1

PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS

13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Colbern C. Stuart III
E-Mail: Cole.Stuart@Lexevia.com
4891 Pacific Highway Ste. 102
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: 858-504-0171
Facsimile: 619-231-9143
In Pro Se

Dean Browning Webb (pro hac vice)
Email: RICOman1968@aol.com
Law Offices of Dean Browning Webb
515 E 39th St.
Vancouver, WA 98663-2240
Telephone: 503-629-2176

Eric W. Ching, Esq. SBN 292357
5252 Balboa Arms Dr. Unit 132
San Diego, CA 92117
Phone: 510-449-1091
Facsimile: 619-231-9143

Attorneys for Plaintiff California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY BAR
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 3:13-cv-1944-CAB (BLM)
Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANTS REQUESTS FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED WITH
OMNIBUS, JOINDERS


Date: June 6, 1014
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: 4C

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL

Complaint Filed: August 20, 2013


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

2
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs hereby object and move to strike the following documents submitted
by Defendants in support of the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Complaint and certain
Defendants joinders thereto.
I. AUTHORITY
Facts subject to judicial notice are those which are either (1) generally known
within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready
determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). A court may not take judicial notice of a matter that is in dispute.
Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir.2001). The party requesting
judicial notice has the burden of persuading the court that the particular fact is not
reasonably subject to dispute and is capable of immediate and accurate determination
by resort to a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. In re Tyrone
F. Conner Corp., Inc., 140 B.R. 771, 781 (E.D.Cal.1992); Rodriguez v. Unknown-
Named disciplinary Hearings Agent, 209CV02195FCDKJNPS, 2010 WL 1407772
(E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2010).
II. OBJECTIONS
A. Lucas Declaration/Request for Judicial Notice
(Doc. No. 131-2, 131-3)
Exhibit 1: Document entitled Declaration In Support of Arrest Warrant
signed by Defendant GARSON on April 5, 2010. (GARSON Declaration). The
document is also filed at Exhibit B to BIERERS Request for Judicial Notice. Both
submissions are objectionable for the following reasons.
a. Objection: Relevance.
The GARSON declaration is irrelevant to any issue in the Omnibus or any
joinder. It is referenced gratuitously in the Omnibus (Doc. No. 131-1, 12:26-13:3)
and the BIERER Joinder (Doc. No. 135-1, 3:26-27) as follows:
In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider material not
attached to the complaint if their authenticity is not contested, the plaintiffs'
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 162 Filed 05/20/14 Page 2 of 8

3
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
complaint necessarily relies on them, and may consider matters of public
record. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-689 (9th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, filed here in the Request For Judicial Notice are records showing
there was an arrest warrant issued for Stuart before the SDCBA seminar.
Neither BIERER nor the OMNIBUS tie the exhibit to any relevant issue.
Omnibus asserts merely that the Court may consider the exhibits without
explaining why the Court should do so. BIERER purports to assert its relevance to
establish a non-issue: Plaintiff Stuart is disgruntled over his prior arrests, convictions
in state court and ensuing prison sentences. BIERER Doc. No. 151, 2:8-9. As
explained in the Plaintiffs Opposition to the Omnibus and Joinders (Doc. 161), A
plaintiffs motives in bringing a lawsuit are irrelevant to a Twombly plausibility
analysis. Instead BIERER must identify an alternative explanation for her own
behavior other than, for example, knowingly furthering the STUART ASSAULT by
alerting SDCBA DOE 1 and SDSD of STUARTS location at the SEMINAR Doc.
No. 161, 98:4-6.
The Exhibit is gratuitous, scurrilous, impertinent material, and therefore also
objectionable under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 as its (non-existent) probative
value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair
prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or
needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 403.
b. Objection: Lacks FoundationControverted Facts:
A request for judicial notice may be submitted only on noncontroversial facts.
Federal Rules of Evidence 401. The Garson Declaration appears to be based on
falsified documents cited therein, and contains numerous false statements under oath.
Specifically, that GARSON a San Diego City Police Department official reports
contained 26 obscene and threatening emails between Plaintiff Stuart and his ex-
wife.

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

4
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. Objection: Hearsay
The documents are inadmissible under any circumstances as they are multiple
hearsayout of court statements presently offered for the truth of the matters
therein asserted; The declaration is hearsay to this action, referencing a file, itself
hearsay to the criminal action and this action, containing hearsay statements or other
foundationless matter by a San Diego City Police Department officer, relating to
emails, further hearsay, containing obscene and threatening language, also
potentially hearsay.

