California Coalition for Families and Children  and activist attorney Marc Angelucci have recently published a draft amicus curiae brief for submission to the California Fourth District Court of Appeal in case D057480, the appeal of the San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2008-00093885-CU-BT-CTL in which Judge Jay Bloom sided with the corrupt family law courts and disreputable Dr. Stephen Doyne, one of the court’s favored 730 child custody evaluators, by ruling that Doyne is immune from suit and one of his victims, Dr. Emad Tadros, should pay his legal fees.
Dr. Emad Tadros caught Stephen Doyne using what are credibly alleged to be fraudulent credentials issued by a “diploma mill” style organization. Evidence of this is shown in documentation regarding Doyne’s credentials . This is just the tip of the iceberg in the growing allegations against Doyne and many other San Diego divorce industry profiteers.
The Public Court  features a helpful write-up of the credentialing con involving Doyne and other custody evaluators purchasing credentials from diploma mills  in what appears to be a plan to enhance their reputations as expert witnesses and psychological evaluators. This is not just a San Diego problem, it is nationwide.
CCFC and Angelucci are looking for members of the public who understand the abusive conduct of many of the 730 custody evaluators in San Diego County to sign the brief in support of the notion that nobody should be above the law, not even the divorce industry “professionals” favored by the corrupt judicial officers on the bench in San Diego.
Angelucci explains the current dire situation in the letter soliciting public support for the brief.
Currently Dr. Doyne and other 730 evaluators like him, act with impunity in the family law courts in the name of profit, at the expense of destruction of children and families. They hide under the umbrella of the Anti-SLAPP statute pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 and the Litigation Privilege found in Civil Code 47. These statutes have created a legal road block to obtain accountability of such offenders. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right and privilege, it cannot be so broadly interpreted to deny litigants in the family law courts so similarly situated to be denied their right to parent and other fundamental rights, that by their very nature became illegal as a matter of law. The underlying case was brought in the name of the public good, which would legally preclude the application of protected speech under Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 and open the door for litigants so similarly situated and affected by the illegal 730 process, which was never authorized by law as it is a fact that the San Diego County Superior Court failed to follow or enforce the mandatory Rules of Court for nearly a decade. These facts are well contained in the Amicus Curiae. Further discovery was denied in the underlying case, which denied the ability to demonstrate evidence that would conclusively, and without doubt establish, that the assertedly protected speech was illegal as a matter of law, and further that Dr. Doyne had no attachment to the litigation, as he was not an authorized participant of law by failure to adhere to the mandatory Rules of Court, that are not neither permissive or laissez-faire; they are mandatory in their strongest legal terms. This denied the case to prove that Plaintiff in the underlying action, was representing members of the public that would cause to enforce an important right “affecting the public interest, and would confer a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, on the general public or a large class of persons.” This is why the Amicus Curiae is pivotal to carving out an exception that would take on new legal dimensions as related in the family law courts, where there is no jury of ones peers to act as trier of facts. The judge acts both as trier of fact and law, delegating its power to 730 evaluators like Stephen Doyne and others, while denying each citizen and every litigant to be governed by the law where someone else like Stephen Doyne decides the case or an issue before him.
The draft brief goes on to explain how San Diego court officials including Judge Lorna Alksne and Michael Roddy have systematically violated the law regarding custody evaluations for several years and then endeavored to spin away their responsibility and cover up extensive misconduct by their friends and them.
Superior Court Administrative Michael Roddy, Presiding Judge Lorna Alksne and others have become completely obstructive in that they refuse to acknowledge the harm done to the individual litigants or the litigants as a cognizable group that now brings this matter to the attention of the court for redress and relief in the name of the public good and public interest.
The family law court, the 730 Evaluator’s and the family law attorneys have individually and as a group refused to inform the effected and illegally disenfranchised litigants that their legal rights may have been illegally impaired though no fault of their own. That a condition of possible legal malpractice and violations by the 730 Evaluator’s, like Doyne are open for review and recovery for damages suffered, because the litigation privilege does not attach nor does the Anti- SLAPP Suit Protections.
You might not have stepped foot in a corrupt family court, but millions of others in the US and other nations have. San Diego’s courts are among the most polluted with corrupt judges and their friends. The county’s judges and other officials brazenly violate the law and dishonestly assert that their victims are responsible for the harm they experience as a result. Please help support San Diego families and consider signing this brief to support CCFC’s quest to make the courts follow the law and to stop their malicious friends from hurting children and families to earn money for their next swimming pool or luxury car.
You can preview and download the draft brief and signature letter below.
CCFC Draft Amicus Brief for Emad Tadros v. Stephen Doyne