial.
11
12 834. The DEFENDANT instigated these proceedings without any legal justification for this.
13
14 835. Mr. Bennett did not ask to use incompetence as a defense and was vocal that he was
15 competant to stand trial.
16
17 836. Mr. Bennett was facing a minor misdemeanor where being found incompetent to stand trial
18 was not advantageous.
19
20 837. The public defenders submitted on a report saying that Mr. Bennett was facing a felony,
21 homeless, unmarried, had a history of mental health problems when none of these were true.
22
23 838. Judge Peter Southworth of the Sacramento County Superior Court relied on the
24 representations of the DEFENDANT as well as the report and found Mr. Bennett incompetent to
25 stand trial.
26 839. Mr. Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress, humiliation, was denied his right to face
21 his accuser, denied his right to a jury trial, lost clients and was humiliated because of these
28 representations.
99
N
840. The representations were maid in a court of record and became public record.
841. The representations were broadcast on social media and broadcast by Joshua Coleman
WwW
which made these representations cause a large amount of damage to Mr. Bennett's business and
&

WN
HD
842. Because of these representations Mr. Bennett was held in custody for a competency
I
evaluation.
fo
oOo
10 843. The conditions were traumatic to Mr. Bennett.
11
12 844. The reason for this was the public defenders instigating competency proceedings against
13 Mr. Bennett.
14
15 COUNT XIV: NEGLIGENT UNDERTAKING

16
19
20 846. The public defender’s office offered Mr. Bennett legal representation.
21
22 847. The DEFENDANT then decided to advance the theory that Mr. Bennett was incompetent to
23 stand trial.
24
25 848. The court relied on the legal representation in order to find Mr. Bennett incompetent to
26 stand trial.
27
28 849. These representations caused Mr. Bennett to ultimately be found incompetent.
100
Ne
W
f&
851. The DEFENDANT was not asked by Mr. Bennett to make these representations.
MA
HD
852. The DEFENDANT decided to make these representations on their own with no basis.
NN
CO
com
Oo
COUNT XV: NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION & SUPERVISION

et
Ss
HBF
me

wmmm
a BENNETTvsSAC
aAaaBseR
854. The Sacramento county public defender’s office hired and retained attorneys who
represented Mr. Bennett.

F&A
855. These DEFENDANTS harmed Mr. Bennett by advancing the theory that Mr. Bennett was
incompetent to stand trial and ultimately got Mr. Bennett found incompetent to stand trial.
8B
NO
856. The public defenders did not take Mr. Bennett’s case seriously. DEFENDANT Founi told
NO
YY
Mr. Bennett she was just “babysitting his case”

NO
BP
NO
857. These attorneys submitted on a report written by Dr. Marine Jakubowski that was factually
NO
RP
incorrect.
®
WN
858. Mr. Bennett’s case was transferred to multiple attorneys without the permission of the court
NY
S
or Mr. Bennett and none of the attorneys were able to properly represent Mr. Bennett.
Ny
&
101
859. Mr. Bennett complained many times to the public defender’s office. The public defender’s
office should have known about what was going on.

N
WwW
860. The public defender’s office did not do anything to correct the problem with the sub
-&
standard representation that Mr. Bennett was receiving.

WN
861. The public defenders office should have known about the substandard work that their
—~
attorneys were performing.

©
com
Oo
10 862. The fact that the attorneys working at the public defenders office caused Mr. Bennett
11 humiliation when he was found incompetent and caused Mr. Bennett to lose clients and caused
12 damage to Mr. Bennett’s reputation.
13
14 863. Because the public defender’s office should have known about the substandard work they
a BENNET TvsSAC
15 are responsible for what happened to Mr. Bennett.
16
17 864. Mr Bennett lost the opportunity to cross examine his accuser, list the opportunity to
18 exercise his right to a trial by jury and was found incompetent to stand trial because of this.
19
20 865. If the public defender’s office would have taken the incompetent attorneys off Mr.
21 Bennett’s case and given Mr. Bennett competent representation, Mr. Bennett would not have lost
2 his rights or been found incompetent to stand trial.
33
25 responsibility is to advocate zealously on Mr. Bennett’s behalf.
26
102
Ne 868. The DEFENDANT did not honor their obligation or duty to Mr. Bennett, but instead
undermined his rights but not defending them.

WW
869. Further, the ABA states the DEFENDANT was to seek a result advantageous to Mr.
SB
Bennett, consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others, but the DEFENDANT did
NW
not.
HD
NN
870. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client's legal affairs and reporting about them
©
to the client or to others.

