Baker: Put me in jail...
... if publishing evidence on court corruption is domestic violence.
Link to Exxon Mobil Credit Card phone calls and transcripts, showing Clair Marlo committed perjury to falsely convict Alex Baker of Domestic Violence.
Info for the corrupt DVRO hearing to jail Alex Baker
Case No. LD068701
Case Name: Baker v Baker
Courthouse: Stanley Mosk
Hearing Date: February 16, 2021
Hearing Time: 1:30 PM
Judge: Michael Powell
Dept. 22
* * *
Has postmodernism taken the concept of protection under the law, and stood it on its head?
Can a family law domestic violence restraining order be used to shield a woman, not from domestic violence, but from justice?
California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act, D V P A, was enacted to keep people safe from their ex partners.
The D V P A allows a family law judge to impose a restraining order after a finding of at least one act of abuse. Abuse is defined to include all of the things you would expect. To cause bodily injury. Sexual assault. To
place a person in fear of bodily injury to themselves or others. Et cetera.
But the D V P A also defines as abuse "disturbing the peace." Caselaw has interpreted that to include disturbing the peace of mind, meaning "any conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other person."
Right away, we can see that this is extremely vague, because the law refers only to the emotional state of the accuser, while saying nothing about the conduct of the accused.
On February 16, 2021, at 1:30 P M, in Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge Michael Powell presiding, I will stand trial in my ex-wife's attempt to make her 2017 restraining order permanent. And just what was my abuse that provoked this restraining order in the first place?
Well, in 2016 I won a copyright infringement lawsuit against my ex-wife, Clair Marlo. I was found to be the sole author of 11 particular songs, and awarded twenty three thousand, one hundred and five dollars in damages.
While that case was pending, I obtained in discovery from the record company a large stack of documents, including many Music contracts, involving many hundreds of songs.
I learned that these Music contracts contained terms regarding the royalty money that I never agreed to, and had forgeries of my signature.
So, I filed a new federal lawsuit
against not only Marlo, but also the record company and others. The emails produced in discovery showed me that the record company people knew that I was being ripped off, and aided and abetted Marlo in her efforts to divert my share of the money to her Secret Bank accounts,
to conceal it from me, for years, all while I continued to write and produce music
used on dozens of tv shows.
I made an Internet blog where I discussed, in the public interest, corruption in the music business. I posted a copy of the judgment of copyright infringement in my favor, a copy of the complaint in the second Federal case, which included as exhibits the forged music contracts. I had retained handwriting expert Beth Chrisman, and this is really where, if you'll pardon the expression, the shit hit the fan.
On October 26, 2016, Marlo brought her ex parte D V P A restraining order hearing, conveniently to avoid a deposition I had set for the same day.
Marlo complained about the blog, and alleged that I was ruining her career, by contacting her business associates and disparaging her, calling her a fraud, a forger, and a copyright infringer, and so on.
Marlo neglected to point out that all this disparagement, that was disturbing her peace of mind, were the allegations in a civil lawsuit, and all the people I contacted were either defendants or witnesses in a lawfully filed civil lawsuit in federal court.
Up until now, the actions involved in prosecuting a meritorious lawsuit were protected under the First Amendment, and held to be absolutely privileged. There are statutes in every state that say this, and there is a tremendous body of United States Supreme Court case law that said that you have a right to file and prosecute a lawsuit.
But not anymore. At least, not in my case. Listen to this exchange that took place on the record, Honorable Alicia Blanco presiding, during what would end up being an eleven month long restraining order trial:
ALEX: I believe that what I need to do to defend myself in this action is to demonstrate that my lawsuits are meritorious. I think that is what is at issue here.
THE COURT: I am not going to be the arbiter of whether they are meritorious or not. You might believe that they are. They might in fact be. Marlo does not believe that they are, and that they have been used as a method to harass her.
ALEX: Right, but so isn’t...
THE COURT: It doesn’t matter whether they are meritorious. I’m not going to decide that. Some of them have already been decided in your favor, some of them not. I’m not going to decide. Nor do I need to.
ALEX: I believe that’s the issue before this court in some part.
THE COURT: I do not. I do not.
ALEX: So it makes no difference whether my cases are meritorious or whether they’re brought simply to harass, it makes no difference to this court?
THE COURT: I think what is at issue, your belief that they are meritorious, Marlo's belief that they are not. Whether in fact they are meritorious or not, it really doesn’t matter.
ALEX: Why not?
THE COURT: Because it’s the effect that the litigation has had on her irrespective of whether the cases have any merit.
In a ruling which has now been upheld by the Court of Appeal, the Family Court even went so far as to find that my filing defense papers in the D V P A case itself were found to control my ex wife, and thus constitute domestic violence. Did you catch that? Trying to mount a legal defense in a D V P A case is now domestic violence.
