Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Donald Clinton Crabtree, Petitioner v. Christine Crabtree
Supreme Court briefDec 2, 2021
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
n
n
3? 7-
No. 21In The
Supreme Court of the United States
FILED
DEC 0 2 2021
SUPRSJEFcnno9f3f<J
Donald Clinton Crabtree
Petitioner,
v.
Christine Renee Crabtree,
Respondent.
On Petition For A Writ of Certiorari To
The South Carolina Supreme Court
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Donald “Clint” Crabtree
8804 Berthusen Rd.
Lynden, WA 98264
360-471-1904
clint.crabtree@hotmail.com
Petitioner
RECEIVED
DEC ~ 6 W\
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT, U.S.
n
n
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. Did Judge Monet Pincus violate the 1st
Amendment protection of freedom of expression and
generally condemn religious expression of men?
II. Did the South Carolina Trial Court err in
facilitating divorce of Washington State residents?
III. Did the Judge George McFadden ignore
substantial exonerating evidence in support of
Husband at the beginning of litigation and fail to
render him due process?
IV. Did the Court ignore its own psychological
reports and expert testimony and wrongly assign
credibility to the Wife?
V. Did the Court convert issues, conflate
mischaracterizations, minimize salient facts and
construct findings in order to inappropriately assign
credibility to the Wife?
VI. Do the findings of Judge Monet Pincus
demonstrate mischaracterization, religious
persecution, abuse of power in order to exercise
prejudice and ignore torts against partnership
obligations?
VII. Does Judge Monet Pincus bring discredit to the
judiciary by manifest gender prejudice and
malfeasance?
1. Does Judge Monet Pincus substitute hearsay
regarding Husband’s childhood in order to
mischaracterize findings regarding pornography?
n
i
11
2. Does Judge Monet Pincus substitute hearsay
regarding Husband’s childhood in order to
mischaracterize findings regarding objectification
of women?
3. Does Judge Monet Pincus mischaracterize
findings regarding Husband’s use of religion?
VIII.
Did the Court Facilitate the Wife’s
Construction of Desertion of the Husband?
IX. Did Judge Monet Pincus violate 14th
Amendment equal application of the law?
X. Did the Guardian Ad Litem, James Stoddard,
manifest bias, and do his actions and assignment by
Judge George McFaddin indicate collusion?
XI. Did the Court err in awarding custody of the
children to the Mother?
n
'
• !
Ill
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
Donald Crabtree as defendants-appellants below
Christine Crabtree as plaintiff-appellee below
Janies Stoddard as Guardian-ad-Litem for:
[NAME REDACTED] (14)
[NAME REDACTED] (12)
[NAME REDACTED] (10)
[NAME REDACTED] (8)
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Not Applicable
RELATED PROCEEDINGS
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Christine Crabtree v. Donald Crabtree, No. 2021000088 (SC. Jul 06, 2021)
Supreme Court of Washington
Christine Crabtree u. Donald Crabtree, No. 98576-6
(WA. Oct 07, 2020)
Appellate Court of South Carolina
Christine Crabtree v. Donald Crabtree, No. 20180000269 (SC. Dec 21, 2020)
n
IV
Christine Crabtree v. Donald Crabtree, No. 20180001571 (SC. 29 Apr, 2021)
Crabtree v. Crabtree, Op. No. 2017-UP-461 (SC 13
Dec, 2017).
Appellate Court of Washington
Christine Crabtree v. Donald Crabtree, No. 80165-1-1
(WA. Apr 20, 2020)
Christine Crabtree v. Donald Crabtree, No. 81164-9-1
(WA. Aug 02, 2021)
Superior Court of Whatcom County, Washington
Christine Crabtree v. Donald Crabtree, No. 19-300167-37 (WA. ongoing)
Family Court of Sumter County, South Carolina
Christine Crabtree v. Donald Crabtree, No. 2015DR-43-1428 (SC. Jan 26, 2018)
n
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED...........................
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS............
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
RELATED PROCEEDINGS...........................
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................
INTRODUCTION ..........................................
OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW..............
JURISDICTION....... .......................................
1
111
m
111
v
1
2
2
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED.............................
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE........................
3
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.....
7
I. Did Judge Monet Pincus violate the 1st
Amendment protection of freedom of expression and
generally condemn religious expression of men?...... 7
II. Did the South Carolina Trial Court err in
facilitating divorce of Washington State residents?.. 8
III. Did the Judge George McFadden ignore
substantial exonerating evidence in support of
Husband at the beginning of litigation and fail to
render him due process?......................................... 10
IV. Did the Court ignore its own psychological
reports and expert testimony and wrongly assign
credibility to the Wife?........... ................................ 13
V. Did the Court convert issues, conflate
mischaracterizations, minimize salient facts and
n
n
VI
construct findings in order to inappropriately assign
credibility to the Wife?............................................
17
VI. Do the findings of Judge Monet Pincus
demonstrate mischaracterization, religious
persecution, abuse of power in order to exercise
prejudice and ignore torts against partnership
obligations?................................................................
24
VII. Does Judge Monet Pincus bring discredit to the
judiciary by manifest gender prejudice and
malfeasance?
30
1. Does Judge Monet Pincus substitute hearsay
regarding Husband’s childhood in order to
mischaracterize findings regarding
pornography?
30
2. Does Judge Monet Pincus substitute hearsay
regarding Husband’s childhood in order to
mischaracterize findings regarding objectification
of women?......................................... ........................ 32
3. Does Judge Monet Pincus mischaracterize
findings regarding Husband’s use of religion?.... 33
VIII.
Did the Court Facilitate the Wife’s
Construction of Desertion of the Husband?............. 36
IX. Did Judge Monet Pincus violate 14th
Amendment equal application of the law?............... 39
X. Did the Guardian Ad Litem, James Stoddard,
manifest bias, and do his actions and assignment by
Judge George McFaddin indicate collusion?......... 40
XI. Did the Court err in awarding custody of the
children to the Mother?..............................................
40
CONCLUSION
44
n
n
Vll
APPENDIX A, Order of the South Carolina Supreme
Court, July 6, 2021..............................................
la
APPENDIX B, Order of the South Carolina
Appellate Court, December 21, 2020.................
3a
APPENDIX C, Order of Sumter County, South
Carolina Family Court, January 26, 2018......... 17a
n
Vlll
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Barstow v. Barstow, 74 SE 2d 541 (SC 1953)
12
Emery v. Smith, 603 SE 2d 598 (SC 2004)....
29
LD Oswald, Jr. v. Oswald, 95 SE 2d 493 (SC 1956)29
Lindsey v. Lindsey, 143 SE 2d 524 (SC 1965)
12
Precision Co. v. Automotive Co., 324 US 806 (1945)29
Vickers v. Vickers, 176 SE 2d 561 (SC 1970).....
12
Wilson v. Landstrom, 315 SE 2d 130 (SC 1984)
29
29
Wolfe v. Wolfe, 68 SE 2d 348 (SC 1951)..............
Constitutional Provisions
S.C. Const, art. I, § 2.............
U.S. Const, art. I, § 10, cl. 1..
U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2........
