Baker v California - Federal Constitutional Challenge - Appellant's Excerpts of Record Vol. II

-

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

Seeking Amicus Support for Important U.S. Supreme Court Case

-
California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act ("DVPA") has a residual clause definition of "abuse" that is unconstitutionally vague, and impermissibly grants unbridled discretion to issue a prior restraint. DV "abuse" can be found in any conduct that "destroys the mental or emotional calm" of the other person. In Alex Baker's case, domestic violence was found in his pending litigation against his ex-wife (and ex-business partner), "irrespective of whether the cases have any merit". Moreover, the DV restraining order has gagged Alex, disallowing him from publishing court documents, and from contacting necessary trial witnesses, on the basis that doing so would emotionally upset his legal adversary. The California Court of Appeal found that these prior restraints of free speech and of the right to petition did not need to be narrowly tailored, and were not subject to a strict scrutiny analysis, simply because they were issue...
Read more