Skip to content

Motion to Stay Order of Dismissal and Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, December 24, 2015

YoungvSanFrancisco14cv04778TEHMotiontoStayDec2015

Advertisements

Motion to Stay Order of Dismissal and Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, September 8, 2015

young.v.sanfrancisco.14.cv.4778.TEH.Motion.to.Stay

Writ of Habeas Corpus, US District Court, 10/24/14

“Dr. Young, what is the blueprint for sustained world peace?”

Answer:  Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 10/24/14

And that’s all I have to say about that…   🙂

Writ of Certiorari, US Supreme Court, 7/27/13

Had to give it a try since I had the right and the opportunity.  It was denied in late October, 2013.  Just getting around to posting it now.  We’ll get there…

Writ of Certiorari 7/27/13

Issues That Should Be Raised on Appeal, 1/23/12

Below are the issues I believe should be raised on appeal for my recent (and first ever) criminal conviction, as outlined in a form response sent to the First District Appellate Project on 1/23/12:

What issues do you think should be raised on your appeal?

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that parental rights deserve equal protections under the U.S. Constitution as the right to liberty [Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)]. The California Family Court is mandated, above all else, to make decisions that are in the best interest of children, yet it is not in the best interest of anybody, especially children, that the California Family Court has granted itself unlimited powers above a child’s own law abiding parent(s) to make these decisions. In fact, as the US Supreme Court has clearly stated, what is in the best interest of a child is that the rights of both his/her parents be protected under the law and that the powers of the government be held in check against the rights of a law-abiding parent.

There are two specific instances in which my rights as a parent have been violated in this case, and I would like both issues to be raised on appeal:

1) On 1/13/11, the State of California (i.e., the San Francisco Family Court) issued an order that violated my parental rights as a law-abiding parent by taking away my 50% physical custody rights of my children. If a parent has never been convicted (in criminal court with due process rights afforded him/her) of a child abuse related crime, that parent is considered a “law-abiding parent” and has a constitutionally protected right to at least 50% legal, 50% physical custody of his/her child. Any violation of this right by the State of California is emotionally abusive to the child. On 1/13/11, the San Francisco Family Court issued an order in which my 50% physical custody rights to my children had been taken away despite me being a law-abiding parent who had never been convicted in criminal court of a child-abuse related crime. That order was emotionally abusive to my children, and I had every right to invoke CPC 278.7, which leads to the second instance in which my rights as a parent were violated…

2) On 1/21/11, the State of California and the City and County of San Francisco (i.e., the San Francisco Family Court and its related professionals who work for the City and County of San Francisco) violated my parental rights for the second time in eight days by having me arrested for “failing to follow the court order of 1/13/11, in violation of CPC 278.5, child abduction.” CPC 278.7, which I successfully invoked in this case on 1/14/11, states that as a legal parent, I do not have to follow a family court order if following the order will be abusive to my children. The San Francisco Family Court order dated 1/13/11 was stamped (not signed) at an ex parte hearing which I was not able to attend and which never should have even been calendared in the first place since doing so violated my constitutional rights as a parent (given that removal of my parental rights was being requested, and I had never been convicted in criminal court of a child abuse related crime at that time). The court order of 1/13/11 was, not surprisingly — given the history of this case — based on false evidence presented by the children’s father and a court-mandated minor’s counsel and was highly abusive to our children because it took away my constitutionally protected 50% physical custody rights as a parent for arbitrary reasons without due process rights afforded to me. I subsequently followed CPC 278.7 to a tee. The State of California and the City and County of San Francisco did not follow the law at all, having me arrested on 1/21/11 for violating the abusive court order of 1/13/11 — well short of the 30 day grace period I was granted under CPC 278.7 to file a motion in family court concerning custody of the children. This was the second time in the history of this case that the State of California and the City and County of San Francisco completely ignored CPC 278.7 and had me arrested, the other instance being in September of 2006.