U.S. Const., amend. I............
U.S. Const., amend. XIV § 1.
Other Authorities
S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-10
S.C. Const., Art 1 § 4.......
8
2,3
3, 28
3, 8
3
29
28
n
n
1
INTRODUCTION 1
This is a custody case for a Washington State
family formerly in military service divorced by the
Courts of South Carolina. The lower courts are
unjustly adjudicating divorce and custody cases.
This case exemplifies the how family law attorneys,
including family law judges, are able to practice
malfeasance brazenly. In this case, the court
targeted “biblical roles” as a straw-man for ignoring
statute torts and faults committed by the Wife. This
case ignores facts and evidence in order to achieve a
predetermined outcome. This case reflects a proxy
war of feminism v. coverture and a preferential
treatment for influential attorneys.
The lower Court ignores the U.S. Constitution
to facilitate a favorable outcome to the mother.
Additionally, the court ignores substantial
psychological evidence and testimony favorable to
the father. The lower court violated the U.S.
Constitution’s 1st Amendment when it ruled that the
husband caused the demise of the marriage due to
his religious expression. The Court mischaracterizes
the husband as using his faith offensively, when the
evidence shows his religious dialogue was defensive
in nature. The lower Court also improperly
establishes causation by citing evidence
anachronistically.
1 View online for activated footnotes to record on appeal:
http://digitalcourt.us/us/scotus/crabtree/?code=20211203
n
r
2
The lower court ignores U.S. Const, art. I, §
10, cl. 1: “No...law impairing the obligation of
contracts...shall be passed.” The lower court renders
partnership commitments irrelevant by equating
commitment obligations to “biblical roles.” And by
this prejudice the court ignored relevant state
statutes that show tort by the mother against the
father.
The lower courts outlandish one-sided
departure from evidence, and testimony manifest
“unequal application of the law,” violating provisions
of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW
1. Local Court Final Order Appendix C
2. SC Appellate Court Opinion Appendix B
3. SC Supreme Court Denial Appendix A
JURISDICTION
The South Carolina Supreme Court issued its
decision on 6 July, 2021. Pet. App. 2a. This petition
is timely under this Court’s March 19, 2020 order
extending the deadline to petition for a writ of
certiorari to 150 days. This Court has jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).
n
r)
3
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED
U.S. Const, art. I, § 10, cl. 1:
No...law impairing the obligation
contracts... shall be passed.
of
U.S. Const., amend. I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof...
U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
U.S. Const., amend. XIV § 1:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On 9 Nov, 2015 Christine Crabtree departed
the marital home with the couple’s 4 children:
n
n
4
[NAME REDACTED] (14), [NAME REDACTED]
(12) [NAME REDACTED] (10), [NAME
REDACTED] (8) to stay at an emergency shelter.
The following day she filed for emergency relief
describing a family forced into a shelter in fear for
their lives and upon filing relocated into an
unoccupied home of a military man on deployment.
The Father was served the following day, 11
November, for an emergency hearing in two days on
Friday the 13th.
The Couple was married in Lynden WA on
August 12th 2000 and the Husband entered U.S. Air
Force service in July of 2001. The Couple moved
every 2-3 years living in Dover DE, Azores Portugal,
Dayton OH, Spokane WA, Osan South Korea, and
Sumter SC. The Couple accepted an incentive
severance from the Air Force in June 2014 so that he
could start a business.
The Wife became anxious in Oct of 2014 about
the transition and began insisting the Husband
pursue traditional employment. The Husband
insisted on pursuing this passion and the Wife
withdrew intimacy from the Husband thereafter.
The Husband was separated from active duty on 31
December 2014. Marital acrimony had manifested
as the Husband was to begin his efforts. The
Husband pleaded with the Wife that they move
home to Washington state, rent out their homes, and
conserve funds, but the Wife refused.
The Wife ceased intimate relations beginning
in October of 2014 without intent to resume. On 30
March 2015 the Husband departed the marital
n
t
5
bedroom against the Wife’s express wishes. The
email in evidence on this date notes the Husband’s
efforts to reassure the Wife regarding her concerns
but notes her ultimatum not to resume relationship.
The Husband entered Air Force Reserve
service in June, 2015 at Colorado Springs, CO and
served in August and September 2015. When he
returned home, the Wife’s parents were visiting in
the marital home. When the Husband’s parents
visited shortly after, the Wife told them they were
unwelcome. When the Husband attempted to take
children to see his parents nearby, the Wife and his
father-in-law tried to stop the Father.
The Father emailed his in-laws that they
should not interfere, demanded an apology, or else
he would ask the police to remove them from the
marital home. The father-in-law refused, the police
refused to remove the father-in-law, and the in-laws
departed a few days later on a schedule not shared
with the Father.
The Father made plans to move the family
back to Washington state. He informed the Wife on
6 November 2015 that he had disenrolled the
children from school for the following year.
The Court ruled following the 13 November
2015 hearing to temporarily remove Husband from
the marital home and granted restricted supervised
visitation of the children. A Guardian-ad-litem was
assigned (by name in ruling) and a psychological
evaluation of the parents was also ordered.
n
n
6
Financial support was imputed to the Husband
based on his former active duty military pay which
were followed by multiple enforcement actions
finding him in contempt for failure to pay.
The psychological evaluations were completed
in September, 2016 and showed that the Wife
exaggerated, had questionable credibility, and
undermined her justification for fleeing the marital
home. The testing found the Husband to be high
functioning and candid.
The final trial lasted from 2-4 October 2017.
The lower court found the Wife to be credible and
concluded that the Husband’s religious beliefs
caused his Wife’s withdrawal and destroyed their
marriage.
The Wife and Husband motioned for
reconsideration. The Husband disputed his Wife’s
credibility and custody arrangements for their
children. The Wife requested more alimony and
child support. The Wife’s motion was granted and
the Husband’s was denied.
The Husband appealed to the South Carolina
Appellate Court which affirmed the lower court
ruling. The Husband then motioned for
reconsideration which was denied and subsequently
petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court which
was denied on 6 July, 2021.
n
)
7
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
The following issues discuss multiple
violations of the U.S. Constitution and malfeasance
of the lower courts leading to an unjust child custody
outcome.
I.
Did Judge Monet Pincus violate the
1st Amendment protection of freedom
of expression and generally condemn
religious expression of men?
The Final Order grants alimony to the Wife on
the basis of determining that the marriage failed
because of the Husband’s religious beliefs:
... Father refused to acknowledge, validate or
lend credence to Mother’s repeated concerns
over the years regarding the parties’
relationship.
Father’s repeated use of the
bible in general and specific scriptures in
particular ... Pet. App. 23c 4.A.4
...but the fathers use of his Christian faith
toward Mother in this regard was the main
cause of the demise of the marriage. Pet. App.
27c 4.A.13
Husband made it impossible for Wife to
remain in the marriage and she needs
alimony. 2
2 ROA Vol 4 Page 207 Line 16
n
n
8
Judge Monet Pincus mischaracterized the
Husband’s “use of faith,” as part of the court’s basis
for awarding alimony, and determined that the
Husband’s religion were undesirable. The 1st
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, in part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof... 3
The State of South Carolina Constitution also
states, in part:
The General Assembly shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof... 4
Judge Monet Pincus’s basis for awarding
alimony infringes upon the Husband’s constitutional
right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion
guaranteed in the 1st Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States5 and by the
Constitution of the State of South Carolina.