FS Oo
ll
871. The DEFENDANT did not seek the administration of justice for Mr. Bennett
YS
NN
OES
COUNT XVI: PUBLIC ENTITY: FAILURE TO DISCHARGE A MANDATORY DUTY

FSF
WwW
fF
OF
NA
PF

HD
KF
HN
KF
873. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States grants a defendant a right to
RB
FF
have assistance of counsel for his defense.

YO
KF
NO
SC
874. California Government code section 27706(a) states “Upon request of the defendant or
NO
eK
upon order of the court, the DEFENDANT shall defend, without expense to the defendant,
ND
NY
except as provided by Section 987.8 of the Penal Code, any person who is not financially able to
WY
NY
employ counsel and who is charged with the commission of any contempt or offense triable in
fF
NY
the superior
MN
NHN
DO
NO
WMO
nt
wo
ao
103
875. courts at all stages of the proceedings, including the preliminary examination. The
DEFENDANT shall, upon request, give counsel and advice to such person about any charge
against the person upon
>
876. which the DEFENDANT is conducting the defense, and shall prosecute all appeals to a
MN
higher court or courts of any person who has been convicted, where, in the opinion of the public
NH
defender, the appeal will or might reasonably be expected to result in the reversal or
NN
modification of the judgment of conviction.”

oOo
COM
Oo
10 877. The office of the DEFENDANT violated California Government code section 22706
11 because they did not provide Mr. Bennett with competent legal counsel.
12
13 878. Mr. Bennett pointed out the laws, court rules and statutes which were being violated and
14 ignored, but the DEFENDANT showed no regard. After Mr. Bennett’s case was dismissed based
a BENNETTvsSAC
15 on a fraudulent report he asked to see but was denied, the public defender said had Mr. Bennett
16 pointed out the errors in the report they would have known better.
17
18 879. Mr. Bennett was harmed by this because he lost his right to question his accuser.
19
20 880. Mr. Bennett was harmed by this because he lost his right to a jury trial.
Zi
22 881. Mr. Bennett was harmed by this because he lost his right to present affirmative defenses.
23
24 882. Mr. Bennett was harmed by this because the he was found incompetent. to stand trial.
25
26 883. Mr Bennett was harmed by this because he suffered extreme emotional distress, lost
al standing in the community, lost clients and lost referrals to his financial planning business.
28
104
884. The public defender’s office moved Mr. Bennett’s case around like a hot potato to lots of
different attorneys.
N
Ww
885. None of the attorneys were able to properly represent Mr. Bennett or had a good
-&
understanding of Mr. Bennett’s case.

MN
NHN
886. Each time Mr. Bennett would ask “his attorney” a question they would not be able to
nN
answer because they were not familiar with his case.

CO
com
Oo
10 COUNT XVII: (PUBLIC ENTITY: ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF EMPLOYEES)

11

14
a BENNET TvsSAC
15 888. Cal. Gov. Code § 815.4 states “A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by a
16 tortuous act or omission of an independent contractor of the public entity to the same extent that
17 the public entity would be subject to such liability if it were a private person.”
18
19 889. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett were guilty of fraud because they advanced
20 a theory of incompetence and misled the judge to think that a commissioner started the
21 advancement of that theory.
22
z3 890. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett were guilty of fraud because they submitted
24 on a report that claimed Mr. Bennett was facing a felony when they knew he was not facing a
25 felony.
26
27 891. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett were acting with malice because they
28 advanced the theory of incompetence, went along with a false report by Dr. Marine Jakubawski
105
calling Mr. Bennett incompetent and ultimately made sure that Mr. Bennett was found

WN
WwW
892. The public defenders had no legal basis for believing that Mr. Bennett was incompetent.
&
WN
893. Because the public defenders were guilty of fraud and malice they are not immune from
NHN
prosecution.
NI
Oo
894. Because the public defenders representing Mr. Bennett are not immune from prosecution
Oo
10 the public defender’s office is responsible for their acts.

11
12 895. The public defender’s office is responsible for all the violations committed by it’s
13 employees.
14
15 COUNT XVIII: (GROSS NEGLIGENCE)

16
19
20 897. Mr. Bennett was charged with a single count of simple battery.
21
Zz 898. Mr. Bennett was not charge with any felony or any other crime.
23
27
28
106
900. The DEFENDANT misrepresented the law and facts to the client, ignored the client's
communication and tried to trick the client into filing motions that would be harmful to the
N
client.
WwW
>
901. Additionally the DEFENDANT said under penalty of perjury that they thought that the
MN
client was mentally incompetent to stand trial.

NHN
NN
902. The DEFENDANT knew that Mr. Bennett did not want to be found mentally incompetent.
Oo
oOo
11 incompetent.
12
15
16 905. The report was false, called Mr. Bennett, homeless, a felon, unmarried (after his wife was in
17 court), diagnosed with mental illness.

