All of us supporting OUR REVOLUTION should be very proud of our behavior of exposing the Truth about Parental Alienation and all the evil predators involved. Our actions have proven our compassionate, honest values and moral character which my wise and compassionate GRANDFATHER BEN taught me must always be defended so you are able to Love and not live a miserable life preying upon others.
So, here is the second part of the document I recently served. But, I just want to say on a lighter note, I hope you are enjoying the Dodger games like I have been. I am so lucky to watch them on this very high tech television with a friend where a scoreboard is at the bottom of the screen and the replays also show the path of the pitches. It is amazing and almost like being there but now quite. Now here is the second part of the document.
- Judge Silbar’s conflict involves several conflicts. First, she reviewed, signed and filed the fraudulent, invalid and criminal divorce judgment on May 7, 2010 even though it did not disclose the net worth of the community estate under Petitioner’s control worth many millions of dollars as tax returns, corporate, trust, profit sharing and other documents prove; its division and its distribution which are legally required to be disclosed in a divorce judgment. [California Family Code sections 2102-2120]
- Second, Judge Silbar’s conflict of interest also involves the Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order requested by Seastrom & Seastrom, the law firm representing Petitioner, and granted by Commissioner/Judge Lon Hurwitz on June 5, 2009 WITHOUT PROOF of any legal or rational basis and WITHOUT being properly severed to my attorney, Pamela Shaffer, Esq. Specifically, the declaration of the Legal Assistant of Philip Seastrom of the law firm Seastrom & Seastrom representing Petitioner named Lisa Kiste Doumar, states under numbers 3 and 4 in pertinent part that:
“ on June 5, 2009 at approximately 9:15a.m. I telephoned Attorney Pamela Shaffer’s office. The call was answered by the office voicemail and I left a message that this office would be appearing ex parte at 1:30p.m. at the Orange County Superior, Court, Lamoreaux, Justice Center. I further advised her that the ex parte motion was regarding:
- Petitioner is seeking temporary stay away orders against Respondent Sara Hassman, and their three children. (no legal basis or legal standing is cited);
- Petitioner is seeking temporary conduct orders against Respondent, Sara Hassman, and their three children(no legal basis or legal standing is cited) and;
- Petitioner is seeking exclusive use of the family residence located in Laguna Beach, California (no legal basis or legal standing is cited and no payment was made to Respondent either for giving up her right to use the family residence).”
“ I thereafter faxed and emailed correspondence to Attorney Pamela Shaffer’s office providing the same information.” [End of Lisa Doumar’s declaration quotes]
- Judge Silbar then made said baseless and malicious June 5, 2005 Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order permanent three weeks later on June 26, 2005, WITHOUT any legal or rational basis. Since June 26, 2005, said original June 5, 2009 Restraining Order has been extended, renewed and modified to add a protective person by Judge Silbar, ALL WITHOUT any legal or rational basis.
- My Ex Parte Order Request to you, PRESIDING JUDGE CHARLES MARGINES, stems from said original June 5, 2009 restraining order which has never been proven to be valid along with all extensions, renewals and modifications. There is no legal basis for any of these orders and they prove a miscarriage of justice which I am requesting that you rectify; as the Presiding Judge of this court.
- At said October 5, 2018 hearing, I requested Judge Silbar to order Judge Lon Hurwitz to appear at said November 16, 2018 trial she unlawfully scheduled so that I can exercise my Constitutional Right to due process by inquiring and performing discovery as to what legal and rational basis he used to grant said Ex Parte order which denied me of my sacred Constitutional Rights to custody and visitation along with my other Constitutional Rights. However, Judge Silbar refused which is another example of Obstruction of Justice since she knows and I also reminded her that a judge cannot be subpoenaed in court. (Judge Silbar also knows I am indigent due to being deprived of my legal interest in the community estate after being the full-time stay-at-home Mother and having no spousal support. I do work but just lost my job of three years taking care of a woman with Parkinson’s disease. Thus, I cannot afford a private detective.).