CPC 278.7 was therefore improperly interpreted by the trial court during jury instructions when the trial judge asked the jury to decide whether I had “malicious intent” when I violated CPC 278.5 and invoked CPC 278.7 in my defense. My “intent” should never have been an issue in this case. The only things the jury should have been asked to consider were:

1) Had Defendant ever been convicted in criminal court of a child abuse related crime on or before 1/13/11?
2) If the answer to 1 is no, did the State of California make an order on 1/13/11 that gave Defendant less than 50% physical custody of her two minor children?
3) If the answer to 2 is yes, the State of California made an erroneous order that violated Defendant’s constitutionally protected rights as a parent, and Defendant had valid reason to believe that following the order would be emotionally abusive to her children.

All other requirements of CPC 278.7 had been met.

Finally, regardless of the outcome of an appeal based on the above issues, I want to appeal the sentence [one year county jail followed by three years of probation, including a restraining order] on the grounds that, given the facts of this case, this is cruel punishment that does not fit the purported “crime” — especially for a first time offender of a non-violent offense – a sentence which is unnecessarily harsh, possibly for political purposes, and is far more abusive to this family and to our children than anything I purportedly did to them.

Fax Sent to All 120 Members of the California Legislature, 12/26/11 to 1/1/12

Below is a fax I sent to every member of the California State Legislature as follows:

Five members of the California Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary, 2/26/11

Ten members of California State Assembly Committee on Judiciary, 12/26/11

Forty members of the California State Senate, 12/29/11

Eighty members of the California State Assembly, 1/1/12

 
My name is H. Nicole Young, and I have been an outspoken advocate for family law reform since 2006, when I first posted a web site that pointed out specific problems with family court that I had observed in my experiences while going through a divorce with two young children. I proposed simple, cost-effective solutions to make family court a better place for California families as well as for California taxpayers, but especially for California children involved in divorce or separation cases.

Since that time I have lost custody of my children five separate times, been to family court over 60 times, went into bankruptcy after paying over $50,000 in family court related attorney’s fees, court ordered counseling fees, and other court-mandated costs associated with family court professionals. I have also had four family court-related arrest warrants issued against me and have spent over 11 months total (spread out over five years) in three separate county jails in two different states over family-court related issues since I put my web site up in 2006.

Enclosed is my story of (ongoing) struggles with the San Francisco Family Court in the form of a letter I sent to the First District Appellate Project on 8/10/11 (which was originally sent by me in handwritten form from San Francisco County Jail where I was an inmate at that time). I hope my experiences can be used by this committee to help reform California family law for the better.

Sincerely,

H. Nicole Young
1633 Newcomb Street
San Francisco, CA 94124
Phone: 415-947-9439
E-mail: hn_young@yahoo.com

Letter from Jail to FDAP, 8/10/11

First District Appellate Project (FDAP) 8/10/11
730 Harrison Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94107

RE: Case #A132461; Superior Court #11004251; SF Family Court #FDI-03-754139
The State of California v. Huguette Nicole Young

CC: Office of the Alameda County District Attorney
1225 Fallon Street, Room 900
Oakland, CA 94612

CC: Office of the Alameda County Family Law Facilitator
1225 Fallon Street, Room 240
Oakland, CA 94612

First District Appellate Project:

Since my last correspondence with you on 7/18/11 I was assigned an appellate attorney (David Annicchiarico, State Bar #247544) on 7/28/11, and I have also had a final sentencing hearing on 7/29/11. In this letter I want to address a possible conflict of interest with Mr. Annicchiarico and request a new attorney. I also want to update you on the results of the 7/29/11 hearing and suggest how I would like to appeal the latest version of the restraining order issued against me, this one signed on 7/29/11.

The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office and the Alameda County Family Law Facilitator are cc’d here and are being sent a handwritten copy of this letter because, upon my expected release from San Francisco County Jail on 9/20/11, I plan to continue with my original intent of “following CPC 278.7 to a tee” and file a motion in Alameda County Family Court for a return to the pre-1/13/11 arrangement of 50/50 joint legal, joint physical custody of my children with their father, and I would expect any decisions or rulings by the Alameda County Family Court, one way or another, to become a related part of the appeal for this case.