18
20
21 907. Any reasonable person who read the report and knew that Mr. Bennett was charged only
22 with a misdemeanor would know the report was false.
23
24 908. Any reasonable person who saw Mr. Bennett’s wife in the court room would know that a
25 report saying that Mr. Bennett was unmarried was false.
26
107
910. The DEFENDANT did not raise questions about the report saying that Mr. Bennett was
N
charged with a felony.

WwW
-&
911. The DEFENDANT submitted on the report that said Mr. Bennett was charged with a
vA
felony.
NHN
Nn
912. A reasonable attorney should raise questions about a report that says their client is
fo
com
unmarried when their client’s wife has been in court.

oOo
10
12 unmarried.
13
@ BENNETTvsSAC
15
17
20
21 917. Mr. Bennett was unable to dispute the contents of the report because he was unable to see
22 the report before he was found incompetent.

23
24 918. This resulted in Mr. Bennett being held in the Sacrament County jail for almost a week and
25 ultimately found incompetent to stand trial.

26
108
N
WwW

&MN
921. The extreme emotional distress that Mr. Bennett suffered made was worse because Mr.
ND
Bennett had bad reactions to medical procedures and pharmaceutical drugs in the past and was in
NN
fear that this was going to happen again because he would be forcibly drugged in a mental
fe
COM
institution.
Oo
10
11 922. Joshua Coleman was in the court room recording the incompetency procedure.
12
14
a BENNET TvsSAC
16 proceedings.
17
19
20 926. Mr. Bennett lost clients and stopped receiving referrals from large institutions because of
Zi being found incompetent to stand trial.
22
ps know.
26
2 928. This led the judge to believe that a commissioner raised doubts about Mr Bennett’s
28 competency.
109
WN
of competency.
Ww
&
930. The DEFENDANT further went on to tell the court that they believed that Mr. Bennett was
MN
incompetent.
ND
NN
931. Ms. Aguilar did not dispute the competency of Mr. Bennett when asked by Judge Peter
eo&
South Worth on 7/21/22 in court and further said that Mr. Bennett was incompetent because he
Oo
14
16 incompetent.
17
19
23
Zo they were indeed the ones who raised the doubt of competency after Mr. Bennett was in
26 handcuffs ready to go to jail for a competency evaluation after the judges mind is made up is
ai perjury. Allowing the judge to think that a court raised the doubt of competency vs being honest
28
110
decision.
N
WwW
Fb
says one thing under oath and then later conflicts them self in a single court hearing.
Wa
WN
937. Furthermore the DEFENDANT led Mr. Bennett to believe that the commissioner raised the
wn
doubt of competency, even though they raised the doubt of competency.

©
Oo
10 938. Misleading a client about the laws of the facts is at the very least negligent.
il
12 939. The combination of all of these factors shows that the public defenders acted with utter
13 disregard for Mr. Bennett’s interests.

14
15 940. The combination of all of these factors shows that the public defenders acted with contempt
16 towards Mr. Bennett.
17
18 941. The combination of all of these factors shows that the public defenders acted with disdain
19 towards Mr. Bennett.
20
21 942. The combination of all of these factors shows that the public defenders were grossly
22 negligent in the way that they handled Mr. Bennett’s case.
23
24 COUNT XIX: NEGLIGENCE
25
28
111
N
945. Mr. Bennett was not charge with any felony or any other crime.
WwW
fb
946. Mr. Bennett was assigned the DEFENDANT for certain parts of his court hearings. The
Mm
quality of the representation that Mr. Bennett received was so low that it breached the minimal
NH
professional standard of care expected from clients of a public defender.

ws
©
BENNE T'TvsS ACRAMENTO.com
947. The DEFENDANT misrepresented the law and facts to the client, ignored the client's
Oo
10 communication and tried to trick the client into filing motions that would be harmful to the
11 client.
13 948. Additionally the DEFENDANT said under penalty of perjury that they thought that the
14 client was mentally incompetent to stand trial.
15
16 949, The DEFENDANT knew that Mr. Bennett did not want to be found mentally incompetent.
17
19 incompetent.
20
23
24 952. The report was false, called Mr. Bennett, homeless, a felon, unmarried (after his wife was in
25 court), diagnosed with mental illness.
26
at 953. Any attorney who read the report would know that the report was false.
28
112
954. Any reasonable person who read the report and knew that Mr. Bennett was charged only
with a misdemeanor would know the report was false.

WN
WwW
955. Any reasonable person who saw Mr. Bennett’s wife in the court room would know that a
&
report saying that Mr. Bennett was unmarried was false.