II.
Did the South Carolina Trial Court err
in facilitating divorce of Washington
State residents?
3 U.S. Const., amend. I
4 S.C. Const, art. I, § 2
5 U.S. Const., amend. I
n
n
9
In accordance with Service Member’s Civil
Relief Act (SCRA) 6 of 2003 the State of Legal
Residence or Domicile is and was the state of
Washington. The Husband and Wife were both
Washington State residents evidenced in voter
registration, driver’s licenses, primary residence,
and the Husband’s military W-2. The Husband’s Air
Force active duty service terminated on 31 December
2014. The Husband demonstrated his intent to
utilize the Air Force’s relocation entitlement on 6
November 2015 and return the family to Washington
state, in response the Wife fled the marital home to
begin litigation.
The couple lived in South Carolina as a
function of the Husband’s active duty service for
which never intended or attempted to change his
Legal State of Residence (SLR). The South Carolina
laws implied jurisdiction due to a one year residency
establishment period. The Husband’s filings were
given under duress with a 1.5 day response period.
The South Carolina law allowed for the couple to
become residents, but they never established
residency nor intended to. The Court being familiar
with military community could/should have
identified the discrepancy and allowed the Husband
to relocate the family to their legal state of residence
and jurisdiction.
50 U.S.C. app. §§ 501 et seq
n
D
10
III.
Did the Judge George McFadden
ignore substantial exonerating
evidence in support of Husband at the
beginning of litigation and fail to
render him due process?
The Husband provided a digital audio file on
13 November 2015 7 which undermined the Wife’s
allegations about the Husband’s alleged instability,
and further demonstrated the allegations of
instability were likely projections of her own
inconstancies. The audio was transcribed in the
Husband’s Motion for Reconsideration dated 19
January, 2016. 8 An excerpt appears below:
Christy Crabtree:
Your going to do the same thing you’ve done
our entire lives (saying) ‘well I’m supporting
the family, without money we couldn’t
survive; therefore, I am more important, what
I do is more important, what I do is worth
more!’
Clint Crabtree:
I’ve never said that.
Christy Crabtree:
No, Yeah, you’ve never said that. You’re too
subtle, That’s the only way you can get away
with lying to yourself. I think if you were
overt like my Dad...by yelling and calling
7 ROA Vol 1 Page 33
8 ROA Vol 1 Page 109
o
n
11
people things or whatever then I think you
would stop, but I think you have found a way
to continue in a subtle, subtle, subtle manner
that frankly I do believe you have no idea
what you’re doing.
This is the primary example of how the Court
ignored the Husband and his exculpatory evidence
against allegations by the Wife. Additionally,
although the Husband had only approximately 36
hours to prepare for the emergency hearing, he
obtained supporting affidavits that were supplied
during the 13 November 2015 hearing:
Several friends, church members, and
neighbors, including Ms. Christina Kinley,
Mr. Adrian Bradley, Mr. Cary Belmear, Dr.
Condy Richardson, and Mr. Randy St. Cyr
provided supportive affidavits in which they
described Mr. Crabtree as a good father and
man of moral character. 9
The court ordered psychological evaluations
contained the following synopsis of the emails
submitted by the Wife:
Pertaining to the mails from Mr. Crabtree,
seven examples were provided. Two were
from March/April 2015 and five were from
October/November 2015.
In the earlier
emails Mr. Crabtree appeared to outline
issues related to their sexual relationship and
respecting each other’s time. In the latter
ROA Vol 2 Page 194 Para 3
n
n
12
emails, one of which was addressed to Ms.
Crabtree’s parents, he incorporated religious
language and philosophical opinions.
A
patriarchal perspective is evident in his
statements. For example, he remarked ‘I am
the pastor and spiritual leader of my house’
and ‘You are simply following in the curse of
the woman, trying to unbalance my
leadership.
Coveting my authority and
attacking me.’ Notably, he typically ended
his emails by expressing his love for Ms.
Crabtree. In the final email, dated 11/6/15,
Mr. Crabtree mentions that he is considering
taking action to initiate divorce given her
anger and misery in the relationship.
He
emphasized, however, that he is not doing so
to punish her. 10
The Court did not take the couple as it found
them. The Wife exited the home, made false
allegations to generate a false pretense to force the
Husband out of the marital home. The Wife’s
allegations had no statutory grounds: “the reason for
withdrawal by the complaining spouse must be in itself
sufficient ground for a divorce.” 11 According to South
Carolina law, “The only form of cruelty recognized in
South Carolina as a ground for divorce is physical
cruelty.” 12 13 The Wife’s allegations were not of
this nature.
10 ROA Vol 2 Page 210 Para 3
11 Vickers v. Vickers, 176 SE 2d 561 (SC 1970).
12 Barstow v. Barstow, 74 SE 2d 541 (SC 1953).
13 Lindsey v. Lindsey, 143 SE 2d 524 (SC 1965).
n
n
13
This failure to adhere to statute violate both
“due process” and “equal application of the law.” 14
IV.
Did the Court ignore its own
psychological reports and expert
testimony and wrongly assign
credibility to the Wife?
The court ordered psychological evaluations
undermine the Wife’s credibility. Yet the Court
faulted the Husband for failing to validate his Wife’s
complaints.
Dr. Harari Regarding the Husband:
in my opinion, Mr. Crabtree was somewhat
defensive and also a tendency to externalize
responsibility and minimize his role in the
conflict; however, he did produce collateral
information that was supportive of his
perspective.15
Dr. Harari Regarding the Wife:
Reviewing the validity data on the
psychological inventory between Mr. Crabtree
and Mrs. Crabtree the accumulation of
findings suggest that he is generally
responded in a more candid manner.16
Dr. Harari Regarding the Husband:
14 U.S. Const., amend XIV § 1
15 ROA Vol 3 Page 358 Line 2.
16 ROA Vol 3 Page 358 Line 21.
n
14
from the accumulation of data, I did not see
overt personality dysfunction or psychological
dysfunction. One of the allegations was you’re
highly aggressive, violent, narcissistic, and
the test data that I acquired didn’t support
those qualities that I saw.17
Dr. Harari making a contrast:
I measure faking good or defensiveness. On
two of them, she had elevations where — that
were high on social desirability. And on
yours, your evaluation, your responses
presented as candid and reasonable, meaning
they weren’t elevated. So it’s just one way of
comparing one aspect of your presentation
comparing one aspect of your presentation
compared to hers was that I found your test
data
more,
you
know,
reasonably
interpretable, where I found that I needed
some caution interpreting her test data due to
possible symptom minimization. 18
Dr. Harari discussing Wife:
Mrs. Crabtree presented as a woman that can
be passive
and submissive in her
relationships, she tends to - or endorse where
she doesn’t assert herself appropriately and
maybe engage in withdrawal tendencies
rather than face conflict. That’s how she kind
of views herself, according to the MMPI
17 ROA Vol 3 Page 359 Line 7.
is ROA Vol 3 Page 352 Line 16.
n
o
15
results. There’s also a tendency to be overly
dependent on others. 19
The Wife presents herself as submissive, but
the evaluation shows that she is likely to “fake
goodness,” for social desirability and she must be
interpreted with caution. The Husband crossexamined Gina Smith, the Wife’s therapist to
discover if the Wife was grooming the therapist for
validation:
Cross-examination of Gina Smith by Husband. 20
Q: Is it possible for a client to mislead you?
