Family Code 3027.1 Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content

Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases

The Truth News — Wed, 05 Oct 2022 11:56:36 +0000

Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases

Discovery sanctions are outside the Family Code. California Code of Civil Procedure governs how and when a family court should award such sanctions. That is because discovery sanctions are not limited to family law cases but apply to civil cases in general.

We are not going to discuss in great detail the nature and extent of discovery sanctions. Instead, we will discuss generally how a court may award such sanctions in a family law case.

What is discovery?

Discovery is a formal fact-finding process where one party seeks information from the other party and the other party must provide the information under oath. The most common discovery requests are:

Form interrogatories which are preprinted written questions.
Special interrogatories which are custom drafted questions.
Oral depositions which are question and answer sessions that typically take place by one party’s attorney of the other party.
Request for production of documents which are a party’s request the other party produce certain documents.
Request for admissions of facts which are a request by one party to the other party to admit certain facts as true.
Request for admissions of genuineness of documents which are a request by one party to the other party to admit certain documents as being genuine.
Physical or mental examinations, although these are less common in family law cases.
Property inspections, although these are also less common in family cases.

The above are not the only types of discovery requests. As one example, subpoenas are a form of discovery but subpoenas generally direct a third person, and not a party to the action, to produce documents. The above are more common types of discovery in family law cases.

What happens when a party refuses to respond to discovery or provides evasive responses?

A lot can happen in such a circumstance. Typically, the party who requested the discovery will send a letter or have a discussion with the other party about these issues. Of course, each party’s lawyers typically handle this. If the parties cannot resolve the issues, then the requesting party may file a motion to compel. A sanctions request, which is a request for fees and costs, accompanies that motion to compel.

Discovery sanctions are not based on need or ability to pay

Unreasonable financial hardship is also not a defense. Family Code 2030 through 2032 and Family Code 271 are irrelevant to discovery sanctions. Most discovery sanctions statutes state the court shall award attorney fees and costs to the winner and against the loser unless the loser had substantial justification for opposing the request.

Monetary sanctions are not the only sanction available to a prevailing party

In more extreme cases, a party can seek issue sanctions, evidence sanctions and even terminating sanctions. These types of sanctions can actually cut off a party’s ability to present evidence, be able to argue issues and in the case of a terminating sanction, remove that party’s ability to participate in the case.

cited https://farzadlaw.com/attorneys-fees/discovery-based-sanctions

To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below

Abuse & Neglect – The Reporters (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting Law Click Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166 Article 2.5. (CANRA) Click Here

Mandated Reporter form Mandated Reporter FORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS INFO BULLETIN Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)

It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child learn more below

You can learn more here California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law its a PDF files taken from

Learn More About True Threats Here below….

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment

Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee – 1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

We also have the Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU? CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

We also have the Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

We also have the Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

We also have the Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC – Making a False Police Report in California

We also have the Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors

FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse Allegations – Family Code 3027.1 – Click Here

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here

Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here

FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee Recovery – Click Here

Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)

Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

$ection 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

$uing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police

RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN & YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$

YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK

We also have the 9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights 5th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the 9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the California Civil Code Section 52.1 Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

We also have the Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS

We also have a SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law – The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

DUE PROCESS READS>>>>>>

Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE

Understanding Due Process – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone Click Here

Mathews v. Eldridge – Due Process – 5th & 14th Amendment Mathews Test – 3 Part Test– Amdt5.4.5.4.2 Mathews Test

“Unfriending” Evidence – 5th Amendment

At the Intersection of Technology and Law

We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts – 1st Amendment

Retrieving Evidence / Internal Investigation Case

Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here

Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDA – Click Here

Orange County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports, and all other available known requests for data below:

APPLICATION TO EXAMINE LOCAL ARREST RECORD UNDER CPC 13321 Click Here

Learn About Policy 814: Discovery Requests OCDA Office – Click Here

Request for Proof In-Custody Form Click Here

Request for Clearance Letter Form Click Here

Application to Obtain Copy of State Summary of Criminal HistoryForm Click Here

Request Authorization FormRelease of Case Information – Click Here

CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

Appealing/Contesting Case/Order/Judgment/Charge/ Suppressing Evidence

First Things First: What Can Be Appealed and What it Takes to Get Started – Click Here

Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider

Penal Code 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Penal Code 1538.5 – Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case

CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings

Penal Code “995 Motions” in California – Motion to Dismiss

WIC § 700.1 – If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence

Suppression Of Exculpatory Evidence / Presentation Of False Or Misleading Evidence – Click Here

Notice of Appeal — Felony (Defendant) (CR-120) 1237, 1237.5, 1538.5(m) – Click Here

Epic Criminal / Civil Right$ SCOTUS Help – Click Here

Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling – Parental Right$ Help – Click Here

Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction – SCOTUS RULINGS on Judicial & Prosecutorial Conduct

Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards

Download Here this Recommended Citation

Please take time to learn new UPCOMING

The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.

