Baker v California - Federal Constitutional Challenge - Compaint

-

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Response to Clair Marlo's False and Misleading GoFundMe Comments

-
As I try to raise funds for the constitutional challenge to the DVPA, Clara Veseliza Baker, aka Clair Marlo, aka my ex wife, has commented on my GoFundMe. Below is her post quoted in full, with my notes in between statements. The reason I have a Domestic Violence Restraining Order against you is because you posted my signature, my personal and private information, my private emails, my co-workers names, address, phone number, signature and private contracts on the internet. I posted court documents, including evidentiary exhibits attached to a complaint against Clair Marlo for fraud and other causes of action. Court documents are, by definition, public. All confidential information - such as social security number -  was properly redacted from the court documents prior to filing, and prior to publishing. Prior to this restraining order, none of the things that Ms. Marlo mentions were ever considered confidential by any court. It is true that the Court found that I had posted ...
Read more

The Litigation Privilege, aka the Perjury Privilege

-
Reserved for future post. (d) [1:458] No expert liability to opposing party for perjured testimony/falsified evidence: CC § 47(b) fully protects adverse expert witnesses from civil liability for giving false testimony or predicating their testimony on knowingly false assumptions or facts. As against the opposing party , the witness’ testimony and evidence on which it is based are privileged “publications.” [ Carden v. Getzoff (1987) 190 CA3d 907, 235 CR 698 —no abuse of process cause of action against expert accountant hired by W to value H’s medical practice in dissolution action despite falsehoods in accountant’s report and knowingly false valuation testimony] Rationale: Otherwise, adverse witnesses, fearing subsequent civil suits, would be extremely hesitant or unwilling to testify. [ Carden v. Getzoff , supra, 190 CA3d at 915, 235 CR at 703 ]
Read more