A: Well, I don’t really know that I’d call it
misleading, Mr. Crabtree. I mean, you know,
a patient might not be truthful, but I don’t
base my therapy on whether or not the person
is necessarily giving me a factual
presentation.
Q: Is it possible that Christy has been
misleading you about her feelings?
A: - - I don’t know how to describe this. I’m
not a - - I’m not a lawyer, you know, who’s
seeking truth with a capital T...., its not up to
me to prove to them that there’s a justification
for them being sad or for them being angry or
for them being nervous or anxious or fearful.
19 ROA Vol 3 Page 354, lines 2-8.
29 ROA Vol 3 Pages 31 - 32, line 7.
n
n
16
Q: So it’s possible that Christy came to you
acting like she was afraid for a hidden
purpose?
A: I don’t really think so. But I don’t see it
that way either, Mr. Crabtree.
The salient evidence indicates the Wife
presents a false-self and paid a social worker for
emotional validation21:
1. Audio recordings show forceful, demanding,
condemning verbal Wife, neither submissive
nor passive.
2. Psychological results find:
a. Wife could not provide collaborative
evidence or examples for her claims of
fearing the Husband.
b. The Husband had none of the negative
characteristics described by the Wife
c. The Wife presents herself falsely to
others for social acceptance
3. Her therapist is not concerned about the
truth, nor helping her client discover or
operate with valid/credible/justifiable
emotional response.
21 Quality Friends are hard to cultivate when seeking sympathy
for baseless feelings; however, Gina Smith may satisfy this
sense of feeling validated by listening without challenge, for a
price.
n
D
17
Judge Monet Pincus findings in the following
section indicate the mother was took responsibility
and make positive behavior changes and as being
credible contract what has been discussed thus far:
V.
Did the Court convert issues, conflate
mischaracterizations, minimize
salient facts and construct findings in
order to inappropriately assign
credibility to the Wife?
Despite the substantial evidence supporting
the Father, the final order ignores the findings of the
court ordered psychological reports.
Judge Monet Pincus:
Father refused to take responsibility for the
demise of the marriage or refused to
acknowledge his conduct may have been
inappropriate,
Father refused to
acknowledge he may be in need of counseling
or could benefit from counseling. Pet. App.
23c 4.A.4
1) Finding the Wife to be credible
Judge Monet Pincus:
The Court finds that the Mother’s willingness
to address concerns, including her part in the
demise of the marriage, and her willingness
to make behavior changes that positively
impact her, give the Court confidence that
18
Mother is better suited to have custody of the
children. Pet App. 25c 4.A.6
The Court finds that Mother’s testimony is
credible. Pet App. 25c 4.A.7.
Court Psychological Report:
Ms. Crabtree alleged that Mr. Crabtree’s
‘erratic’ behavior has been directed at the
children and that he undermined her
authority. 22
Court Psychological Report:
He did not appear to have memory problems,
as he was able to remember past events in
vivid detail. Mr. Crabtree was oriented to
person, place, time, and situation and
presented as in full contact with reality. 23
Court Psychological Report:
...Specifically, there was not sufficient
evidence from the psychological test findings
to support Ms. Crabtree’s allegations of highly
controlling or aggressive tendencies. Rather
the test findings appeared valid and did not
reveal obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic, or
violent tendencies. 24
2) Finding that the Husband refused counselling:
Judge Monet Pincus:
22 ROA Vol 2 Page 192 Para 3
23 ROA Vol 2 Page 206 Para 1
24 ROA Vol 2 Page 217 Para 6
n
r\
19
Mother has grown and effected positive
change from her counseling. Father has not
attended counseling, nor shown a genuine
interest in doing so. Pet. App. 22c 4.A.2
Court Psychological Report:
He and Ms. Crabtree first sought couples
therapy during a previous separation in 2001.
Mr. Crabtree recalled that they each attended
individually for several months before
participating in conjoint sessions,
These
reportedly aided in their reconciliation. Mr.
Crabtree further described brief periods of
pastoral counseling. The next formal marital
therapy occurred in 2015 with Randy Hyatt.
He stated that the counseling sessions toward
the end of his marriage did not resolve their
differences. 25
3) That the Wife encouraged the relationship of
the children with the other parent
Judge Monet Pincus:
The Mother endorses the Father as a parent
more so than the Father does the Mother. Pet
App. 25c 4.A.5
Court Psychological Report:
Ms. Crabtree also filed a Summary of Relief
Requested (undated) in which she reiterated
her request for the following: Supervised
visitation for Mr. Crabtree; a Restraining
Order against Mr. Crabtree; child support,
25 ROA Vol 2 Page 213 Para 1
n
n
20
insurance, and other financial support; and
for the use of the marital home and family
vehicle. She submitted a Proposed Parenting
Plan, requesting sole custody and supervised,
daytime visitation for Mr. Crabtree. 26
Court Psychological Report:
Mr. Crabtree concluded that the totality of the
evidence suggests he should be awarded
primary custody of and final decision-making
authority regarding the children in a joint
custody arrangement. 27
4) That the Wife is the more well-adjusted parent
Judge Monet Pincus:
The Court finds that the Mother will most
likely bring about better-adjusted, mature
individuals if she is awarded custody. Pet
App 26c 4.A.10
Court Psychological Report:
When reviewing the validity data on the
psychological inventories between Mr.
Crabtree and Ms. Crabtree, the accumulation
of findings suggest that he generally
responded in a more candid manner. Mr.
Crabtree did not produce any significant
elevations on the social desirability validity
indices contained within his testing battery.
In contrast, Ms. Crabtree exhibited social
desirability and defensiveness on two of the
26 ROA Vol 2 Page 192 Para 5
27 ROA Vol 2 Page 192 Para 1
r
n
\
)
21
four inventories containing validity indices
including the PDS-IM scale and CAPI.
Importantly both parties produced MMPI-2RF profiles that were fully interpretable.
Overall, Mr. Crabtree’s test findings can be
interpreted within a reasonable degree of
psychological certainty.
In contrast, some
caution
is
necessary
regarding
the
interpretation of Ms. Crabtree’s test data 28
5) Ana-chronological use of evidence to assign
cause: Judge Monet Pincus reverses the
timeline of events. Specifically, the Husband’s
emails which contain complaints occurred after
the Wife’s provocations.
Judge Monet Pincus:
... Father refused to acknowledge, validate or
lend credence to Mother’s repeated concerns
over the years regarding the parties’
relationship.