The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees & Family Court Sanctions – Family Code 271

The Truth News — Sun, 02 Oct 2022 09:50:59 +0000

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271

Family Court Sanctions

(a)Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the court may base an award of attorney’s fees and costs on the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys. An award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to this section is in the nature of a sanction. ?In making an award pursuant to this section, the court shall take into consideration all evidence concerning the parties’ incomes, assets, and liabilities. The court shall not impose a sanction pursuant to this section that imposes an unreasonable financial burden on the party against whom the sanction is imposed. In order to obtain an award under this section, the party requesting an award of attorney’s fees and costs is not required to demonstrate any financial need for the award.

(b)An award of attorney’s fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.

(c)An award of attorney’s fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to this section is payable only from the property or income of the party against whom the sanction is imposed, except that the award may be against the sanctioned party’s share of the community property. cited https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/family-code/fam-sect-271.html

Family Code 271 is one of the most powerful code sections in California family law

Family Code 271 allows for sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees and costs when a family law litigant, or his or her attorney, violates its policy. For that reason, such issues usually end up in front of the family law judge.

What does Family Code 271 state? How does section 271 do what it states? How is it applied?

We wrote this informative guide to answer these questions. Nothing in this guide is legal advice about your specific situation.

Family Code 271 has five parts.

As of the date we write this guide, Family Code 271 has five parts to it.

Part One: Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the court may base an award of attorney’s fees and costs on the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys.

Part Two: An award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to this section is in the nature of a sanction. In making an award pursuant to this section, the court shall take into consideration all evidence concerning the parties’ incomes, assets, and liabilities.

Part Three: The court shall not impose a sanction pursuant to this section that imposes an unreasonable financial burden on the party against whom the sanction is imposed. In order to obtain an award under this section, the party requesting an award of attorney’s fees and costs is not required to demonstrate any financial need for the award.

Part Four: An award of attorney’s fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.

Part Five: An award of attorney’s fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to this section is payable only from the property or income of the party against whom the sanction is imposed, except that the award may be against the sanctioned party’s share of the community property.

The policy behind Family Code 271

The policy behind Family Code 271 is simple.

Family Code 271 allows attorney’s fees and costs against a party in a divorce, legal separation, annulment or parentage case when that party’s conduct “frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys.”

It is designed to punish bad behavior. In that respect, Family Code 271 also exists to promote settlement and reasonable compromise.

Notice duration pursuant to Family Code 271

Family Code 271’s notice section states:

An award of attorney’s fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.

The code does not specifically give a minimum mandatory notice requirement.

So what is proper notice? It varies from case to case and is a case specific question although some California appellate cases have provided general guidelines on what is proper notice.

The more notice, the better.

Notice by request for order

Notice is sometimes by a formal request for order, filed with the court and served on the other party.

This request for order sets a hearing date where both parties must appear, put on evidence and argue Family Code 271’s merits.

Often, an attorney will group this section 271 request for order with other requests such as a Family Code 2030 and 2032 attorney fee request or even with a support request, if that is also at issue.

Notice without a request for order

Other times, a Family Code 271 notice is a detailed notice filed with the court and served on the other party and gives the other party specific notice the noticing party intends to seek sanctions at a future hearing date already set, such as, for example, a trial.

What is the sanction to which Family Code 271 refers?

Family Code 271 allows sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees and costs.

So, if a party to a family law case incurred $10,000 in attorney’s fees and $5,000 in cost because the other party violated Family Code 271’s policy, the party who seeks fees and costs may ask the court for an order against the other.

From what source can Family Code 271 sanctions be paid?

The code specifically states:

An award of attorney’s fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to this section is payable only from the property or income of the party against whom the sanction is imposed, except that the award may be against the sanctioned party’s share of the community property.

Pretty self explanatory, right?

Family Code 271’s notice content

Family Code 271 notice, whether by request for order that sets a hearing date or by other notice, must be specific.

California appellate cases have stated the noticing party should identify the specific grounds and specific conduct that party claims violated Family Code 271.

The notice should be directed to the specific party against whom Family Code 271 sanctions are sought.

The notice’s detail can be a complicated legal issue and like other aspects of section 271, seek legal advice about your specific situation to determine how specific your notice should be.

Need is not relevant to a Family Code 271 request

Family Code 271 differs from Family Code 2030 and 2032.

Since section 271 is a sanction based request and punishes bad behavior, the code makes a requesting party’s “need” for the fees and costs irrelevant.

Therefore, the person who seeks Family Code 271 sanctions does not have to show he or she has a need for the fees and costs requested.

This allows a higher income earner or the person who has a greater access to money to seek Family Code 271 sanctions against the other party.

Is this fair?

At first, some people may think this is unfair.

But think about it logically. If a person were allowed to get away with unreasonable conduct during a family law case and there was no recourse to seek fees and costs against that person even though their unreasonable, reckless or even malicious behavior caused the fees and costs to skyrocket, is that reasonable? Of course not.

California Family Code’s public policy requires all parties, regardless of financial status, to behave reasonably throughout a family law case.

“But my lawyer did it” is not a defense

Family Code 271 generally does not allow a party to hide behind the lawyer’s misconduct and escape the sanction because his or her lawyer engaged in the misconduct.