Exhibit 2: Ex Parte Minutes form (CRM-177) relating to a misdemeanor
criminal case.
a. Objection: Relevance.
As with Exhibit 1, it has no relationship to any issue before this Court.
Defendants appear to proffer it as relating to Exhibit 1 but the face of the document
does not support such a conclusion.
In addition, the form references issuance of a misdemeanor warrant and bears a
stamp Roger Krauel, is dated April 14, 2010, but bears no facial reference to the
Garson Declaration, does not identify for whom the warrant was issued, the scope of
the warrant, and does not identify any agency receiving a warrant. Plaintiffs do not
acknowledge the document, and without more foundation which Defendants do not
and cannot offer at this stage, it is irrelevant.
b. Objection: Foundation.
The document bears a stamp rather than a signature. Plaintiff contests the
authenticity of the stamp as authenticating or a legitimate means of issuing an order
under any circumstances. See Motion to Conduct Early Discovery.


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

5
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 3: Printed page from Delaware Secretary of State regarding California
Coalition for Families and Children, PBC.
Defendants reference this exhibit in support of the proposition that California
Coalition is not a law firm or otherwise licensed to practice law and did not even exist
until one day before the complaint was filed. Defendants apparently assert this as a
fact supporting their request to dismiss the Lanham Act Count (COUNT 15).
Omnibus Doc. 131, 15:11-17. The line of cases on which Defendants rely has been
abrogated in Lexmark v. Static Controls (See Opposition to Omnibus). Because
standing to bring suit under the Lanham Act does not require competition, the
document is irrelevant. California Coalition, PBC is a successor in interest to
California Coalition, Inc. and Lexevia, PC. Plaintiffs have separately requested leave
to amend to plead these facts.

Exhibit 5: Decision and Order re: Inactive Enrollment
This document bears no signature, date, filing stamp or other indicia of official
or business record foundation.
a. Objection: Relevance:
The document is referenced only in support of Defendants argument that STUART
cannot maintain a Lanham Act claim because As a matter of public record, Stuart
has been disbarred or suspended from practicing law in every 14 state where he was
admitted. (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.) Omnibus Doc. No.
131, 15:11-17. STUARTs present status as a member of any bar is irrelevant to any
issue properly before the Court. California Coalition, Lexevia, and STUART each
are within the zone of interest to satisfy Article III standing under the Lanham Act.
b. Objection: Lacks Foundation:
The document bearing no signature, date, filing stamp or other indicia of official or
business record foundation.

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

6
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 6: Order Entering Default and Order Enrolling Inactive
a. Objection: Relevance
The Exhibit is referenced in support of Defendants Omnibus arguments which are
irrelevant to the zone of interest determination. It is irrelevant for the same reasons
set forth above.
b. Objection: Foundation
These documents purport to assert facts based upon the perjury and false evidence
on which Exhibit 1the GARSON Declarationis based. They are objected to as
controversial and lacking foundation.

Exhibits 4, 7-10: Printed documents and printed pages relating to STUARTS
status with the State Bars of California, Nevada, and Arizona.
a. Objection: Relevance, Lacks Foundation:
For the same reasons as Exhibit 6 is irrelevant to the sole issue of Lanham Act
Standing, these documents are irrelevant.

B. Objections to DOYNE Request for Judicial Notice
(Doc. No. 143-2, 3)
RJN 143-3 Exhibit A to RJN; 2 Documents, One entitled Findings and Order
After Hearing and a second entitled Attachment to Findings and Order After
Hearing.
a. Objection: Lacks Foundation, Controversial:
The exhibit appears to be a fraudulent attempt to combine two separate
documents. The first page appears to be a form Findings and Order bearing an
unrecognizable signature dated August 8, 2008 apparently filed the same date. It is
not signed by counsel as approved as conforming to Court Order.
The second document is an unsigned pleading on Basie & Fritz caption entitled
Attachment to Findings and Order After Hearing. It is stamped received dated
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 162 Filed 05/20/14 Page 6 of 8

7
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO OMNIBUS
13-CV-1944 CAB BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
June 16, 2008, which is not coordinated with the first page it is submitted with.
Though it is submitted by Defendant DOYNE it bears the initials SB,
corresponding to Defendant Sharon Blanchet. It thus appears to have been created by
DOYNE from filed owned by Plaintiff STUART, in possession of Defendant
BLANCHET, maintained for the benefit of Plaintiff STUART.
It is not stamped as filed with any court.
This document appears to be a falsification of records. The event of filing
falsified documents in this action is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1512(c) and
will be added as an independent predicate crime in due course. For the time being the
exhibit is objected to as lacking foundation, irrelevant, and controversial.


DATED: May 20, 2014 By: /s/

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

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

-1-
PLTFS OBJECTIONS TO DFNDTS RJN ISO
OMNIBUS
3:13-cv-1944 CAB BLM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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


By: /s/

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
























Colbern C. Stuart III
Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-BLM Document 162 Filed 05/20/14 Page 8 of 8