Father’s repeated use of the
bible in general and specific scriptures in
particular ... Pet. App. 23c 4.A.4
Court Psychological Report:
[aforementioned item 3]
Court Psychological Report:
Ms. Crabtree filed an affidavit on November
10th, 2015. In this document she claimed that
Mr. Crabtree has been emotionally and
28 ROA Vol 2 Page 201 Para 2
n
n
22
psychologically abusive in the form of
intimidating and controlling behaviors... 29
Court Psychological Report:
Mr. Crabtree provided a timeline with regard
to his perception of marital dissatisfaction
based on email communication between him
and Ms. Crabtree. He noted that a marked
change occurred in 2014 and continuing
through 2015. He described this period as
associated with her request the he seek
formal employment, calling him “insane,” yet
requesting he watch the children, and with
her decision to withdraw from engaging in
physical intimacy with him. 30
Court Psychological Report:
Overall, the acquired psychological data do
not indicate any obvious physically abusive
tendencies on Mr. Crabtree’s part. The CAPI
findings were interpretable and did not
indicate interpersonal characteristics of
abusive parents. Additionally, the MMPI2RF findings are not indicative of an individual
who engages in unprovoked aggression or has
substantial problems related to emotional
regulation. 31
These pivotal findings manifest prejudice.
For item (1) The credibility of the Wife is
unsupported by the evidence and the findings of the
29 ROA Vol 2 Page 192 Para 3
30 ROA Vol 2 Page 194 Para 6
31 ROA Vol 2 Page 219 Para 1
o
n
23
final order. For item (2) the finding that the
Husband refused counselling is not supported by the
evidence. For item (3) the finding that the Wife
would be more supportive of the Father to the
children is undermined by contradictory requests:
Specifically, Husband asked for joint-custody and
Wife asked that Husband have restricted supervised
visitation. For item (4) the finding that the Mother
is more likely to raise more well-adjusted children is
not supported by evidence comparing the two
parties.
Dr. Harari Report:
He maintained that the primary impetus for
the current separation was the ongoing
disagreement pertaining to finances. Mr.
Crabtree explained that he and his estranged
wife agreed that should voluntary discharge
from the Air Force in order to obtain a larger
severance package. They also reportedly
agreed that he would use the money to start a
business. Mr. Crabtree noted that he had
been developing a data processing software
system that he believed he could
commercialize and sell to the Air Force bases.
However, he stated that Ms. Crabtree
eventually changed her mind and insisted
that he obtain standard employment.
Therefore,
they. began
experiencing
intensified conflict in October 2014 32
For item (5) the conflict leading to litigation a
year later began in October of 2014 regarding wife’s
32 ROA Vol 2 Page 213 Para 5
n
n
24
demand for Husband not to start the business that
previously she agreed to. When the Husband was
reluctant, the Wife began withdrawing and accusing.
The Husband endured this for a year and formally
rebuked his wife for her attacks starting in
November 2015. His rebuke comes after a year of
enduring his wife’s acrimony.
VI.
Do the findings of Judge Monet
Pincus demonstrate
mischaracterization, religious
persecution, abuse of power in order
to exercise prejudice and ignore torts
against partnership obligations?
This argument addresses how the findings of
Judge Monet Pincus objectified the Appellant by (1)
applying false stereotypes which (2) undermine
partnership obligations.
In her ruling, Judge Monet Pincus
mischaracterized testimony of the Husband in order
to create a narrative that she felt comfortable to
attack: which appears to be “patriarchy.” Judge
Pincus seems to exhibit a proxy battle of feminism v.
coverture.33
In this case, Judge Monet Pincus clearly
personally disapproved of the Husband’s expectation
of faithfulness in the context of the couple’s
33 This is a difficult matter for feminism due to the merits of
equality enabling the agency of men and women to freely
obligate themselves and enter into roles based commitments.
n
25
Christian oriented obligations. Judge Monet Pincus
articulated this in the aforementioned question I
that the Father’s exercise of his faith caused
hardship. Additionally, Judge Monet Pincus found:
Husband does not believe that Wife should be
awarded alimony because she betrayed and
broke faith in the relationship between the
parties and she did not live up to her biblical
role. The Court finds there is no statutory
fault ground for divorce applicable to this
case. Pet. App. 37c 12.H
These findings are very troubling. First,
Judge Monet Pincus mischaracterized the testimony
of the Husband: His testimony complained of the
dishonesty of the Wife in her claims and efforts to
betray him (by false accusations) and take from him
as a breach in faith (or contract). In contrast, Judge
Monet Pincus mischaracterized that the Husband’s
complaint as that the Wife did not fulfill her biblical
role in the marriage. Second, Judge Monet Pincus
treats the religious context in a way that ignores the
parallels of marital commitment clearly represented
by state law.
Clearly South Carolina statue regarding
marriage imposes expectations of faithfulness or
commitment regardless of the couples originating
religious context:
The essentials of desertion are (1) cessation
from cohabitation, (2) intent on the absent
party not to resume it, (3) absence of the
26
opposite party’s consent, and (4) absence of
justification. 34 35
As the following testimony clearly
demonstrates, the Husband was not disputing
whether or not his wife was fulfilling her Biblical
roles, but rather he was clearly hurt that the wife
had become dissatisfied with how he intended to
fulfill his role and he was being attacked and vilified
by the Wife:
Clint Crabtree Testimony:
I was accused of not loving her, and it just
didn’t stop unless I did what she wanted. 36
Clint Crabtree Testimony:
I felt like I was being a stalwart of loving her
while she’s talking to me, telling me I don’t
love her, not reacting, not accusing her back,
... And it went on for a year until the point...
37
Clint Crabtree Testimony:
I do think that it is my duty to love and to lead
and we are in a relationship that is
traditional, where she’s agreed to follow me
and support her, and that we work together in
that way...in the Bible it talks about those
roles, but it’s not like this that that I want to
34 LD Oswald, Jr. v. Oswald, 95 SE 2d 493.
35 S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-10 (United States South Carolina) (6)
Desertion.
36 ROA Vol 3 Page 434 line 16
37 ROA Vol 3 Page 435 line 7
n
n
27
use it for coercion or manipulation or - it’s
just like I feel a duty and a responsibility to
lead, and she’s attacking me for thinking I’m
the leader, and yet that’s, me thinking I’m the
leader is what gives me this drive to try and
make these things work. So it is difficult for
me. She’s attacking my role, telling me, you
think your role is this, and I’m like, well fine,
yeah, I do that that role is - true, that’s right,
and that’s what motivates me to do these
things that she reads in a book about
narcissists or whatever and they think those
are their roles and they completely misapply
them.
And so I feel like she just misaligns and
stereotypes because a person might think a
certain thing and say this is therefore,
because there’s - you think in biblical terms,
therefore you are a person who lords
authority over others. And that’s just — it’s
not me. But she’s trying to convince me at
this point it is, and then she’s telling me I
don’t have remorse for it. She’s telling me
that I don’t care about her. And then it goes
on. 38
The Husband’s complaint is that the Wife’s
narrative is not truthful and her actions to divorce
him and bear false witness against him betrayed
their relational commitment. Her decision to attack
and demonize his role during the previous year also
38 ROA Vol 3 Page 435 line 18
o
n
28
served as a breach in faith from the partnership they
had entered into and she enjoyed for 15 years.