What does Family Code 271’s “unreasonable financial burden” standard mean and is it the same as ability to pay?

Section 271 states the following:

In making an award pursuant to this section, the court shall take into consideration all evidence concerning the parties’ incomes, assets, and liabilities. The court shall not impose a sanction pursuant to this section that imposes an unreasonable financial burden on the party against whom the sanction is imposed. In order to obtain an award under this section, the party requesting an award of attorney’s fees and costs is not required to demonstrate any financial need for the award.

Family Code 271 is different from Family Codes 2030 and 2032 in this respect

The above differs from the ability to pay standard often associated with Family Code 2030 and 2032.

If Party A seeks Family Code 271 sanctions against Party B, it is not enough for Party B to argue he or she does not have the ability to pay sanctions. Party B must show the sanction would impose an “unreasonable financial burden” on him or her.

There is no clear, black or white “unreasonable financial burden” definition so, like most things in the Family Code, its interpretation may vary from case to case.

Must the person who seeks sanctions show there is no such burden?
Or is the person who opposes sanctions required to show it?

We believe the person who opposes the sanctions must show unreasonable financial burden because we believe it is akin to a defense to the Family Code 271 request, but other lawyers may disagree.

The role settlement offers play in Family Code 271

The general rule is settlement offers are not admissible in civil cases.

However, in family law, settlement offers may be evidence of attempts to reach a reasonable compromise or evidence of a failure to do so.

In that respect, settlement offers may become relevant and admissible evidence in bringing or defending a Family Code 271 sanctions request.

The settlement offers to which we refer are outside the family law mediation process.

Whether settlement offers made during mediation are admissible for the above purpose may be a disputed issue and the mediation confidentiality may not allow using settlement offers made in mediation in a subsequent section 271 request.

There may be ways to get around this issue. An experienced family law attorney you hire can explain to you whether that is an option in your case.

The Family Code 271 request before judgment

Before judgment, a Family Code 271 request usually becomes part of a formal request for order, as we explained above. That means either party may file a request for order and have the issue heard before a trial.

Some judges hesitate to award Family Code 271 attorney’s fees before trial. This has never made sense to us.

If a judge allows a party to engage in unreasonable conduct and significantly increase the other party’s attorney’s fees during the process without consequence, what is the point of Family Code 271?

A family law judge should be willing and open-minded to awarding Family Code 271 attorney’s fees against the party at any time during the case.

That is what the code allows and there is no limitation within the code or California case law that permits a judge to arbitrarily punt this issue to a trial.

The Family Code 271 request at trial

The Family Code 271 request may also be heard at trial.

Sometimes this can be while other issues are heard. Sometimes this can be after every issue is heard.

The reason the second scenario occurs is the judge may want to hear all the evidence and make his or her rulings before deciding who was unreasonable.

The end result can help the judge understand who took reasonable versus unreasonable positions.

The Family Code 271 request, post judgment

California Family Code 271 is fair game after judgment including, for example, during modification requests.

Child custody, parenting time, child support and alimony are just some of the issues that may be modified post judgment. If a party takes unreasonable positions and causes litigation that should have been avoided,
Family Code 271 may be used as a sanction against him or her.

cited https://farzadlaw.com/california-family-law/family-code-271#

Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors

FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse Allegations – Family Code 3027.1 – Click Here

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here

Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here

FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee Recovery – Click Here

Abuse & Neglect – The Reporters (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting Law Click Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect – California Penal Code 11164-11166

Article 2.5. Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) Click Here

Download the Mandated Reporter form below click link

Mandated Reporter FORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS

INFORMATION BULLETIN click here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)

It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child

Family Code 3027.1 Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content

Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases

Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases

What is discovery?

What happens when a party refuses to respond to discovery or provides evasive responses?

Discovery sanctions are not based on need or ability to pay

Monetary sanctions are not the only sanction available to a prevailing party

To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below

Abuse & Neglect – The Reporters (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting Law Click Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166 Article 2.5. (CANRA) Click Here

Mandated Reporter form Mandated Reporter FORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS INFO BULLETIN Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)

You can learn more here California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law its a PDF files taken from

Learn More About True Threats Here below….

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment

Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee – 1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

We also have the Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU? CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

We also have the Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

We also have the Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

We also have the Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC – Making a False Police Report in California

We also have the Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors

FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse Allegations – Family Code 3027.1 – Click Here

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here

Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here

FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee Recovery – Click Here

Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)

Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

$ection 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

$uing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police

RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN & YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$

We also have the 9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights 5th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the 9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the California Civil Code Section 52.1 Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

We also have the Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS

We also have a SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law – The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

DUE PROCESS READS>>>>>>

Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE

Understanding Due Process – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone Click Here

Mathews v. Eldridge – Due Process – 5th & 14th Amendment Mathews Test – 3 Part Test– Amdt5.4.5.4.2 Mathews Test

“Unfriending” Evidence – 5th Amendment

At the Intersection of Technology and Law

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS **INFO BULLETIN Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)**

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site

**INFORMATION BULLETIN click here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)**