Then since she refused to order Judge Hurwitz to appear in court; I asked her for Judge Lon Hurwitz’s home address so I can have his subpoena served there. She again refused which shows more of her pattern of Obstruction of Justice and maliciously depriving me of my Constitutional Right to Due Process and promoting acts of Malicious Prosecution, Fraud, Deceit, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Conspiracy, Parental Alienation and others.
- “No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child.”
[Carson v. Elrod, 411 F. Supp. 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976)]
- A parent’s right to take care of and have the companionship of her children is so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and loss of these constitutional freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.
[Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985); Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980); Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985); In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489; Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976); In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980); Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985)].
- Parental Alienation is the intentional destruction of the companionship which a loving, nurturing, compassionate law-abiding Wife and Mother like Respondent shares with her children, commonly occurring at the time of divorce so the parent who intentionally creates the parental alienation can profit from the divorce by keeping the Mother and her children in a state of shock and emotional and financial torture, terror and distress whereby the Wife/Mother is unable to claim her legal interest in the community estate which was intentionally and maliciously concealed and stolen from her by Petitioner with the aiding and abetting of Judges; Law Firms; the Court-Appointed Therapist; Executives, Nonprofits, Schools and others.
[Dr. Baker, A. (2010); Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome: “Breaking the Ties That Bind;”Kruk, E. (2013). Psychology Today; “The Impact of Parental Alienation on Children;” http://www.palienation.org/]
- Experts have proven, Parental Alienation includes crimes of terror, torture, abuse, oppression, fraud, hate, deceit, intentional infliction of emotional distress, financial distress, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, money laundering and other crimes AND aiding and abetting in carrying out these crimes too. Why should these Judges and ANY REASONABLE PERSON what to keep me, Respondent Sara Hassman, alienated from my Children using restraining orders and other protective orders? [www.PAlienation.org]
10) Thus, Judge Silbar and also Judge Hurwitz should want to either have the validity of said June 5, 2009 Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order proven OR have it and all others expunged and stricken from the record immediately due to being invalid and having no legal basis. Neither of them should want to deprive me of my Constitutional Right to Due Process by promoting acts or aiding and abetting acts of Malicious Prosecution, Fraud, Deceit, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Conspiracy, Parental Alienation and other crimes and unlawful acts.
- At said October 2, 2018 hearing when I specifically said that the validity of said June 5, 2009 Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order and it being made permanent on June 26, 2009 had never been proven; Judge Silbar completely evaded the question and responded that “it has been in existence for a long time.” As she knows or should know that having “been in existence for a long time” does not prove its validity; as a matter of fact it proves years of Malicious Prosecution, Malicious Abuse, Terror, Torture, Oppression, Intentional Infliction of Emotional and Financial Distress, Parental Alienation, Conspiracy, Fraud and other crimes, unlawful, malicious and immoral acts.
- Further, Petitioner Mark Hassman has never carried his burden of proof that ANY restraining order, stay-away order or other protective order is valid and should be in effect currently. To the contrary, as public records prove, Petitioner Mark Hassman sent me, Respondent Sara Hassman, an email dated 02/272011 at 11:47p.m. which states in pertinent part in bold, underlined letters:
“I acknowledge that you were an integral part of the positive upbringing of our children.”
- Still further, public records from Department of Justice prove that I, Respondent Sara Hassman, have been an honest, law-abiding person my entire life of over 60 years and never had any alleged criminal problems until the time of divorce when said restraining and other protective orders where criminally, illegally, maliciously and immorally requested and granted against me.
- Also, it has never been proven why Judge Silbar convicted me, Respondent Sara Hassman of being a vexatious litigant. So again Judge Silbar proves her pattern of Obstruction of Justice and denying me of my Constitutional Right to due process.