WN
NH
956. A reasonable attorney should raise questions about a report from a doctor that says that their
nN
client is charged with a felony when their client had no such charge pending against him.
©
com
oOo
12
14 felony.
a BENNETTvsSAC
15
16 959. A reasonable attorney should raise questions about a report that says their client is
17 unmarried when their client’s wife has been in court.
18
20 unmarried.
21
23
25
28
113

N
WH
965. Mr. Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress and humiliation from being declared
-&

wm
N
nN
CO
com

Oo
10
14 institution.
@ BENNETTvsSAC
15
17
19
21 proceedings.
22
24
Zo 972. Mr. Bennett lost clients and stopped receiving referrals from large institutions because of
26 being found incompetent to stand trial.
27
28
114
973. At the beginning of the incompetency proceedings when Judge Southworth asked the
DEFENDANT who raised the doubt of competency the DEFENDANT said that they did not
WN
know.
WwW
-&
MN
competency.
HN
nN
fo
of competency.
Oo
10
12 incompetent.
13
20
22 incompetent.
23
25
115
981. Saying that they did not know who raised the doubt of competency and then admitting that
they were indeed the ones who raised the doubt of competency after Mr. Bennett was in
>
MN
NH
decision.
NIN
©
Oo
10 says one thing under oath and then later conflicts them self in a single court hearing.
11
12 983. Furthermore the DEFENDANT led Mr. Bennett to believe that the commissioner raised the
13 doubt of competency, even though they raised the doubt of competency.

14
15 984. Misleading a client about the laws of the facts is at the very least negligent.
16
17 985. The combination of all of these factors shows that the DEFENDANT acted at the very least
18 negligently towards Mr. Bennett.

19
20 COUNT XX: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

21
24
25 987. The public defenders initiated incompetency proceedings against Mr. Bennett.
26
Zi 988. The public defenders led judge Peter Southworth to believe that Mr. Bennett was
28 incompetent with no legal basis.
116
989. Judge Peter Southworth of the Sacrament County Superior Court remanded Mr. Bennett
WN
into custody to be held in jail in front of his wife Caryn Bennett.

&Ww
990. The Bailiffs in the court room handcuffed Mr. Bennett and left him sitting in the jury box
WN
handcuffed.
NHN
I
991. Austin Bennett and Caryn Bennett are married to each other and have been married since
CO
BENNE ‘T'TvsS ACRAMENTO.com
January 28, 1997.

oOo
10
11 992. Caryn Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress seeing her husband Austin Bennett
12 handcuffed.
13
14 993. Caryn Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress and embarrassment, believing that her
15 husband Austin may be institutionalized and was found incompetent to stand trial.
16
17 994. Caryn Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress and embarrassment, when her husband
18 Austin was found incompetent to stand trial.
19
20 995. Being found incompetent stand trial has harmed Mr. Bennett’s business and caused
21 financial hardship.
23
23 996. The financial hardship has put a strain on the relationship between Austin and Caryn.
24
25 997. This put a strain on the relationship between Caryn Bennett and Austin Bennett.
26
27 998. This caused Caryn Bennett and Austin Bennett to become further apart and spend less time
28 together because of this.
117
999. The strain on the relationship between Caryn Bennett and Austin Bennett would not have
N
happened if the DEFENDANT had not have instigated incompetency proceedings against Mr
WwW
Bennett.
FP
nA
QO XXI: INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION

WN
wn
©

Oo
10
11 1001. The DEFENDANT told Judge Peter Southworth that they believed that Mr. Bennett was
13
14 1002. This representation was made without any legal basis.
15
16 1003. The DEFENDANT made this representation because it was easier to have Mr. Bennett
17 found incompetent than proceed to trial and defend Mr. Bennett at trial.
18
19 1004. This representation was made because the DEFENDANT did not like Mr. Bennett’s
20 questions about the law.

21
22 1005. This representation was made in the furtherance of the interests of the public defenders
23 and not Mr. Bennett.
24
25 1006. Judge Peter Southworth of the Sacramento County Superior Court intended to rely on
26 these representations to determine Mr. Bennett's competency to stand trial.
27
28
118
1007. Judge Peter Southworth of the Sacramento County Superior Court relied on these
representations and found Mr. Bennett incompetent to stand trial based on these representations.
WN
WwW
&
MN
NH
1009. These representations were a big part of the reason why Judge Peter Southworth found Mr.
wn
Bennett incompetent to stand trial.