Now consider this part of the official record, in which I asked about the good cause for a restraining order preventing me from seeing my daughter.
ALEX: For the record, could you please state what the good cause is for this restraining order?
THE COURT: The good cause, sir, is that you have put into question whether or not this court has jurisdiction to hear any matters in your case.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Commissioner Blanco said that, because I brought a motion challenging the Court’s proper jurisdiction, that this constituted domestic violence such that a little girl was denied all contact with her kind and loving father.
I will stipulate that litigation can disturb your peace of mind. The D V hearing brought against me certainly disturbed my peace of mind. No question about it. But do I now have the right to get a restraining order against my ex wife? And if I brought that restraining order, would she then have the right to get another one against me?
As the D V P A trial wore on, Marlo and her lawyer tried to fling more poo against the wall, to see what would stick. She brought up what we call the Exxon Mobil Credit Card incident. What happened was, in January 2016, my girlfriend, who is a financial advisor, and I called up the credit card company to get my name removed as an authorized user on Marlo's card. Standard stuff in a divorce, right?
Marlo received an automated email from Exxon Mobil Credit Card, asking her to rate their service. Marlo fired off a text accusing my girlfriend of impersonating her. Marlo then called up Exxon Mobil to inquire, and was told in no uncertain terms that an authorized user is allowed to remove themselves, and that nobody impersonated her. Marlo then texted us back and said, So I talked to Exxon Mobil and you are cleared.
Fast forward to the restraining order, Marlo lies to the court and says that I used a third person to impersonate her to obtain her personal information. I brought into evidence the text message where Marlo says she called Exxon Mobil and you are cleared. So get this. Marlo testifies that the only reason she said that we were cleared, is to placate me, because she was so afraid of what I might do to her. Unfortunately, this was before I was finally able to obtain the recordings of the actual Exxon Mobil phone calls on subpoena.
Does this DVRO make any sense?
There were at least thirty times after that Exxon Mobil Credit Card incident where Marlo and I were in close contact with one another as I picked up and dropped off our kid for my visitation. She never said anything about being afraid until I got the contracts, won a lawsuit and starting blogging about her fraud and forgery.
Legally speaking, the whole thing is absurd as far as I'm concerned. But my arguments fell on deaf ears. In September 2017, the restraining order was granted.
Commissioner Blanco gave a long talk in her ruling statement, but the only specific act of mine that is identified as abuse, as far as I can tell, is the finding that I used a third person to impersonate Marlo to the credit card company. Which is nonsense, as the recordings prove, link below. The Family Court imposed a three year, no contact and stay away, restraining order. Besides those standard checkbox orders, the two specific, prior restraints are.
That I shall not videotape Marlo, and
That Any discovery documents received by me shall not be publicized.
Unless and until the DVRO is clarified, and as far as I can tell, the DVRO was put in place to shield my ex wife from justice, because the admissible evidence conclusively proves that Clara Veseliza Baker, also known as Clair Marlo, forged my signatures on numerous music contracts and other documents, committed copyright infringement, put everything in her name, opened secret bank accounts, thereby stealing untold hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I believe the no videotaping order is overly broad and unconstitutional, but I have never violated it. A proper order would prohibit videotaping where Marlo has a reasonable expectation of privacy, but would certainly allow videotaping a deposition, because the California Code of Civil Procedure says you have the right to do so.
In light of my ex-wife's forgery, copyright infringement, perjury and other wrongdoings, such a videotaped deposition would, if publicized, doubtless be very embarrassing to Clara. Oh wait. That's disturbing the peace of mind.
The DVRO states that any discovery documents received by me shall not be publicized.
I have never violated the “Discovery Gag Order”, or else I have violated it many times, depending on what it means.
My belief is that the “Discovery Gag Order” refers only to documents received from Marlo. I have never publicized documents received from Marlo in discovery. The forged contracts and secret bank records, which I have published, were obtained from the record company and the bank, respectively.
It is important to point out that I have always redacted Marlo’s personal identifiers, for example, social security number and bank account numbers, from documents published. It is not and never has been my purpose to DOX Clara, or to expose her to identify theft, or anything like that. My purpose, and the purpose of P M J M P, is to publicize corruption in the public interest.
Publishing the forged music contracts is important in publicizing court corruption. To convincingly document corruption, I publish the forged contracts, and the handwriting expert reports opining on forgeries, in the context of the court records showing that Family Court Judge Emily T. Spear and Federal Judge Virginia A. Phillips each excluded the handwriting experts from testifying, improperly so in my expert opinion. Other than shielding Marlo from justice, what else explains it?
