Robert Powell, Esquire presents himself as a ‘champion for family, parental, or children’s rights but actually he is a co-conspirator with the countries, police or agencies whom he sues. Generally, the conspiracy begins from the minute that a parent calls Mr. Powell for legal advice.

Mr. Powell, who is connected to county counsels (i.e., the lawyers whom a county hires to handle legal affairs for the county), calls county counsel immediately after a parental call ‘to check’ to find out more information about the parent, the incident, ‘the prospective damages a case may present’ or the legal issues that the case may raise. These issues are usually discussed in the first telephone call. The majority of the corrupt in any one of California’s more than 56 countries generally originates with a county’s county counsel, whose aim is to preserve the county’s power at the expense of its residents, exploit the county’s budget for self-enrichment, or to ensure that no member of the county may face consequences for illegal behavior or activity.

In the follow up calls that Mr. Powell makes with county counsels, he makes plans for not only the DCFAS’ case or the case as the Superior Court of California, Sitting as a Juvenile Court, dictates to the parents. Parents, for instance, in a dependency case generally cannot assert the rights one would normally imagine an American is entitled to assert primarily due to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America refuses to clarify the law regarding warrantless seizures. The majority of the cases with which Mr. Powell deals are warrantless seizures.

The plans that he makes with County Counsel regarding these cases are generally two decisions. These two decisions are whether or not one or more of the parents are entitled to receive their children and/or under what conditions. Despite the rhetoric he expresses to the media, Mr. Powell is committed to the preservation of ‘removals’ (i.e., under certain circumstances), that is, he is not a child welfare abolitionist, and he believes that the modern conception of ‘therapy’ applies to ‘cure’ the psychological ills for which parents are often cited as experiencing in the days leading up to a warrantless seizure. In the event that County Counsel is willing to agree to the plan, the case is thereafter dictated to the parents through a number of intermediaries, and the parents, try as they might, are not permitted to fight against the Court’s dictates.

In later follow up calls, Mr. Powell decides together with County Counsel either which specific issues he is ‘allowed’ to raise in a complaint or how to pad damages. Mr. Powell, for instance, is not ‘allowed’ to raise claims of constitutionality as to the legality of the laws that permit the DCFAS to kidnap children. Claims such as those challenging the underlying Constitutionality of Welfare and Institutions Code § 300, et sequential, which is the law that DCFAS cites to justify kidnapping, on the ground the law is vague, are not ‘allowed.’ An example of these claims is a complaint filed by a deceased lawyer by the name of Marc Angelucci. In his complaint for Andrea Wood, Mr. Angelucci filed claims challenging the Constitutionality of Welfare and Institutions Code § 300, et sequential. In this complaint, Mr. Angelucci’s fifth cause of action for suing one of California’s counties is ‘a facial and as-applied challenge to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(a),’ the provision that allows DCFAS to kidnap children without a warrant, for so-called ‘exigency.’

Mr. Powell, who presents himself as someone who challenges “the system,” however, has never presented these types of claims in his complaints, nor will he ever, since he doesn’t challenge ‘the system’ at all. He works within the system to ensure everyone is paid, including least of all the parents. If Mr. Powell were to raise these types of ‘claims,’ he would no longer be allowed to work within the system to ensure anyone is paid, including least of all the parents. He would be rejected.

In an examination of the Federal civil rights lawsuits Mr. Powell files, the vast majority of those brought against a county in California are focused almost exclusively on a struggle to obtain access to the § 827 file. Mr. Powell coordinates with County Counsel to ensure that the § 827 files are withheld so that the focus of his litigation shifts from the violations of civil rights the DCFAS or agents of a police state agency have committed (thereby shielding these people from judgement) to obtaining the file. Mr. Powell, who has sufficient evidence to establish a case for the State of California’s failure to comply with the Statues on Welfare and Institutions Code § 827, et sequential, has refused to file an injunction enjoining the State of California from withholding the § 827 files. The reason he has not is because Mr. Powell is not allowed to challenge the status quo ante on the § 827 files. In addition, by refusing to file a statewide injunction, he makes more money. In cases where a county refuses to release an § 827 file, he can file an appeal in the district appellate Court. In the Federal civl rights lawsuits he can focus discovery on the release of these files rather than on general form interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for admissions, requests for production, or depositions.

In planning cases with County Counsel, Mr. Powell becomes a co-conspirator against the children, the parents and their family and becomes a part of the vast network of corruption that epitomizes any given Californian county’s anti-Constitutional activity in furtherance of a deprivation of civil rights. The parents, who might try to change the course of a DCFAS case after Mr. Powell plans the case with County Counsel, have little to no hope of succeeding.

It is not just Mr. Powell, however, that plans cases with County Counsel. A great many of the lawyers who sue DCFAS, police, or agencies in counties often plan cases with County Counsel. It is extremely easy, for instance, for County Counsel to call a Prosecutor or a Public Defender, “to lay down the law” on how a given case may proceed. He or she just picks up the phone. If a lawyer attempts to record County Counsel or document corruption at the County level in California, the lawyer not only risks retaliation, disbarment or various types of punishments the California State Bar’s Chief Trial Counsel is able to mete out without recourse to due process of law, he or she may even be murdered.

This also includes people like attorney generals. One of Powell’s former clients, Anabel Renteria, for instance, submitted a proposal pursuant to Elections Code § 9005 (i.e., A.G. File No. 21-0019 from October 28th, 2021) to change the way California law handles custody. In her proposal, for which she gathered a sufficient number of signatures to receive a vote on a referendum in the upcoming ballot, the attorney general, Rob Bonta, who is one of the arch-reactionaries with whom Mr. Powell associates to program cases against the law and the Constitution, rejected the proposal. Under the proposal, a parent would have had the right to jury trial for any issue regarding custody. The proposal, which is but a reformist way to abolist the judicial power to order children removed from their parents, would have served the common good of the community, transferring power over children from individual judges, the vast majority of whom are extremely corrupt anti-Constitutional advocates, to twelve members of the community, a highly democratic reform of the existing laws on custody. In his own remarks about Renteria’s proposal, Powell described her as crazy. Craziness for Powell or the Attorney General Rob Bonta is any proposal that might somehow threaten the status quo ante.

Marc Angelucci, whose bizarre death is shrouded in mystery, is one of the many lawyers in California who decided to file claims he is not ‘allowed’ to raise. He was murdered. The legal system in California epitomizes the overall legal system in the United States of America. It is corrupted to the core. Any real opportunity for justice is almost entirely out of the question.

Citizens, who are concerned about the putrid state of the law, lawyers, or the right to propose to the legislature changes to the law, must align their interests with striking workers. Misled, on the one hand by the unions, deceived, on the other hand, by impostures such as the members of the Socialist Equality Party’s leaders, striking workers must make a part of its declaration of political independence as a class the pressing issues of democracy such as the right to jury trial on custody. The less power judges, lawyers, or the law decide, the better the people do.