CO
COM
Oo
10 1010. False representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce
11 action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered.’
12 ” (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 974, quoting Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216
13 Cal.App.2d 50, 55 [30 Cal.Rptr. 629]
14
@ BENNETTvsSAC
15 COUNT 1; CONCEALMENT.
16
19
20 1012. The public defenders representing Mr. Bennett were in an attorney client relationship.
21
22 1013. The public defenders failed to disclose the content of the report that Dr. Jakubowski
23 fabricated.
24
25 1014. This prevented Mr. Bennett from discovering that he was being found incompetent based
26 on a work of fiction.
27
28
119
1015. Mr. Bennett was unaware of the content’s of the report and did not know how to argue
against these made up facts.
N
WwW
1016. The DEFENDANT intended to deceive Mr. Bennett so that Mr. Bennett could be found
-
incompetent and the public defenders would be finished representing Mr. Bennett.
MN
HN
1017. The public defenders were the ones who instigated incompetency proceedings against Mr.
ny
Bennett and the ones who chose the psychologist options presented to the judge.
co
Oo
10 1018. Mr. Bennett did not know that the public defenders concealed these facts.
11
12 1019. The DEFENDANT tried to prevent the disclosure of documents to Mr. Bennett. The
13 DEFENDANT also made it difficult to get documents for Mr. Bennett.
14
15 1020. The DEFENDANT acted in their own interest instead of Mr. Bennett’s.
16
17 1021. It was easier for the public defenders to get Mr. Bennett found incompetent than represent
18 him.
19
20 1022. Because of this concealment Mr. Bennett lost the ability to exercise his right to a jury trial.
21
22 1023. Because of this concealment Mr. Bennett lost the ability to exercise his right to present
23 affirmative defenses.
24
25 1024. Because of this concealment Mr. Bennett lost the ability to gather and examine evidence
26 against him.
27
28 1025. Because of this concealment Mr. Bennett lost the ability to question his accuser.
120
1026. Because of this concealment Mr. Bennett was found incompetent to stand trial.
1027. Mr. Bennett suffered extreme emotional distress.
1028. The California state bar Rule 1.4 Communication with Clients
NH
~I
1029. “(a) A lawyer shall: (3) keep the client reasonably* informed about significant
CO
developments relating to the representation, including promptly complying with reasonable*

Oo
10 requests for information and copies of significant documents when necessary to keep the client
11 so informed;”
12
13 1030. “RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Chapter 1. Lawyer-Client Relationship
14 (Rules 1.1 — 1.18) 1 Rule 1.1 Competence (a) A lawyer shall not intentionally, recklessly, with
15 gross negligence, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.”
16
20 to be pursued. Subject to Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) and
21 rule 1.6,
22
25 firm must] promptly release to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and
26 property. 'Client papers and property' includes correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts,
27 exhibits, physical evidence, expert's reports, and other items reasonably necessary to the client's
28 representation, whether the client has paid for them or not."
121
1033. Beal Bank SSB v. Arter & Hadden LLP, 42 Cal. 4th 503, 514 (2007) (citing Neel v.
Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand, 6 Cal. 3d 176, 188-89 (1971)). “This disclosure
obligation was recognized by the California Supreme Court in Neel over fifty years ago.
>
Fiduciary duty includes the obligation to render a full and fair disclosure to the client of all facts
WN
that materially affect the client’s rights and interests.”

NHN
~~
1034. The preamble of the American Bar Association makes clear the DEFENDANTS’
©
responsibility is to advocate zealously on Mr. Bennett’s behalf.

Oo
10
13
16
19 not.
20
21 1038. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client's legal affairs and reporting about
oe them to the client or to others.
23
24 1039. The DEFENDANT did not seek the administration of justice for Mr. Bennett
25
26 COUNT XXIII: CONVERSION

27
28
122
N
WwW
-&
ON
1042. Mr. Bennett was not charge with any felony or any other crime.
NHN
ws
CO
com
Oo
10
11 1044. The DEFENDANT refused to give a copy of the doctor’s evaluation of Mr. Bennett from
12 Dr. Jakubowski.
13
14 1045. The report was critical for Mr. Bennett’s defense, in order to challenge the findings in the
@ BENNETTvsSAC
15 doctor’s report, which were later discovered to be fraudulent.

16
17 1046. Had the DEFENDANT allowed Mr. Bennett to see the report, Mr. Bennett could have
18 easily defended himself and proven the report was false.

19
20 1047. Because Mr. Bennett was not given the report nor shown to him, the judge submitted on
21 the report and found Mr. Bennett incompetent to face trial.
22
23 1048. The DEFENDANT did not allow Mr. Bennett to see the report from Dr. Jakubowski,
24 violating due process, the State Bar of California Rules of Professional Conduct and statutory
25 law stating he has the right to challenge the findings.
26
21 1049. Mr. Bennett’s opportunity to present evidence in order to defend himself, was contingent
28 on seeing the doctor’s report, which was used as substantial evidence to find Mr. Bennett
123
incompetent. The DEFENDANT refused to give Mr. Bennett a copy, or show him what was
written in the report. See Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)... the defendant shall
N
have the opportunity to testify, to present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on his or her behalf,
WwW
and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing.”