Before getting to the issue of Mr. Annicchiarico, it is probably worthy to note that I have been a highly visible, publicly outspoken advocate for family law reform in California since 2006, as is evidenced by my website, http://www.rights4families.org, and I have made no secret over the years in online public forums that should some of my proposals for family law reform be implemented by the legislature in Sacramento (especially my call for 50/50 joint legal, joint physical custody of children automatically being granted in separation or divorce cases that involve law-abiding parents who have never been convicted in criminal court of a child abuse related crime), there is a good chance that a vast majority of family court employees and family court related professionals would eventually be phased out of a job while, simultaneously, the occurrence of family court related physical and emotional abuse of children of separating or divorcing parents would decrease significantly. There is therefore little doubt that my proposals and attempts to reform California family law may pose a threat to a relatively large and powerful political entity in San Francisco – namely, the San Francisco Family Court and related professionals – an entity which currently still has control over my children (though, as mentioned above, I will continue to pursue the legal argument that San Francisco County lost jurisdiction of my family court case to Alameda County when I invoked CPC 278.7 with the Alameda County DA with valid grounds for specifically requesting protection for my children from the San Francisco Family Court). It is important that I mention all this because, as my experience has shown, there are certain legal professionals, possibly including Mr. Annicchiarico, as described below, who may be especially reluctant to challenge the San Francisco Family Court (or any California family court for that matter) in pursuit of justice on this case.

As mentioned in previous correspondence with you, on 8/16/10 I filed a civil lawsuit (Young v. Schwarzenegger, 2010) as a pro per litigant in Federal Court in San Francisco over repeated violations of my parental civil rights by the San Francisco Family Court. In my federal filing I argue that absent clear laws to protect parental and family rights (as is currently the case in California), it is far too easy for family courts to become unjustly biased against one parent over another parent in separation or divorce cases – to the detriment of the entire family, but especially to the children.

Using my San Francisco Family Court case (FDI-03-754139) as an example, the children’s father (petitioner Dykes Young) is a prominent gay man who lives and works in San Francisco and is a politically and socially active member of the “Castro Street” gay community. I, on the other hand, have lived and worked in Alameda County (that is, when I am not incarcerated in San Francisco) since July of 2004, and although I identify as a bisexual, I am not actively involved in the gay community in San Francisco nor anywhere else. There is ample evidence, including testimony given by Dykes Young during my recent criminal trial (and especially during the sentencing hearing on 6/22/11) that Dykes Young has openly accused me of not being a “real” gay person deserving of any legitimate standing in the gay community, and he has, in fact, gone as far as to accuse me of being a homophobe, despite me choosing to have children with, and choosing to try to coparent them with, an openly gay man.

As argued in my federal filing, I believe this animosity toward me as a bisexual and as a purported homophobe (regardless of the validity of, or the motives behind, the accusations), while certainly not grounds for violating the parental rights of either me or Dykes Young, has nevertheless caused highly damaging, unfounded bias against me in the San Francisco Family Court, where a majority of the court professionals in charge of deciding the fate of my family are “real” gay men and women who, like Dykes Young, appear to travel in the same political and social circles that have a base in the Castro Street gay community (see enclosed list below).

This bias, when coupled with virtually unlimited powers granted to family courts in California, seems to have resulted in Dykes Young (with help from empathetic gay friends in the San Francisco Family Court) effectively: 1) writing his own laws and decisions concerning child custody, visitation, and support; 2) having family court related arrest warrants issued against me (at a rate of one a year since 2006); 3) deciding who gets appointed to my family court (and now, apparently, my criminal court) cases; and 4) basically violating, at will, my constitutional right to coparent our children without constant threat of being arrested or constant threat of losing our children for arbitrary reasons.

Indeed, even at my sentencing hearing on 7/29/11 the record will show that Judge Carol Yaggy had very little knowledge of what she had signed at a previous sentencing hearing on 6/22/11 when she issued a restraining order that barred me from my children for three years. Although in my last letter to you dated 7/18/11 (in which you were cc’d on a letter I sent to Judge Yaggy addressing this issue), I suggested it may have been a simple oversight on her part (that is, for Judge Yaggy to order one thing verbally in open court, then proceed to sign an order stating the complete opposite), this was really a euphemism for the cold, hard truth of what probably actually happened and what I really wanted to say, which is, “Dear Honorable Carol Yaggy: Please join the long list of professional gay men and women in positions of authority in deciding the fate of my family who have signed whatever Dykes Young wanted them to sign, some of whom I suspect where not even aware of what they were signing nor of the emotional abuse they were ultimately inflicting upon our two young children – all perfectly legal according to California family law, yet all completely unconstitutional according to basic human rights – and all seemingly for the sake of easing some sort of deep seated, collective gay hurt , resentment or jealousy toward purported homophobes, bisexuals, and/or biological parents in general.”

