The State Bar of California issued a cease and desist order in an attempt to stop the representation of child victims of family courts by the FCVFC. Prior to their actions, they had been given a well-documented complaint against a California lawyer who acted as a co-conspirator with an abusive parent to falsely separate a father from his children.
The children have suffered grievous harm under the isolation of a psychiatrically deranged parent whose condition was accurately diagnosed by experts with experience in diagnosing acute borderline personality disorder.
Under the absolute control and isolation of their abusive parent, the children deteriorated into states of suicidal ideation and homicidal aggression. Their personalities and behaviors were completely changed from what they had been prior to the loss of their protective parent. Previously they had been described as intelligent, congenial, and gregarious in nature. Yet, in an attempt to extort money and sympathy, their abusive parent subjected her children to false diagnoses and destructive psychotherapy providers that the mother chose in order to continue pathological manipulation.
The children should have received protection from their abusive parent but instead, the abusive parent’s attorney worked in concert with the court to file a complaint that was thoroughly unverified.
I was fully aware of the ongoing medical and psychotherapeutic crisis to which the children were subject because we were receiving both medical records and school reports indicating the overall deterioration in the children’s general functioning as per the acute distress they were suffering. The children’s father was and continues to be a client of the Foundation for Victims of Family Court and therefore receives our legal and forensic services.
The complaint against the attorney was dismissed, while I was subject to a cease and desist order—an order that had no relevance as there was never an incursion into the practice of law. The law, in this case, was practiced and effectively argued by the pro se litigant who benefited greatly from the services provided by the Foundation’s team of experts. No doubt his effectiveness in arguing the case exacerbated the grudge against the Foundation since the litigation resulted in the removal of a judge from the case. After the judge was removed, the case moved forward in a manner beneficial to our client.
As I became the target of the animosity of the State Bar of California, I requested copies of the records regarding the complaint filed against me. I wanted to know the basis of their claim against me. The state bar responded that “State Bar investigatory records are confidential and not subject to disclosure.” This was based on government code 6245 subd.(f).
Their inability to disclose the basis of the complaints has precluded any further investigation and has removed the means to intervention to remove this fabricated complaint from the public record with the California Bar Association.
We share this fabricated complaint with you as evidence of the resistance that comes against those who advocate protecting children in the face of malevolent legal and judicial intervention.