The Discovery Gag Order is ambiguous as to what Discovery Documents I am prohibited from publicizing. In my opinion, the Discovery Gag Order cannot possibly refer to a complete ban on all publication of all discovery documents received by me in any case involving any parties from now until the end of time. Or, can it?
The Discovery Gag Order is also ambiguous as to what it means to publicize. The purpose of obtaining documents in discovery is to then attach those documents as exhibits to a complaint or declaration, and to introduce them into evidence. Filing exhibits constitutes a publication, by definition, and I have done so many times with documents obtained in discovery. Does this constitute publicizing them under the meaning of the D V R O? I don't know.
The D V R O was set to expire in September 2020, so Clara and her attorneys Joe Yanny and Mike DiNardo brought their Request to Renew it and make it permanent.
Marlo states that I have violated the restraining order numerous times, and all of her complaints relate to litigating, and publishing news articles about court corruption. In particular, Marlo states that Since the issuance of the DVRO, Mr. Baker has violated the same by searching for, obtaining, and, either directly or through counsel, causing people to appear at the Protected Person’s residence, despite being specifically ordered not to do so. She is explicitly seeking jail time. Yes, they are asking the judge to put me in jail.
Here's what happened. I discovered in bank records, obtained on subpoena, that Marlo and attorney Joe Yanny took $85,722 from the real estate trust account, in direct violation of a court order. That is Contempt of Court, and it is a crime.
I retained attorney Marc Angelucci to prosecute both Marlo and Yanny. Angelucci looked at the evidence, and told me that winning the Contempt should be a slam dunk. Contempt papers must be personally served. That is the law. It is true that I was under orders not to attempt to discover the address of Marlo's new house in Kansas, the house she bought with the $225,000 cash she illegally took from the equity of a disputed property. So that order is suspect on its face, and clearly meant to allow Marlo to evade justice, but no matter. I did not ever try to discover her address.
But in November of 2019, Marlo's attorneys served on me her Final Declaration of Disclosure, which the Court ordered her to do. It included her recent tax return, on which was her home address, not redacted. So my attorney, Marc Angelucci, knew where to look when informing process servers where to find Marlo.
Mr. Angelucci sent a registered process server to Marlo's house and attempted to have her served with papers for Contempt of Court.
Marlo then called the police in Kansas. Police detective Mike Gibson investigated, and then sent an email to Marc Angelucci, asking for his opinion on whether serving Marlo with Contempt papers violated the D V R O. Marc sent a detailed response, explaining that it did not.
Since we had the bank records showing conclusively that Marlo and Joe Yanny stole $85,722 from the trust account, I believe that the Contempt proceeding would absolutely have been a slam dunk, if only Marc Angelucci had lived long enough to prosecute it.
Unfortunately, Marc Angelucci was murdered nine days before the hearing. Judge Michael Powell ruled that the Court order stating that the trust fund money will not be touched was too vague to enforce. Judge Powell went off the record when I attempted to introduce the bank records into evidence.
In my opinion, that is court corruption, and I don't believe it would have happened if Marc Angelucci had been there. There are a whole lot of things that would have gone differently had Marc not been murdered, and we will gradually get to all of those in future reports.
For now, let me say this to Marlo's attorneys Joe Yanny and Mike DiNardo. Gentlemen, here is your evidence. There are links below to the documents I have discussed, which absolutely include documents I received in discovery. If publishing these music contracts and the handwriting experts, and calling Clair Marlo a forger and a fraud violates the D V R O, then put me in jail. If publishing the Exxon Mobil credit card recordings and calling Clair Marlo a perjurer violates the D V R O, then put me in jail. If publishing the bank statements showing Joe Yanny stole $85,722 from the trust account and gave it to Marlo, and saying that the only reason you all weren't found guilty of Contempt is that Judge Powell corruptly kept the evidence out, and that wouldn't have happened if Angelucci was on the job, if all that means I violated the D V R O, then put me in jail.
I am making it very easy for you. I'm making a declaration based on what I just said in this Special Report. I will attach exhibits, include a link to this video, and that will be my opposition to your D V seven hundred Request to Renew on February 16, 2021.
I thought the First Amendment said I have the right to petition, and the right to publish material in the public interest. If the law really says that publicizing court corruption is domestic violence, then guess what? Its a bullshit law.
In grateful remembrance of Marc Angelucci, one of the finest lawyers and finest human beings I ever had the pleasure of knowing, and working with professionally. I do declare that I did nothing wrong and I am going to continue the good work, fighting court corruption, that he and I were doing, together.
I am willing to go to jail, if that's what it takes to raise awareness. In the spirit of Rosa Parks, you could say, I ain't giving up my seat on the bus.
Alexander Baker, for Post Modern Justice Media Project.
2-2-2021