This is what a family law vexatious litigant in the State of California looks like.

We have addressed at length the issue that the vexatious litigant statute cannot be used in family law proceedings in the State of California despite the attempts by the judiciary to muzzle parents.

These are examples of what vexatious litigant parents looks like.

On August 26, 2012, xxxxxxx was slapped with a 50 year restraining order in which Judge L. Michael Clark of the Santa Clara Superior Court forbid him from seeing his three children until “midnight on August 24, 2062.” . On February 1, 2013, xxxxx was denied permission by the California Court of Appeals for Sixth District in a one-sentence order to proceed with an appeal.

Archibald Cunningham had all his visitation rights terminated after a hearing on February 26, 2010. He’d filed an “Order to Show Cause” for the purposes of restoring a 50/50 share custody agreement he lost in a “trial by declaration.”  After the hearing, Maria Schopp, counsel for Archibald’s ex-spouse, submitted a “proposed order” purporting to strip him of all of his remaining parental visitation rights. She did not comply with local rules regarding “proposed rules” and did not allow Archibald to “object” or to submit his own proposed order. Neither did she “meet and confer” as mandated by the local rule. Instead, she “typed” his name on the signature line because she knew he would never have agreed to the termination of his rights. Then, family law Judge Patrick Mahoney colluded in the fraud and signed the order.

When the self-represented Archibald attempted to “appeal” the February 26, 2010 order, he was denied “permission” under the VLS. The presiding judge spit back the boiler plate language that the appeal (of the termination of all parental rights without notice or an opportunity to be heard) lacked “merit.” The fact is that Judge Mahoney had declared Archibald “vexatious” not once, but twice. Judge Mahoney declared Archibald “vexatious” for the first time on February 23, 2009. While Archibald appealed the first vexatious litigant order (A124717), Judge Mahoney subjected him to a second “vexatious litigant motion” by the same party, on the same grounds, and conducted once again by him.

Besides imposing multiple fee sanctions of $23,000 and $33,000 on Archibald, Judge Mahoney’s first vexatious litigant order (and prefiling order) was used to deny him “permission” to appeal the February 26, 2010 order terminating his visitation rights (as well as the second vexatious litigant order of February 26, 2010 and a permanent TRO that the previous judge, Judge Donald Sullivan, had declared null and void). Like Adil, the order terminating his visitation rights is treated as a “final judgment,” demanding a showing of “changed circumstances” in order to modify.

Presiding Judge Beth Labsom Freeman of the San Mateo Superior Court has issued a prefiling order in which she named both Michele Fotinos’ attorney, Patricia Barry, as well as Michele as “vexatious. Ms Barry is well known for representing protective parents. She now appears on the Judicial Council’s List of Vexatious Litigants as an attorney.

These cases all appear in Arch Cunningham’s federal appeal which attempts to declare the VLS unconstitutional in its application in family law.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s