Saving Damon in Family Court

To Judge Michael Smyth:

Cc: D.A. Bonnie Demanes, Gov. Schwarznegger, First Lady Maria Schreiber, Victoria Henley-Commission on Judicial Performance,
Scott Drexel-CA Bar Association, Attorney General Bill Lockyer,
US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, FBI Special Agent Daniel Dzwilewski, US Marshall Edward Schwartz, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Diane Feinstein, Representative Susan Davis, CA Senator Jim Batten

We the undersigned hereby request that you belatedly give Damon a fair chance at protection from sexual abuse by his father (if they get caught or come out of hiding) by:


l. Complying with Family Code 3118, thereby staying within your jurisdiction: The law clearly states that a sexual abuse evaluation shall be done that meets certain minimum standards. There was no sexual evaluation done of Damon for the nearly two years his case was in your court, despite continuing disclosures by Damon and requests by his mother, which also defies common sense. The psychologist appointed by the court refused to do one, and Damons mother was threatened with loss of custody if she brought Damon back to Childrens Hospital, where he had disclosed to a doctor, and where they could have done a proper evaluation according to the law. (See The Motion
at Saving Damon.com)

2. Conceding Damon and his mother their right to equal protection under the law: Damon made many disclosures saying that the abuse happened in many places and had been going on for years, which added up to countless incidents. Disclosures by the child constitute the main form of evidence in sexual abuse cases, yet you suppressed all of these instead of conducting the fact finding with
which you are charged. Acknowledging only the first disclosure at the hearing,, you gave your opinion that Damon had imagined it; however, only a licensed psychologist is legally qualified to make that determination after an evaluation meeting the minimum legal standards. Damons brothers, who witnessed the abuse and reported it to the therapist, were also disregarded. The obstruction of Damons, his brothers and mothers voices and the unequal administration of law in your court discriminated against them.

3. Conceding Damon and his mother their right to due process.
Due process rights were violated when Damons mother was threatened by the childrens guardian ad litem (GAL) to back off and accept the abuse did not happen or she would lose custody and be given supervised visits. This was an illegal form of coercion and duress which resulted in there being no trial, no testimony given by experts, and no cross-examining of the court-appointed professionals and therefore not being adequately heard.
Damon was thereby deprived of his constitutional right to liberty and safety by being forced into sexual slavery, without due process of law. Damon and his mother were facing imminent deprivation of the right to be together as parent and child, also without due process of law.

4. Complying with Family Code 3027.5: This law states a protective parent shall not
lose custody due to good faith allegations of sexual abuse or for bringing a child to a licensed mental health facility when concerned about sexual abuse. The mother was threatened that she would lose custody and get supervised visits if she continued trying
to protect Damon even if he continued to disclose abuse. She was also threatened that she would lose custody if she brought Damon back to Childrens Hospital, both of which violated this law. The GAL eventually followed through on these threats.

5. Conceding Damon his right to an attorney who will represent his position:

ABA Standards for Attorneys Representing Children in Custody, Abuse and Neglect cases clearly states that if the position of a GAL differs from that of the child, the child should also have an attorney who will zealously represent his position. Damons GAL disregarded Damons disclosures of abuse and his desire for supervised visits with his
Father and to live with his mother. He recommended the exact opposite, without any proven basis for that decision or any opportunity to question it. It appeared to be retaliatory behavior against the mother for not minding his threats to back off.


Therefore, because there was no way to legally or ethically determine whether there
was preponderance of evidence of abuse due to the aforementioned laws and rights
(and other transgressions too numerous for this petition), the finding that there was that there was not a preponderance of evidence that Damon had been abused was not legal, just or valid. (See The Motion at Saving Damon.com)

Whereby, we all agree that Damon must finally be given a chance at a fair trial where his voice will be directly heard and acknowledged and where he has a competent, unbiased attorney who will represent his position.

Whereby, we all agree that because of the aforementioned violations, Damon
was not given a fair chance at protection and Damons mother was justified in fleeing in order to stop the abuse. Therefore she should not be punished with contempt of court, loss of custody or any other legal action arising from her flight.

Whereby, we will hold you accountable for your actions in any future elections for judgeships or bids for public office.