-F
Mn
1050. Without seeing or having a copy of the report, Mr. Bennett was denied his right to due
NH
process. The DEFENDANT did not allow Mr. Bennett to see the report from Dr. Jakubowski
wn
before he was found incompetent.

co
com
Oo
10 1051. Mr. Bennett asked many times to see the evidence on record and via text. Even after Mr.
RAMENTO,
11 Bennett’s case was dismissed, the defendant ignored Mr. Bennett’s requests for the doctor’s
12 report.
13
14 1052. The judge ruled on the fraudulent report on August 17, 2022. The judge found Mr. Bennett
a BENNET TvsSAC
15 incompetent to face trial.
16
17 1053. September 7, 2022 via text, Mr. Bennett asked the DEFENDANT to give him a copy of
18 the doctor’s report, but the defendant ignored Mr. Bennett.
19
20 1054. On September 16 via text, more than a week of his previous text being ignored, Mr.
21 Bennett again asked for the evaluation.
22
23 1055. He texted the public defender, “I would like to see the evaluation. I asked you almost ten
24 days ago. Asking again.”

25
26 1056. Mr. Bennett still did not get a reply and inquired again. At this point, Mr. Bennett’s case
27 was already dismissed and he right to challenge the findings deprived him. This right was
28
124
deprived solely by the public defender, since Mr. Bennett was not permitted to represent himself
and the DEFENDANT was appointed.
N
WwW
1057. The following day, Mr. Bennett texted once again, “Can I see the report, pretty please? I
-&
haven’t seen anything. Have you ever heard of due process?”

UN
NHN
1058. The DEFENDANT Amanda Massimini texted, “The report from the doctor is located in
NY
the court file. You may view it by going to Room 102 at the main courthouse located at 720
©
Ninth Street, Sacramento CA 95814. The case number is 19M1019014.”

oOo
10
11 1059. Mr. Bennett had a right to not only see the evidence, but have a copy from the
12 DEFENDANT in order so he could challenge the findings and defend himself.
13
14 1060. Due process also afford Mr. Bennett the right to see the evidence that was being used
15 against him, but the public defenders refused to let Mr. Bennett see the doctor’s report, which
16 Mr. Bennett knew was false, because he had not met with her.
17
18 1061. When Mr. Bennett went to the courthouse as instructed by the public defenders, the court
19 clerk told Mr. Bennett the only way he could get a report was with a judge’s permission. He told
20 Mr. Bennett the DEFENDANT was obligated to give me a copy, and it should have happened in
21 my hearing.
22
23 1062. The report turned out completely fraudulent with outrageous statement, like Mr. Bennett
24 as a meth user, shot in 2021, in a coma in 2019. The he was in and out of the mental ward and he
25 was a schizophrenic. It stated he was homeless and a school dropout. The false report said Mr.
26 Bennett was never married and had no children (after his wife was in court, including two out of
27 their five children); it also said Mr. Bennett refused to take showers when he was incarcerated
28 unless he was given candy.
125
1063. The report was outrageous, filled with lies even stating Mr. Bennett was charged with a
felony batter, when it was only a misdemeanor.
1064. The report said Mr. Bennett was a schizophrenic and treated his depression with
methamphetamine. The public defenders had to know the report was false, because they knew
DW
what the DA was offering Mr. Bennett to settle his misdemeanor charge.
nN
fo
1065. The DEFENDANT was on Mr. Bennett’s social media platform and commented. Mr.
oOo
10 Bennett’s profile is there, including a picture with him and his wife Caryn, and in the cover
11 photo it showed Mr. Bennett and Caryn with their five children.
12
13 1066. Mr. Bennett was denied a trial and his right to a jury trial, because the public defenders
14 refused to give Mr. Bennett a copy of the evidence that was being used against him. Mr. Bennett
15 told the public defenders the report was false, but it is hard to argue they did not already know
16 which is why they prevented Mr. Bennett his right to challenge the findings and due process.
17
18 1067. The DEFENDANT supported the judge’s decision that Mr. Bennett was incompetent
19 based on the fraudulent report
20 1068. Even after Mr. Bennett’s case was dismissed, the DEFENDANT continued to violate Mr.
21 Bennett’s sixth amendment right, as well as Rule 3-700(D) of the State Bar of California Rules
2Z of Professional Conduct, which order attorneys to “promptly release to the client, at the request
23 of the client, all the client papers and property. ‘Client papers and property' includes
24 correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts, exhibits, physical evidence, expert's reports,
ze and other items reasonably necessary to the client's representation, whether the client has paid
26 for them or not."
27
28
126
1069. It was the defendant’s responsibility according to Pen C § 1368(b) before there was even a
suspension of Mr. Bennett’s jury trial, to confer with Mr. Bennett and certainly to go over the
N
report to ensure Mr. Bennett’s right to due process was not violated. Even after the court case
WwW
was dismissed, the DEFENDANT refused to not only give the doctor’s report to Mr. Bennett,
&
but refused to let him see it.