There is some reason to believe that my newly appointed appellate attorney, Mr. Annicchiarico, with his law offices located in the heart of the San Francisco gay community on Castro Street, is either gay or is tightly associated with the Castro Street gay community. If so (and when the list below is taken into consideration – a list of 24 or so gay professionals making what have been unjust, unconstitutional, and unnecessarily costly and detrimental decisions toward my family over the past eight years), I believe I am not only justified in asking for another appellate attorney (i.e., a constitutional or civil rights appellate attorney from Alameda County might be nice), but I am also justified in requesting that an investigation be made into how Mr. Annicchiarico came to be appointed to this case.

Please understand that I always prefer to give everybody, including Mr. Annicchiarico, the benefit of the doubt. Who knows? A gay man who is fully aware of the darker side of the Castro Street gay community, yet who is also as passionate as I am about reforming family law to protect the rights of families (and yes, this most definitely includes protecting the rights of gay parents to marry and form a family) may be exactly what this case needs. However, the last time I said (in an e-mailed letter to the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office dated 1/17/11 in which I specifically requested protection for my children from the San Francisco Family Court) that I wanted to give a gay professional in a position of authority over my family “the benefit of the doubt,” she (Darci Mix of the Child Abduction Unit of the San Francisco Family Court) proceeded to have an arrest warrant issued against me (possibly illegally, considering nobody could tell me for over three weeks who had signed the arrest warrant, which had no printed name attached to it but only an illegible, horizontal squiggle line that was supposed to represent a signature), proceeded to withhold evidence during pretrial proceedings (possible in collaboration with the prosecuting attorney on this case – Michael Menesini, who is also gay), proceeded to falsify other evidence, and finally, proceeded to charge me for all her efforts as retribution (about 40 hours of work at about $50/hr. which, by the way, was granted to Darci Mix by Judge Carol Yaggy, who is also gay, on 7/29/11 – and which I hope will be included as part of the appeal for this case). How does the saying go? Fool me once, shame on you – fool me 25 times, shame on me?

My biggest concern, however, in giving Mr. Annicchiarico (and the FDAP attorney selection process?) the benefit of the doubt is that he will end up behaving the same way the last attorney appointed to my case – my defense attorney Jasper Monti – behaved. If my experience with Mr. Monti is any indication, I suspect that Mr. Annicchiarico’s primary purpose for being appointed to my case may very well be to try to delay the appeal process as much as possible, to try to convince me that I am mentally ill for thinking that this case be used to help reform family law for the better, to try to convince me that my decision to assert my innocence and to challenge California family law at the expense of my freedom is proof positive that I don’t really care about my children or consider them a priority, to file weak, misleading arguments that will undermine my appeal and that seem to be more the product of what the opposing party wants (or has actually written?) than anything that is in my best interest or in the best interest of family law reform (i.e., a filing that Mr. Monti submitted for my sentencing hearing in which he requested that my felony convictions be reduced to misdemeanors because “Mother/Defendant is obviously mentally ill”), and finally, to try to convince me that I am paranoid for being wary of the potential political influences of the (apparently) mostly gay-run San Francisco Family Court [i.e., Mr. Monti accusing me of being paranoid, even to this day, for questioning the wisdom of having a gay man who works as a clerk for a prominent San Francisco family law firm (which, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe is run by two lesbians – Nachalis and Finch (sp?)] become the fifth or sixth gay person to sit on the jury panel for my criminal trial; for the record, this questionable juror eventually asked to be dismissed the first day of trial when he admitted to knowing Dykes Young after all, on sight in the courtroom, from a year or two ago when, for a time, he and Dykes Young attended the same church which congregated in intimate living room settings in the Castro District, though it is unfortunate that this juror was dismissed without having to explain why he described Dykes Young as being “about 5’10” “ the day before when Dykes Young is actually 6’4”].

