- angiEmedia - http://angiemedia.com -

Amicus Brief in Emad Tadros v. Stephen Doyne Appeal in San Diego

California Coalition for Families and Children [1] 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 [2]. 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 [3] features a helpful write-up of the credentialing con involving Doyne and other custody evaluators purchasing credentials from diploma mills [4] 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 [5]

You can also download the document from Google Docs [6] or as a PDF file [7].

Further Reading

San Diego Judge DeAnn Salcido Resigns Under Fire, Yet Shows CJP Is Corrupt [8]

San Diego Custody Evaluators Generate Cash Flow by Victimizing Families Using Restraining Orders [9]

Judge Lorna Alksne On The Way Out After Home Picketed [10]

A Judge’s View of “Best Interests of the Children” [11]

Cole Stuart Considers $10M False Arrest Suit Against SDCBA [12]

CCFC Family Law Protest in San Diego Results in Arrest of Group Leader [13]

Judge Lorna Alksne Eager For New Weapons For Judicial Abuse [14]

CCFC Protests San Diego Family Courts on April 15, 2010 [15]

Bill Gore Is Poor Choice For San Diego Sheriff [16]

San Diego DA Bonnie Dumanis Attempts to Pervert Justice [17]

Reader Feedback on San Diego Judge Lisa Schall [18]

Why Is San Diego Judge Lisa Schall Still On The Bench? [19]

Eileen Lasher on San Diego CPS/Family Law Court Misconduct [20]

Flyer Protest in San Diego Family Law Courts [21]

San Diego Courts Cover Up Missing Forms and Psych Evals [22]

Stephen Doyne and San Diego Family Law Courts Under Fire [23]

Please sign the Amicus Brief ASAP [24]

3 Comments (Open | Close)

3 Comments To "Amicus Brief in Emad Tadros v. Stephen Doyne Appeal in San Diego"

#1 Comment By Madcolor On December 1, 2010 @ 3:56 pm

Stephen Doyne, Divorces Inc.

#2 Comment By Emad Tadros MD and the Chronically Cheated Public At Large On December 16, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

On 4-15-10 I stated in public, to Judge Bloom that FL326 is mandated to be filed “Under The Penalty of Perjury.” On this form, a verified signature by the evaluator is mandated according to Rule 5.225 k-1-b, which states in BOLD that this form must be filled out and signed “Under The Penalty of Perjury” 10 days “BEFORE-BEFORE” ANY custody work starts, by any evaluator.

The ethical, legal and professional instructions from the SDCBA to all San Diego attorneys, who are supposed to care about the child Best Interest, is to never touch any old cases as it is illegal on its face and according to the clear cut mandate outlined by 5.225 k-1-b.

As a matter of fact filing these forms after the fact is only committing perjury in day-light.

Any layman would wonder: was this prompting to flagrantly violate CRC, serve the public or serve the Attorneys?

Was this about Child’s Best Interest or was it about taking the candy out of the kids mouth and keep the attorneys sucking on it, instead?


—– Forwarded Message —–
From: [25]
To: [26]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:34:31 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Email from Robert Lesh to Family Law Community


Below is a forwarded email I received from an anonymous source who is a member of the San Diego Family Law community. I was told that this email was sent as a mass emailing to all members of the San Diego County Bar Association who practice in family law. I had originally received this email in early October of 2009 and as you recall, had forwarded it to you and various other members of the ‘Doyned’ community at that time.

If required, I can and will testify under oath as to the conditions that I received this communication under and the integrity of the individual who forwarded this document to me and his/her professional affiliation (a practicing member of the family law section of the San Diego Bar Association) in order that you can legally establish the veracity of this document with the courts.

John van Doorn

Robert Lesh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:19 PM
To: SDCBA Family Law Section
Subject: [sdcbafamilylaw] Important Custody Evaluation Forms/Orders

SDCBA Community Message Sent by: W. Lesh. To reply privately to W. Lesh,
Click Here

Note: By replying to this message, your response will be e-mailed
directly to the individual sender. Click “Reply to All” in your e-mail
client to send your response to all SDCBA Family Law Section members
instantly. This is a PRIVATE list for members of the SDCBA’s Family Law
Section. Do not forward messages or post confidential case or client
data on this list server. For a list of SDCBA list serve guidelines,
click here.

To permanently unsubscribe from this listserve, Click Here

I have been advised that a press conference occurred today (October 1)
which involved the issue of custody evaluations and the submission to
the Court of the attached Family Law Forms 326 and 327. As you may be
aware from a prior e-mail I sent to all of you, these forms are
mandatory and have been now for some time. Whenever you are involved in
a custody evaluation matter, you need to make sure that your custody
evaluators sign form FL-326 and that that gets filed with the Court, as
there is a strong possibility that the custody evaluator will not be
paid for work that they perform prior to the form being signed and
submitted to the Court.

As to Family Law 327, that also needs to be signed and contained in the
case file.

It seems apparent that there is going to be a tremendous amount of
scrutiny being placed upon these forms and if you have any old cases
still pending where these forms have not been used, please make sure
that they are filed appropriately as you risk claims from your client
that the matter was not properly handled, if they later disagree with
the recommendations from the evaluator.

If you have any particular questions regarding this, feel free to
contact me.

Bob Lesh
CFLS Chair


You are a receiving this email as a member of the San Diego County Bar
Association’s Family Law Section. This email was generated through a
listserve, and does not represent the views of the San Diego County Bar
Association, or the San Diego County Bar Association’s Family Law
Section. To adjust your list delivery settings and subscription options
for all SDCBA list servers and communities, Click Here.

NOTE: By replying to this message, you will be replying to the
individual sender. Click “Reply to All” to send your message to all
members of the Family Law Section

To send your own message, send email to
To permanently unsubscribe from the Family Law Section listserve, Click

#3 Comment By Cole Stuart On May 24, 2013 @ 3:16 pm

I’ve posted a detailed review and opened a discussion board at [28]. Parents are welcome to join the discussion and exhange tips/advice/experiences about Doyne or any of the other problematic San Diego Custody Evaluators. Please: Parents Only and focus on positive suggstions/advice rather than trashing him. There’s plenty of that already online.


Cole Stuart