WN
NH
1070. The only way Mr. Bennett could have disputed the findings in the doctor’s report, which
NN
was later discovered to be fraudulent, was to see the findings; which he was not permitted to
fo
because the public defenders refused to give Mr. Bennett a copy of the doctor’s report, or even
oOo
10 show it to him as was his right.
11 1071. The DEFENDANT intentionally deprived the interest of the Mr. Bennett in property
12 through the unauthorized act and causing Mr. Bennett harm.

15
19
23 institution.
24
26
28
127
1077. The DEFENDANT did not ask the judge to disallow the recording of the incompetency
proceedings.
WN
WwW
1078. Joshua Coleman recorded the incompetency proceedings and posted them on the internet.
&
WN
ND

©
1080. “(a) A lawyer shall: (3) keep the client reasonably* informed about significant
oOo
10 developments relating to the representation, including promptly complying with reasonable*

11 requests for information and copies of significant documents when necessary to keep the client
12 so informed;”
13
14 1081. “RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Chapter 1. Lawyer-Client Relationship

15 (Rules 1.1 — 1.18) 1 Rule 1.1 Competence (a) A lawyer shall not intentionally, recklessly, with
16 gross negligence, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.”
17
21 to be pursued. Subject to Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) and
Zz rule 1.6,
23
26 firm must] promptly release to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and
27 property. 'Client papers and property includes correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts,
28
128
exhibits, physical evidence, expert's reports, and other items reasonably necessary to the client's
representation, whether the client has paid for them or not."
1084. The preamble of the American Bar Association makes clear the DEFENDANTs’
>
responsibility is to advocate zealously on Mr. Bennett’s behalf.

MN
NHN
1085. The preamble of the American Bar Association makes clear the DEFENDANTs’
wn
responsibility is to assert Mr. Bennett’s position under the rules of the adversary system.
co
Oo
12
15 not.
16
17 1088. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client's legal affairs and reporting about
18 them to the client or to others.
19
20 1089. The DEFENDANT did not seek the administration of justice for Mr. Bennett
21
22
23 COUNT XXIV: VIOLATION OF THE BANE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

24
27
28
129
1091. Juan Contreras and the Sacramento County Public Defender's office under respondeat
superior.
WN
WW
1092. When Mr. Bennett transported from jail to his court hearing, on July 26, 2022,
&
DEFENDANT Juan Contreras took Mr. Bennett to the side room.

WN
NH
1093. DEFENDANT Contreras, who was wearing a mask although no longer a COVID
nN
requirement at the time, told Mr. Bennett he was his new attorney.
co
Com
Oo
10 1094. DEFENDANT Contreras told Mr. Bennett he was the supervisor of DEFENDANT
11 Melody Aguilar, and would be replacing her.
12
13 1095. DEFENDANT Contreras told Mr. Bennett his case would be dismissed, then threatened
14 Mr. Bennett.
@ BENNETTvsSA
15 1096. DEFENDANT Contreras warned Mr. Bennett if he pursued a jury trial trial, that instead of
16 having his case dismissed, Mr. Bennett would be placed into the mental ward.
17
18 1097. DEFENDANT Contreras had no right to threaten Mr. Bennett that pursuing his
19 Constitutional right would result that he would be put into the mental ward.
20
21
22 NON-PUNITIVE DAMAGES
23
24 Mr. Bennett is asking for $37,234,244. This includes damages for pain and suffering, emotional
25 distress, loss of reputation, loss of earning capacity, loss of clients and the destruction done to
26 Mr. Bennett’s business. Mr. Bennett suffered.
a7
28
130
N PUNITIVE D GES
Punitive damages should be awarded because this is a clear case of fraud, oppression and malice.
Ww
Mr. Bennett was subject to cruel conditions and prevented from going to court which caused Mr.
-F
Bennett to ultimately be found incompetent. No person, should have to suffer what Mr. Bennett
wm
went through. Punitive damages will server to detour the public defender from misusing court
DN
proceedings in the future.

ms
Oo
Oo
10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

11
12 Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter Judgment against Defendants, and each of
13 them, as follows:
14 A. For compensatory damages for the acts complained of herein, in an amount to be
15 proven at trial;
16 B. For special damages as permitted by law;
17 C. For punitive damages as permitted by law.