Anyway, if the FDAP, like Jasper Monti, is unable or unwilling to recognize the potential political threat I pose to the San Francisco Family Court and the vulnerable position this puts me in – or to recognize the significance this appeal may have in facilitating much needed family law reform – and appoint an appellate attorney who is of like mind with me on the direction this appeal needs to go, not only for the sake of my family, but for all California families, then the FDAP would seem to leave me little option but to focus most of my legal efforts in Federal Court on the (now much stronger) grounds that the State Courts, especially those based in San Francisco, may be far too biased against me and far too politically charged to provide any real justice on this case nor any real protection for my family from political retribution for my political views and legal actions.

Like family law reform, I have been an outspoken advocate for restoring legitimacy, constitutionality, and long-term cost effectiveness to the issuance of restraining orders. Based on my experience in having several restraining orders (unjustly) issued against me, as well as discussing this issue with several fellow inmates and jail deputies (from three different county jails in two different states), the general impression is that restraining orders are primarily tools used by manipulative people to criminalize anybody of their choosing without having to bother with anything as inconvenient as facts, the truth, due process, or real costs and damages to society as a whole or to true victims in particular. Most true victims, knowing how worthless restraining orders are at offering any real protection (at least under present conditions) avoid them like the plague and resort to other more effective (though still not as effective as they can and should be) methods for protection. Some suggestions for restraining order reform in general, and how I would like to appeal my most recent restraining order in particular, are therefore as follows:

1) Restrict the issuance of restraining orders to criminal courts only, and only when somebody has actually been charged with a crime. Any restraining order should automatically become void if a restrained defendant is found not guilty of the charges against him/her. For instance, while this suggestion seemed to work nicely when I was charged with threatening San Francisco Family Court commissioner Marjorie Slabach (i.e., a restraining order was issued against me when I was charged but then automatically became void when I was acquitted of all charges by jury trial), all justice was subsequently thrown out the window when Comm. Slabach then sought a restraining order on her own accord in the Alameda County Civil Court – after my acquittal. That “civil” restraining order was based on many falsehoods, did not guarantee me representation in court to defend against the accusations, unconstitutionally barred me from a public courthouse (the San Francisco Superior Courthouse on MacAllister Street, where Comm. Slabach works), made it virtually impossible for me to get any job requiring a background check and, it is worthy to note, given the subject of this letter, was promptly ordered and signed, against all these objections by me, by a lesbian judge. If I could have afforded a civil appeal, I certainly would have appealed this restraining order on the grounds that it represented “cruel and unusual punishment,” especially for somebody (me) who had never even committed a crime.

2) Distinguish between restraining orders issued as a result of violent versus non-violent crimes, with non-violent restraining orders being less restrictive. For instance, the restraining order issued against me on 7/29/11 is for a non-violent crime, yet it bans me from owning a gun. I want to appeal this restraining order on the grounds that, as a non-violent convicted criminal, this restraining order violates my Second Amendment right to own a gun.

3) Distinguish between restraining orders issued to non-related adults from those issued to family members, especially those living in the same household, or restraining orders issued between parents and their children. In the case of restraining orders barring a parent from his/her own child, special consideration has to be made for the fact that (as ruled by the US Supreme Court) parental rights are guaranteed the same protections under the US Constitution as the right to liberty. It is therefore a right that should not be taken away lightly (as in a restraining order issued willy nilly in a civil court with little due process and no guaranteed legal representation), a right that should be protected from cruel and unusual punishment [as in my current restraining order that bars a nonviolent criminal parent such as myself from sending her daughter a birthday card (she turns 10 today) for the next three years under threat of an automatic six year prison sentence for the probation violation], and finally, a right that, once taken away, should have (for all but the most heinous of violent crimes) a clear, guaranteed timeline and pathway for restoring the right in a way that fairly balances the rights of the victims with the rights of the criminals.

In my case I would like to appeal the restraining order issued against me by Judge Carol Yaggy on 7/29/11 on the grounds that, as a non-violent first time criminal offender, and given the nature and facts of this case, I should not have any of my parental civil rights of 50% joint legal, 50% joint physical custody of my children taken from me (cruel and unusual punishment, not just for me, but for the purported “victims”). Short of this reasonable goal in family law reform, I certainly should not have been barred from all physical contact (including supervised parent/child jail visits) and all non-physical contact (including letters, phone calls, and even third party contacts like “Stories for Moms,” a special jail program that allows incarcerated parents to read books to their children on tape and then sends the tape to the children for the parents), as I believe this was unnecessarily harsh and abusive to this family and to the parent-child bond in this case, much more so than anything I have purportedly done to our children.