Third, Judge Monet Pincus finds that
obligations made between marriage partners carries
no private contract. U.S. Constitution and South
Carolina Constitution provide that “no...law
impairing the obligation of contracts.”39 40
Judge Pincus fallaciously renders the
Husband’s claims of broken contract mute by
substituting the word “biblical” as a distraction from
statute. Judge Pincus ignores the obligations formed
between the couple and ignores her duty that “...the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution...” 41
When Judge Monet Pincus says she can find
no statutory grounds for an at fault divorce
regarding the Wife’s failure to fulfill “biblical roles”
she is diverting attention from applicable law and
failing to acknowledge the appropriate correlations
according to South Carolina Statute S.C. Code Ann.
§ 20-3-10
The Husband’s complaint regards a Tort
identified as “Desertion” according to S.C. Code Ann.
§ 20-3-10. As stated at the end of Question V, the
Wife withdrew from the relationship over a year
prior to litigation. Additionally, the Wife admitted
that she did not allow the Husband to move the
39 U.S. Const., Art 1 § 10, cl 1
40 S.C. Const., Art 1 § 4.
41 U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2
n
n
29
family to Washington State which is also grounds for
desertion: “The husband has the right, acting
reasonably, to choose where the family shall reside,
and when the wife refuses to go with him she is
guilty of desertion.” 42 43 44
Wife withdrew from the relationship for over a
year with no intent to resume relationship (See item
1 of Question VII) prior to litigation. Another form
of desertion is how the Wife created relational
absence as a constructed desertion by impacts of the
temporary order brought about by her false
allegations. Judge Monet Pincus should have
recognized the behavior as a desertion according to
statute. As such, the Wife should not be entitled to
alimony because of her false statements and lack of
commitment. “[0]ne who comes to the court seeking
equity must come with clean hands.” 45 46
He who comes into equity must come with
clean hands. It is far more than a mere
banality. It is a self-imposed ordinance that
closes the door of the court of equity to one
tainted with inequitableness or bad faith
relative to the matter which he seeks relief. 47
The doctrine of unclean hands precludes a
plaintiff from recovering in equity if he acted
42 Wolfe u. Wolfe, 68 SE 2d 348 (SC 1951).
43 LD Oswald, Jr. v. Oswald, 95 SE 2d 493 (SC 1956).
44 S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-10 (United States South Carolina) (6)
Desertion.
45 Emery v. Smith, 603 SE 2d 598 (SC 2004).
46 Precision Co. v. Automotive Co., 324 US 806 (1945).
47 Wilson v. Landstrom, 315 SE 2d 130 (SC 1984).
n
i
30
unfairly in the matter that is the subject of the
litigation to the prejudice of the defendant.
VIL
Does Judge Monet Pincus bring
discredit to the judiciary by manifest
gender prejudice and malfeasance?
When Judge Pincus ruled that the Husband
acknowledged pornography and concluded “Husband
admits to objectifying women,” Judge Pincus made
the Husband a target for feminist derision. The
context implies correlation and characterization:
Pornography = Male sexual deviance
Objectification = Inhumane mistreatment
Religious Roles = Male Patriarchal Justification
of Aforesaid
Used Religion/Used Faith against = Hypocrisy in
context
This is a condemning fabrication to paint the
Husband as a hypocrite in his Christianity regarding
his sexuality.
1. Does Judge Monet Pincus substitute
hearsay regarding Husband’s childhood
in order to mischaracterize findings
regarding pornography?
The subject of pornography usage arose
during spousal emails starting 30 March 2015;
Clint Crabtree:
D
n
31
Christy, I know that pornography in my life
has hurt you. You have chided me to it on
serval occasions as you exit conversations.
But I'm not sleeping downstairs to that effect.
I'm down here to keep your boundaries
generated by your ultimatum for our
relationship where you swore "we will never
be close again, so you can protect your heart.”
48
The Wife testified about her husband’s
pornography use as a minor:
Christy Crabtree:
Clint did admit in counselling to the pastor
that he had grown up objectifying women and
that’s why he had an addiction to
pornography. There was other times that he
told me that if he couldn’t get his needs met,
then he’d have to turn elsewhere 49
The Husband testified at trial:
Clint Crabtree:
So it was on March 30th, that was when I had
moved downstairs to a different bedroom
based on the accusations Christy had started
making about me, and I just - - it was stated
to the Court that I used pornography as a way
to hurt her, but I was just wanted to point out
that, in that exhibit I was trying to reassure
her that my move had nothing to do with the
48 ROA Vol 1 Page 68
49.ROA Vol 3 Pages 104 line 16.
n
n
32
desire to pursue what I would consider
something that’s been a weakness in my life.
And something that I - - I’m not proud of. And
so I - - even during all this conflict, I was
trying to reassure her whereas she makes it
look like I’m trying to threaten her. 50
The point is that the Husband did not
threaten his wife despite her refusal to have sexual
intimacy. The Wife refused intimate relations while
simultaneously wanting her husband to remain in
the same bed and maintain control of his sexual
desires.
By this time, the Wife had withheld intimacy
for five months due to control the relationship. The
evidence does not support Judge Monet Pincus’s
narrative of a patriarchal male who feels entitled to
sexual deviance. Instead, it shows a Husband
acknowledging his wife’s concerns during an
impossible situation created by his wife.
2. Does Judge Monet Pincus substitute
hearsay regarding Husband’s childhood
in order to mischaracterize findings
regarding objectification of women?
Continuing from the previous, there is not
appropriate evidence for Judge Monet Pincus to say
that the “Husband admits to objectifying women” as
a basis for findings. This misrepresents the past
50 ROA Vol 3 Page 494 line 14
n
33
tense nature and the hearsay nature conflating the
matter as relevant and significant.
It is noteworthy that both the Husband and
the Wife claimed to be virgins when in they married
after a 2.5 year dating period: This implies a man
who does not discard or use women sexually, but
rather a man who sought and desired a faithful and
monogamous relationship with his wife.
Additionally, the Wife did not allege any nontraditional, bizarre, or fetishes diming the couples’
sexual encounters. Her greatest testified sexual
complaints were that she found it necessary to cease
sexual relations with the Husband:
I had to firmly tell you no in order for you to
take your hands off of me, and I felt very
threatened by that. 51
3. Does Judge Monet Pincus
mischaracterize findings regarding
Husband’s use of religion?
In the final order Judge Pincus states:
Father refused to acknowledge, validate or
lend credence to Mother’s repeated concerns
over the years regarding the parties’
relationship.
Father’s repeated use of the
bible in general and specific scriptures in
particular Pet. App. 23c 4.A.4
si ROA Vol 3 Pages 180 - 183.
n
n
34
...but the fathers use of his Christian faith
toward Mother in this regard was the main
cause of the demise of the marriage. Pet. App.
27c 4.A. 13
As previously shown in Argument III, the
dialogue between the couple clearly demonstrates
Wife accusing Husband of asserting himself in a
dominant manner, allegedly because he regards his
role as more important because he makes the money.