18 D. For such pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and
19 E. For the finding of incompetence against Mr. Bennett to be found invalid and vacated
20
21 JURY DEMAND
22
23 Austin Bennett demands a trial by jury on all issues.
24
25
26
27
28
131
RECE
CIVIL DROPMELRas
" f ¥ int
PS ARUAEEpHTBs

Bennett Vs Sacramento County Public Defender's Office, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bennett Vs Sacramento County Public Defender's Office, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filed

Superior Court of California,

AUSTIN BENNETT, Case No.: 23CV005471

Plaintiff, BENNETT VS SACRAMENTO

vs. OFFICE et al.

22 Dated: August 3, 2023

27 AUSTIN BE DE A Y ON ALL ISSUES

BENNETT VS SACRAMENTO COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE et al.

INTRODUCTION \ ssscesscss ssisisisnessss saasisasastiesteons pepesenerens preenesvenens ereancemonaye 1

C. The Doe Defendants

11 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ores< « sevsnswnas.s sssamesomees snsmummenans sxsamanscchasasasic

25 N. Defendants Refused to Showed Mr. Bennett any Evidence..................ce0eeee0e at

S. Defendant Founi Never Submitted Statement of Reasons................ssecceeceeeeee 64

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF................0.cccceccececcsceececeececeecsececeueeeeeeeceeeeeeeeses 69

Count II: (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) .................cceeceeeeeeee

Count III: (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)...............ccscceeceeceecesenees 79

Count IV: (Abuse of Process).............csccsecsscscceceeceeceeceecceceeeeecesceecessesecees 84

10 Count V: (Fraud & Intentional Deceit).............ceccccecceceececeeeeececeeecuececeeeesses 86

13 Count VIII: (Defamation Per SE)..............ccccececeecececsecceseucesecsscsccucaseneeceeecs 92

14 Count USS (LABED sssasancavss.s saawaeanmaas ssscndaiadtidsin se anangeereyes epnemmpeses ¢ ewanmeemnerennesncers 93

15 Count Xs (Slander): « sascssssssscanesss sscacasawaces saovsageneeesveerensgesess

17 Count XII: (Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Attorney)............c.cccccccessscccscsscesseeees 96

18 Count XIII: (Personal Injury)............c.cccceeceecescsecececeeceeceeceecesceeceeceeceescnss 99

21 Count XVI: (Public Entity: Failure to Discharge a Mandatory Duty)................066 103

22 Count XVII: (Gross Negligence).............cscececseseccsescecesncucusecucssnescueeeveneesss 105

23 Count XVIII: (Negligence)............ceecececceceecsececeeceeeecsececeeceeeeeseeesseeeesseees 106

28 Count XXIII: (Violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act)...............ccccecsceceseeeeseeces 122

VI. = PUNITIVE DAMAGEG...............:cssseccccssscccceasecccceueeccsasessceceuscessecesenecs 131

VIE. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..........ccsssscccesecccesecceeeeccesseceeceseuscceeueceeusaeeceestees 131

The Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento

Amanda Founi, an individual

Bob Woodard, an individual

C. The Doe Defendants

capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, county or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1

findings, which were kept from Mr. Bennett.

10 Mr. Bennett in the Sacramento County Jail.

15 competency examination, as well as Dr. Jakubowski’s review of various records.”

times, but the defendant ignored Mr. Bennett.

instructing him to go to the courthouse if he wanted to see it.

not see it unless the judge gave permission.

11 47. Being found incompetent to stand trial has serious consequences.

they did not need Mr. Bennett’s cooperation or approval.

15 was found incompetent.

14 66. Mr. Bennett charged with simple misdemeanor battery.

16 67. Mr. Bennett faced six months in jail, or a $1,000 fine.

18 68. Mr. Bennett did not want to be found incompetent.

competent to self represent

10 75. Mr. Bennett's Faretta motion was approved on 11/18/2019.

12 76. Mr. Bennett was granted a jury trial.

19 Bennett’s arrest, for failure to appear.

22 he had Uber to his hearing.

28 was $1,500-$2,000 at the time.

bring his own witnesses, including psychologists.

94. It was not Mr. Bennett’s responsibility to prove his competence.

14 Mr. Bennett a series of questions.

Mr. Bennett a series of questions.

109. Commissioner Cintean had no previous experience with Mr. Bennett.

20 muted Mr. Bennett when he objected.

abidance with court rules. The order was unlawful.

Bennett to see the court doctor.

Mr. Bennett spelled them out via text.

Mr. Bennett spelled them out via text.