- Judge Silbar’s orders, as a judge in your court JUDGE MARGINES, prove to be a lynching of me, Respondent Sara Hassman and a miscarriage and mockery of justice. Are you going to let this illegal November 16, 2018 trial move forward or will you please, in the interest of justice issue an Ex Parte order to terminate said November 16, 2018 trial since I have been denied my Constitutional Rights to due process? It first must be determined whether or not Judge Lon Hurwitz had validity when he granted this original said June 5, 2009 Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order.
- Judge Silbar also tried to get me to agree again to another one of her court-appointed attorneys when all of them have breached their fiduciary duty they owed me to represent me honestly and diligently. I have learned my lesson and would not be in this position now if these attorneys had been honest and done their job zealously.
REFUSING TO PREVENT THE CONSPIRACY
Title 42 U.S.C.§1986 pertains to Refusing to Prevent the Conspiracy and states in pertinent part:
“Every person who having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 or this title, are about to be committed, and 18 U.S. C. §§1961d having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action.” [Emphasis added]
Further, Title 42 U.S.C.§1985 pertains to Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights and states in pertinent part:
“(3) Depriving Persons of Rights or Privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws…or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.” [Emphasis added]
Property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a citizen’s fundamental rights and liberties. [Marsh v. Alabama,326 U.S. 501 (1946)]
Fourteenth Amendment explicitly applies the Due Process requirement to the states as Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part:
Further, it is the duty of the court representing the state in accordance with the letter and policy of the law, to guard strictly against fraud, collusion, or imposition when the husband or wife seeks to dissolve the bonds that bind them together.
[Gregory v. Gregory (1949) 92 Cal. App. 2d 343, 345; 206 P.2d 1122]
Judge Silbar’s acts of depriving me, Respondent Sara Hassman of custody, visitation, granting, renewing and modifying restraining orders, and declaring me a vexatious litigate ALL without a legal or rational basis; show a clear pattern of intentional and malicious violations of her duty to promote justice for all members of the public by upholding the law and the legal processes.
[Rule 10.603 of the 2014 California Rules of Court regarding Authority and Duties of Presiding Judge; CA Code of Judicial Ethics, 2013; Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution]
Judge Silbar’s said acts also show an abuse of her police powers to preserve the health, safety, welfare and morals of the community; Id.
All United States citizens are equally protected by the law, which includes a woman seeking dissolution of her marriage contract and her children she bore during the marriage. [Civil Rights Act of 1866]
Accordingly, the liberty of contract cannot be subjected to greater infringement directed upon a woman and her children than a man; Id.
“Severe emotional distress [is] emotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable man in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.” [Fletcher v. Western Life Insurance Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 397 [89 Cal.Rptr. 78].]
Oppression is the “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” [California Civil Code §3294] This includes financial oppression.
Malice is “conduct which is intended to cause injury to the Respondent or despicable conduct to which is carried on by the Petitioner with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” Id.
Fraud is defined as “intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to Petitioner with the intention on the part of Petitioner of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” Fraud means that a Petitioner intentionally misrepresented or concealed a material fact and did so intending to harm the Respondent. [California Civil Code §3294; CACI 3948]
Further, as an officer of this court, Respondent requests that PRESIDING JUDGE MARGINES reports Petitioner and those aiding and abetting him, to the criminal division so that other members of the public, like Respondent and her children, will not be harmed by their willful, outrageous, intentional, malicious and repeated acts in furtherance of their premeditated and sophisticated plan, joint venture or conspiracy/conspiracies as explained above. This will prevent others in society from being placed in vulnerable positions like Respondent and her children and psychologically, emotionally, financially and in other ways being taken advantage of in violation of the U.S. and California Constitutions, consistent and compatible Federal and State statutes, codes, cases and other laws .
As always, none of this is legal or any other advice; it is based upon my knowledge and experience.
-By Sara Hassman, Parental Alienation Solutions, Founder;
Parental Alienation is a form of abuse that destroys the sacred bond between a loving parent and their child at the time of a divorce. (Child includes teen and adult children)