The Husband noted that he never asserted this,
which his Wife conceded, but she nevertheless
reiterated her accusations in a very nebulous
manner:
Cleary the Wife is accusing the Husband of
“thinking” that his role is more important than hers,
but that he never says it. This does not fit the
stereotype of a controlling man.
In addition to this recorded proof, there is also
item (1) of question V of the Psychological findings
showing insufficient evidence to support Wife’s
allegations of highly controlling or aggressive
tendencies. Rather that valid test findings did not
reveal obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic, or violent
tendencies in the Husband.
Furthermore, the discussion in question VI
notes that the Husband’s complaints regarding his
wife are due to her attacks upon his perceptions of
his role in the marriage.
o
f
35
The Wife targeted the Husband’s role of
providing due to her anxiety over how he intends to
make a living. Strategically, if she can erode his
confidence she can exercise greater influence.52
Notably, the assertive emails come at the end
of the year of acrimony and just days prior to the
Wife fleeing from the home with the children. In
these emails the Husband faults the Wife for her
cessation of the relationship and her attacks against
his character over the previous year. He asserted
that the Wife manipulated him with negative
emotions which was being disobedient to God. He
also asserted, unapologetically, his role as pastor or
head of household. He opined that her efforts to
undermine him were not appropriate and noted he is
considering divorce as the only viable non-retaliatory
option as noted in the Dr. Harari’s psychological
report:
For example, he remarked ‘I am the pastor
and spiritual leader of my house’ and ‘You are
simply following in the curse of the woman,
trying to unbalance my leadership. Coveting
my authority and attacking me.’ Notably, he
typically ended his emails by expressing his
love for Ms. Crabtree.
In the final email,
dated 11/6/15, Mr. Crabtree mentions that he
is considering acting to initiate divorce given
her anger and misery in the relationship. He
52 Egalitarian feminism would have the Wife seek work, But
the Wife’s approach has no merit in demanding equal say over
the Husbands form of employment.
o
n
36
emphasized, however, that he is not doing so
to punish her. 53
When the Wife realized on 6 November 2015
that her designs to control her husband were
unravelling and that he may act for relief, she pre
emptively fled the home with the children just 3
days later on 9 November 2015.
In short, Judge Monet Pincus completely
misrepresents the facts of the case by describing the
Husband as using religion against the Wife over the
years.
In addition, Judge Monet Pincus erroneously
determined “who started it.” Judge Pincus ruled
that the Husband’s use of his faith during his
marriage caused its demise. But as presented thus
far the Husband did not use wield religion or roles in
the relationship as depicted by the wife or the ruling.
In Contrast, The Wife used the couple’s religion
against Husband with relational cessation and
attacked his role.
VIII. Did the Court Facilitate the Wife’s
Construction of Desertion of the
Husband?
Based on the aforementioned questions the
Court failed in the following:
53 ROA Vol 2 Page 210 Para 3
n
n
37
1. Failed to respond to exonerating evidence
favorable to the Husband.
2. Failed to heed the findings of the court ordered
psychological results were favorable to the
Husband and unfavorable to the Wife.
3. Erred in finding the Wife to be credible.
4. Failed to identify multiple desertion scenarios by
the Wife.
• Relational withdraw without intent to
resume
• Refusal to relocate in with Husband
• False accusations accomplished
constructive desertion
5. Failed to acknowledge expert testimony warning
against the Wife’s false self-presentation.
6. Erred by constructing a false narrative regarding
Husband’s use of religion
In addition to these failures, the Court failed
to hold the Wife responsible for initiating immediate
proceedings with the false pretext of an emergency
situation. When the Husband cross-examined the
Wife at trial she confessed to a planned departure,
not an emergency departure:
Clint Crabtree: Can you Describe the day of
our Separation?
Christy Crabtree: I packed up the kids, and
we drove to the shelter.
Clint Crabtree: At what Time?
Christy Crabtree: Four o’clock
r>)
'n
t
38
Clint Crabtree: When did you decide to make
the decision?
Christy Crabtree: Probably a week before, a
few days before.
Clint Crabtree: Did you take any actions to
prepare it?
Christy Crabtree: I did. 54
The lack of emergency nature is also
corroborated by Dr. Harari who noted that the initial
pleadings of fear for hfe and safety may not be valid:
Dr. Marc Harari:
Ms. Crabtree’s presentation during the
clinical interview appeared somewhat
guarded. Although she admitted to some
problematic behavior on her part in the past,
she primarily exhibited a tendency to
externalize responsibility to Mr. Crabtree for
their difficulties. Specifically, Ms. Crabtree
generally described Mr. Crabtree as the
controlling and psychologically abusive
individual in their marriage. Moreover, her
statements to this examiner were somewhat
inconsistent with her Complaints and
Affidavits, in that during the clinical
interview she did not indicate fear for her
children’s fives and she did in the Court
documents. Additionally, Ms. Crabtree had
54 ROA Vol 3 Pages 176 - 177 Line 19.
o
n
39
difficulty articulating specific examples of
concerning parenting behavior on the part of
her estranged husband,
Overall, some
caution appears necessary regarding the
accuracy of her self-report data. 55
Therefore; the Court also errored by:
7. Evicting Husband from his home without cause.
8. Failing to hold Wife responsible for the charade
she constructed to evict the Husband from the
home.
IX.
Did Judge Monet Pincus violate 14th
Amendment equal application of the
law?
Continuing from previous questions, Judge
Monet Pincus did not afford the Husband “equal
application of the law” 56. She did not weigh the
credibility of his testimony equally with his wife.
She did not properly consider Dr. Harari’s findings
and expert testimony. She did not account for the
numerous witnesses that testified in support of the
Husband. She ignored the audio recordings that
demonstrated the Wife to be controlling and
manipulative. She faulted the Husband for religious
expression.
55 ROA Vol 2 Page 189 Para 2
56 U.S. Const., amend XIV § 1
n
/'“N
40
X.
Did the Guardian Ad Litem, James
Stoddard, manifest bias, and do his
actions and assignment by Judge
George McFaddin indicate collusion?
Judge George McFadden ruled “This case
screams for a good, seasoned GAL. If James A.
Stoddard, Esq., is available I suggest his
appointment.”57 Two years later at final trial when
cross examined, James Stoddard confessed he found
the Father’s recording the Mother “repugnant”
regardless of facts it evidenced.58 Suggesting that
James Stoddard who should have recused himself by
that sentiment alone, he was a mole to sustain the
trajectory of the case and faithful to his appointer
who also ignored the exonerating nature of the
recording. Additional examples include asking
Mother’s witness if Father showed favoritism, but
not asking the same of Father’s witnesses. Finally,
James Stoddard expressed the Mother’s demand for
validation and Fathers refusal is key to custody.59
XI.
Did the Court err in awarding custody
of the children to the Mother?
