Below is part of the document judges and some of my other defendants should receive today in their mailboxes. Not only does this document prove the CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE to promote Parental Alienation; it sets the stage to ESTABLISH LEGAL PRECEDENT to end it as OUR REVOLUTION supported by honest, loving, law-abiding people and organizations reasonably promotes.
Please note that the document has bold, underlined and highlighted sentences and words which do not appear on Facebook but they do appear on my website post entitled; “Below is part of the document judges…” at www.PAlienation.org. This document is expected to be discussed at this Friday’s September 28, 2018 hearing in crooked, evil and malicious JUDGE CLAUDIA SILBAR’S courtroom unless, as expected, JUDGE CLAUDIA SILBAR, as she has a PATTERN TO DO, will continue to rule with her AUTHORITY, not following the LAW OR REASON and not allowing these important and relevant matters to be discussed.
Transcripts and many other documents continue to PROVE BEYOND ANY REASONABLY DOUBT, JUDGE CLAUDIA SILBAR’S PATTERN of ruling with her Authority and in violation the law, her police power and not acting reasonably or rationally. I will keep you posted and here is part of the document which I hope helps many of you supporting OUR REVOLUTION to end the abuse, terror, torture and oppression of PARENTAL ALIENATION so we can restore LOVE, FAMILY, EQUAL RIGHTS AND JUSTICE TO HUMANITY and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
- Courts have sanctioned attorneys for impugning judicial integrity and authority thereby maliciously and unlawfully denying them First Amendment protection which attorney speech made in court proceedings is entitled to receive in the interest of justice.
- Nevertheless, it clearly appears that the judiciary, which includes the CA Superior Court of Orange County, does not appreciate having its own integrity and authority questioned; even
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
For example, U.S state and federal courts discipline and sanction attorneys who make honest but incriminating remarks about the judiciary thereby impugning judicial integrity and authority; the required lawful intentions of the judiciary; abuse of process by the judiciary; obstruction of justice by the judiciary and other criminal, malicious and immoral acts by the judiciary as this case #09D002792 PROVES from the face of the divorce judgment reviewed, signed and then filed by JUDGE CLAUDIA SILBAR along with other invalid documents, many brought to the attention of JUDGE CHARLES MARGINES; the Presiding Judge of the California Superior Court of Orange County.
- Thus, U.S. Courts today have criminally, unlawfully, maliciously and outrageously rejected the Constitutional standard established by the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan  for punishing speech regarding government officials. As explained in #4 above; case # 09D002792 proves this exact point by merely looking at the face of the divorce judgment. Why hasn’t any law firm since May 7, 2010 helped Respondent set aside or revise said divorce judgment so that it complies with the letter and spirit of our laws?
In addition, JUDGE CHARLES MARGINES has repeatedly refused to recuse JUDGE CLAUDIA SILBAR for her said actions and also for being named as a defendant and potential material witness in lawsuits Respondent has filed to peacefully redress her grievances. Court documents prove JUDGE CHARLES MARGINES has repeatedly been made aware of said facts.
- A judge of the Superior Court of California and many other Judges AND also Attorneys with government licenses to practice law honestly, diligently and fairly and not to self-deal are deemed government officials. Further, Nonprofit organizations which have government licenses to operate as a Nonprofit are also deemed government officials/entities and are required to carry out business which promotes the health, safety and welfare of society. Accordingly, Nonprofits are prohibited from using their nonprofit government status to hide and launder stolen money and assets and from carrying out other criminal, unlawful and immoral acts.
- Accordingly, the facts prove our Courts PROTECT criminal and malicious government official/entity conduct which includes this case at bar #09D002792.
Malicious conduct of officials/entities is that conduct made with knowledge that their statements and actions are false or made with reckless disregard of whether it was a false statement or not. Malice can be also established through CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
- Specifically, in said case at bar the legal requirements of disclosing: 1) the net worth of the community estate under Petitioner’s control; 2) its division and; 3) its distribution were never carried out and criminally and maliciously repeatedly ignored. 
- Petitioner being aided and abetted by: JUDGE CLAUDIA SILBAR; JUDGE CHARLES MARGINES;JUDGE LINDA MILLER; his law firm SEASTROM & SEASTROM; Respondent’s law firms THE LAW OFFICES OF ALAN SHIFMAN; THE LAW OFFICE OF HARRIS GONZALEZ; and also THE KIKEN GROUP which established and managed the trusts of the community estate; just took the entire community estate under his control all for himself in violation of California community property, family, contract, the U.S. and California Constitutions and other laws as all these judges and law firms knew or should have known.
- Said case 09D002792 proves AGAIN that our Courts PROTECT criminal and malicious government official/entity conduct by merely looking at the Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order requested by Petitioner’s law firm SEASTROM & SEASTROM. Said Ex Parte Restraining Order appears in public records in this Court as it was granted on June 5, 2009 and made permanent on June 26, 2009.
First, in violation of the service laws which AGAIN deprived Respondent of her Constitutional Right to Due Process of Law; Respondent’s attorney of record PAMELA SHAFFER, ESQ. was served by being left a voicemail and sent an email at 9:15a.m. on June 5, 2009 as sworn to by PHILIP SEASTROM’S LEGAL ASSISTANT in her declaration in exhibit 1 under numbers 3 and 4.