The 7/29/11 restraining order is also unconstitutional in that it does not guarantee a future hearing date, a timeline, or any set conditions for restoring the lost rights, and arbitrarily leaving the decision up to “a family court”, which also offers no guaranteed hearing dates or timelines if set conditions are met, is not good enough protection for a right as important as a parental right.

Finally, the 7/29/11 order violates my parental civil rights by not allowing for any stipulated agreements with the children’s father, Dykes Young. As things stand now, even if Dykes Young and I were to agree that I could send our daughter a birthday card, this does not prevent an angry probation officer who, for instance, does not particularly like my political views, from disregarding this agreement and automatically (and perfectly legally) invoking a six year prison sentence for me. If the FDAP can not find an appellate attorney who can successfully argue the few dozen reasons this is so very wrong, then I’m not sure what else to say.

Sincerely,
H. Nicole Young

Below is a list of professionals involved in my San Francisco Family Court and/or Criminal Court cases who have publicly stated that they were gay or are commonly thought to be gay (in chronological order starting with attorney Nancy Lofdahl, who was retained by Dykes Young to represent him when he filed for divorce in San Francisco Family Court in July of 2003 and has represented him until a few months ago). While it is estimated that not more than 10% of the San Francisco population is gay, the list below represents well over 75% of all professionals involved in deciding the fate of my family in San Francisco courts over the last eight years.

1. Nancy Lofdahl, attorney for petitioner Dykes Young for SF Family Court case FDI-03-754139 from 2003 to 2011.
2. Marjorie Slabach, SF Family Court commissioner assigned to FDI-03-754139 from 2003-2007
3. Carol Cullum, certified family law attorney retained by me from May, 2004, to January, 2006.
4. Devora Depper, custody evaluator court ordered by Comm. Slabach
5. Mary Duryee, special master court ordered by Comm. Slabach
6. BJ Herran, parenting counselor court ordered by Comm. Slabach
7. David Duffy-Leon, director of Rally Family Visitation Services, which was court ordered by Comm. Slabach as the only place our children could be exchanged. Mr. Duffy-Leon was granted the power (by Comm. Slabach) to deny me visitation with my children whenever he saw fit.
8. Rebecca Wightman, SF Family Court commissioner in charge of finances
9. Roughly half of the professionals in the SF Family Law Facilitator’s Office who have tried to help me on my case.
10. Diane Kinney, investigator, SF Child Abduction Unit, had me arrested Sept., 2006
11. Donna Hitchens, head of the SF Family Court, 2003-2010? According to the California Commission on Judicial Performance, any complaints about commissioners, such as Slabach or Wightman, have to go through Hitchens first.
12. Gregg Bryon, minor’s counsel court ordered to represent our children from 2/10 to 6/11, against my strong objections
13. Ken ?, court clerk for Judge Patrick Mahoney of the SF Family Court. Based on phone conversations, Ken may be responsible for “misplacing” critical faxes I sent to the SF Family Court in Jan, 2011. He also possibly signed off on various court orders issued against me, including restraining orders, w/o prior judge permission
14. Darci Mix, investigator, SF Child Abduction Unit, had me arrested January, 2011
15. Mary Morgan, first judge I came before on this criminal case
16. Michael Menesini, lead prosecutor on this criminal case
17. Carol Yaggy, trial judge on this criminal case
18. Male juror who works as a clerk for prominent SF family law firm, Nachalis and Finch – dismissed the first day of trial.
19-22. Three (possible four) men and one (possibly two) women on my final jury panel
23. Chris Cordero, probation officer in charge of writing the sentencing report for this criminal case
24. Leslie Cogan, DA in charge of my sentencing – she possibly presented misleading information to Judge Yaggy concerning the original restraining order Judge Yaggy signed against me on 6/22/11
25. ? David Annicchiarico?, appellate attorney appointed by the FDAP