All previous questions cascade to the
significance of these propositions:
1)
If it is true that the Mother used stereotypes to
mischaracterize the Father,
57 ROA Vol 1 Page 33
58 ROA Vol 4 Page 59 Line 18
59 ROA Vol 4 Page 64 Line 23
n
n
41
And if it is true that the Mother falsely alleged
that she and children feared for their lives due to
abusive characterizations,
3) And if it is true that the Mother was found to be
exaggerating against the Father by the Court
ordered psychologist,
4) And if it is true that psychological evaluations
show the Father has no signs of the abusive and
controlling characteristics described by the
Mother,
And
if it is true that the audio recordings prove
5)
both that the Mother was aggressive in her
communication, and also that by her own
descriptions of the Father contradict her
descriptions of him to the Court,
And
if it is true that many witnesses observed
6)
the children with the Father and testified that
healthy father-child relationships were present,
7) And if it is true that the psychological findings
regarding the Mother showed that caution must
be taken due to the Mother’s likelihood for false
presentation,
8) And if it is true that the Mother requested that
Father can have only limited supervised
visitation with the Children without valid cause.
And
if it is true that the Mother attacked the
9)
Father’s role in the relationship and ceased
relations in order to gain power over his
employment choices,
10) And if it is true that the psychological results
show that the Mother does not handle conflict in
a healthy manner.
2)
... then the logical consequences are:
n
f
)
42
The Mother will role model for the children to
mischaracterize others.
2) The Mother will role model for the children to
develop false narratives or make excuses
whenever they are afraid and not take
responsibility for their emotions.
3) The Mother will role model for the children to
exaggerate or minimize when in conflict or when
convenient.
4) That the Father will be a healthy role model due
to his candor and stability.
5) The Mother will role model to bear false witness
against others.
6) That the Father’s role and bond with the
children should not be encumbered by the court.
7) That the Mother will role model to the children
to have a two-faced compartmentalized way of
life to conceal insecurities instead of facing
conflict in a healthy manner.
8) That the Mother will not hesitate to alienate the
children and the Father, and will also
externalize responsibility (leverage excuses)
against the children or the Father for her
choices.
9) That the Mother will be unconcerned about
supporting the dreams or capabilities of the
children, and will impose her insecurities and
fears upon the likelihood of their success.
10) That the Mother is not competent to role model
for the children regarding how to how to resolve
conflict in a healthy manner.
1)
n
n
43
These 10 items are not comprehensive, but
show discernable character flaws in the Mother.
Character flaws are highly likely to be nurtured into
the children according to Gina Constance Smith60,
Mrs. Smith acknowledged during cross examination
that Ms. Crabtree began therapy due to her family of
origin issues. Mrs. Smith also validated Father’s
concerns during cross examination that character
flaws in parents are highly likely to be adopted in
the development of the children.
Clint Crabtree: When Christy came to you,
was she struggling with family of origin
issues?
Gina Smith: Yes, she did
Clint Crabtree: Do you contribute her lack of
self-confidence to her family of origin issues?
Gina Smith: Well, I believe we’re all affected
by our family of origin issues....
Clint Crabtree: Do you believe that
unaddressed family of origin issues tend to be
passed on to the next generation?
Gina Smith: Um-hmm. I think so. We take
the energy from that, forward. I really think
so. 61
60 Wife of Pastor Clay Smith, a complicating issue for marital
counseling.
si ROA Vol 3 Pages 31 - 33.
n
n
44
According to this testimony from the
Respondent’s therapist, a licensed social worker,
there is then much reason for concern that the
Mother’s inability to resolve conflict in a heathy
manner will also affect the children’s ability to
resolve conflict in a healthy manner.
In earlier arguments the Mother described her
father as a bully who resorted to name calling and
put downs. This indicates that generational
dysfunction of the Wife is an ongoing reality that
overshadows the healthy development of Zackary
Crabtree (14), Trenton Crabtree (12), Dylan
Crabtree (10), and Ashley Crabtree (8).
CONCLUSION
The family courts are manipulated for
predetermined outcomes. Attorneys make a name
for themselves by how much injustice they can bring
about.62 The family law judges know who can fund
elections, promote, or demote them in these societies.
It has become a business for results/performance v. a
practice for principled/integrity. This makes sport of
justice. This case exemplifies the brazen
malfeasance in family court.
Divided households are no new phenomena.
Men can be victims of undermining women. Women
can be victims of overbearing men. And there can be
warring parties who seem to deserve each other.
62 by this measure “a good lawyer” is synonymous with an evil
lawyer.
n
/^S
45
Justice rules by facts, but corruption is evident in
mischaracterizations.
This case promotes a female victim narrative
while technically finding a no-fault divorce, yet with
one sided custody ruling. The inability for the
couple to have joint custody is based on the Father’s
invalidation of the Mother’s concerns. But the facts
show that the Mother is false, that her effort to be
painted as a victim are meritless and her
psychological evaluation indicates this is her nature.
Evidence shows her character is compromised and
that she is the unreasonable partner and less likely
to rear emotionally healthy children.
The law is written to be applied equally.
Marital relationship affords a synergy of inequities
by leveraging differences of gender and preference.63
The great equalizer for men and women is ability to
enter partnership64 willingly. And according to the
constitution the ability to form and maintain
contract is a fundamental matter that a person keep
their word. A woman is treated equally to a man
when she is expected to be faithful to her contracts,
partnerships, or obligations.
If a person enter partnership willingly, they
cannot rightfully claim to be a victim of its design
unless they claim incompetence. Here the lower
court ignored that the Wife entered a traditional
63 Mammals partner and have unique roles
64 Partnerships are typically sought due to unique resources of
the other
n
n
46
contract and emancipated the Wife from her
commitments and indebted the Husband.
The Court ignored how successfully this
Father represented his family. Admittedly, a citizen
succeeding against a highly ranked family-lawyer is
bad for business. But the facts of the case demand a
different outcome, and the facts reveal maleficence.
This case is ideal for sending a message to the
lower courts that malfeasance is abhorred. The case
is useful to emphasize the need for legislation to
disincentivize the financial gain of nullifying
partnerships. And to stop the trend of demonizing
the partner who enters a relationship of natural
roles.65
The ease of nullifying partnership via
fabrications is affecting every american and erodes
the fabric of society by minimizing the significance of
contract: When fabricated perceptions are validated
as means to break contract we have gone back to the
witch hunt days.66 But worse is the judiciary who
indulges it.
Normalizing no fault divorce, or worse yet
fallacious fault divorce means normalizing easily
breaking commitment. As this case shows, the lower
court condemns expectation of traditional
65 Reproductive roles of mammals despite human sophistication
66 Where one person fabricates their perceptions, points at their
target as the spectral cause of their torment charade; such that
the targeted person is put to death by a dull mob as the culprit
manipulates them. The true witch being the fabricator.
n
n
47
commitment. Then the children are handed over to
those who shirk commitment. Then across America
children are raised by those who take lightly
commitments and obligations.
I pray the Court take this case on and make
opportunity of the veracity of these matters. That
the Court utilize the legal state of residency
discrepancy of this case. That the Court condemn
the behaviors of those who make sport of truth and
justice. And that the Court make precedent and
admonish legislators to extinguish the incentive for
injustice in marital partnerships.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald “Clint” Crabtree
8804 Berthusen Rd.
Lynden, WA 98264
360-471-1904
chnt.crabtree@hotmail.com
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.