Second, in violation of the service laws, COMMISSIONER AND JUDGE LON HURWITZ granted said Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order that same day only a few hours later at 1:30p.m. as exhibit 1 proves. However, Respondent’s attorney PAMELA SHAFFER, ESQ. never objected and never informed Respondent that her Constitutional Right to Due Process of Law had been maliciously violated and that her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO CUSTODY AND VISITATION had been pre-empted.
Third, to make matters more incriminating; SEASTROM & SEASTROM (Seastrom) never provided on June 5, 2009 (or at any other time) any proof of imminent danger of irreparable harm or any other proof reasonably and legally proving WHY Respondent, with her clean record from Department of Justice for her entire life of over 50 year at that time and in exhibit 2, needed to have said Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order requested and granted.
Why did PETITIONER pay his law firm SEASTROM to destroy the companionship between Respondent and their three Children and pay SEASTROM to deprive Respondent of her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to custody and visitation? Why did SEASTROM agree to carry out such criminal, malicious and immoral acts and why did COMMISSIONER/JUDGE LON HURWITZ agree to grant said criminal, malicious and immoral Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order?
Why didn’t PAMELA SHAFFER, ESQ; whom Respondent SARA HASSMAN hired to represent her, object and also use her very serious fiduciary duty she owes Respondent, to inform her of the deprivation of her Constitutional Rights and use reasonable due diligence to help her have said Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order rescinded, and struck from the record?
Fourth, to make matters even more incriminating; exhibit 3 is an email from SEASTROM’S client Petitioner MARK HASSMAN to Respondent SARA HASSMAN dated February 27, 2011 which states in pertinent:
“ I acknowledge that you were an integral part of the positive upbringing of our three children.”
Again, why then did Petitioner pay his law firm SEASTROM to request said Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order? Why did Petitioner want to deprive Respondent of Custody and Visitation and destroy the loving, and nurturing companionship she shared with their three children?
Fifth, still more incriminating, exhibit 4 is the personal declaration of SEASTROM’S founder and senior attorney PHILIP SEASTROM dated August 4, 2015. He swore that his family law firm had a “formulated litigation strategy” to request restraining orders against Respondent all of which were granted,” despite proving any validity or legal basis as public record prove including those in this Court.
Sixth, why did JUDGE CLAUDIA SILBAR make said Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order PERMANENT on June 26, 2009? Why didn’t PAMELA SHAFFER, ESQ.: 1) Inform her client Respondent of said hearing; 2) Object to said order being made permanent by JUDGE CLAUDIA SILBAR; 3) Explain to her client Respondent the legal consequences of said permanent restraining order and; 4) Uphold her fiduciary duty she owes Respondent by using reasonable due diligence to have said permanent restraining order rescinded, expunged and stricken from the record?
Seventh, why did COMMISSIONER/JUDGE LON HURWITZ, order on page 1 of said Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order that:
“This case is assigned for all purposes to JUDGE CLAUDIA SILBAR?”
Eighth, after JUDGE CLAUDIA SILBAR made said Ex Parte Restraining Order with an Attached Child Custody and Visitation Order PERMANENT on June 26, 2009 without any legal or rational basis; why didn’t PAMELA SHAFFER, ESQ. in the Interest of Justice request a peremptory challenge on behalf of her client Respondent?
- Referring in pertinent part to Tarkington’s article The Truth Be Damned: The First Amendment Attorney Speech and Judicial Reputation, cited in footnote 4: Said landmark Sullivan case sets the criminal, baseless and malicious Constitutional Standard which must be employed to punish attorneys for speech which impugns judicial integrity and authority. Such speech is core political speech entitled to the fullest constitutional protection. In addition to the First Amendment there are several reasons, vital to democracy, why the interest proffered by state and federal courts cannot justify suppression of attorney speech.
For example, by denying attorneys their right to speak and the public’s corresponding right to receive such speech, the central purposes of the Speech Clause are defeated, including self-governance, robust debate on public issues, the unique sovereignty of the American people over government, and the ability of the public to employ democratic correctives to check and define judicial power. This in turn clogs the wheels of political change, allowing for judicial self-entrenchment.
Remember, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceable assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. IN OTHER WORDS, a person or organization in the United States many not suffer consequences for STATING and DEFENDING THE TRUTH.
However, the First Amendment DOES NOT PROTECT speech which leads to illegal activity and/or imminent violence, defamation and liability for the foreseeable consequences of their speech. Parental Alienation is a foreseeable consequence of prohibiting freedom of speech which challenges the speech and actions of Government Officials/Entities. [End of part of document]
I am thrilled so much of the truth is being exposed which promotes OUR REVOLUTION to End this terror and restore Love, Family, Equal Rights and Justice to Humanity. Only an evil predator and crook would want to promote Parental Alienation as many experts have proven and reasonable people know.
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)
 Terri R. Day, Speak No Evil: Legal Ethics v. The First Amendment, 32 J. Legal Prof. 161, 187-90 (2008); Kathleen M. Sullivan, The Intersection of Free Speech and the Legal Profession: Constraints on Lawyers’ First Amendment Rights, 67 Fordham L. Rev. 569,580, 584-87 (1998)
 376 U.S. 254,279-80 (1964); W. Bradley Wendel, Free Speech for Lawyers, 28 Hastings Const. L.Q. 305, 372-73 (2001)
 Margaret Tarkington, The Truth Be Damned: The First Amendment, Attorney Speech can Judicial Reputation, 97 GEO. L.J. 1567-72 (2009).