Lying Lesbian Lawyer Alana Chazan files motion after leaked video and documents go viral, now seeks to criminally prosecute Younger because Alexander Baker spoke the truth.
by Alexander C. Baker, J.D.
If notorious LGBQT lawyer Alana Chazan has her way, Jeff Younger will now be criminally punished because legal expert Alexander C. Baker reported on the blatantly illegal nature of the top-secret "Star Chamber" proceedings now unfolding in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Baker's investigative report – "L.A. Judge Mark Juhas About to Authorize Transgender Crimes Against Humanity" – included the release of numerous court documents and an audio-video recording of the June 5, 2024 trial setting hearing.
By recording and publishing, Baker acted in defiance of Judge Michelle Kazadi's unconstitutional "Star Chamber" Order, deeming the entire case "sealed," and arguably in defiance of "Rule 1.105" and the "General Order" of the L.A. Court prohibiting cameras in the courtroom. Baker does not believe the General Order applies to screen capturing a remote hearing, but even it does, in Baker's expert opinion these "rules" and "orders" are a blatantly unconstitutional and illegal effort to conceal the truth about the horror that is "gender affirming care."
Chazan and her client Anne Georgulas are so worried over the truth being told that on July 25, 2024, they brought a motion against Jeff Younger seeking to "arrest" him, and for "monetary sanctions" and for "any other relief the Court finds appropriate."
The hearing on Chazan's attempted criminal prosecution of Jeff Younger is now set for August 2, 2024. We will analyze Chazan's document below, and also document the lies upon which Georgulas' case is founded. First, though, let's have a sneak peak at this newly-released captioned clip from the infamous June 5, 2024 hearing, where Judge Juhas made statements that clearly indicate he has already pre-judged the case:
Younger's Motion for Trial Continuance
As explained in a previous article, no part of proper trial procedure is being followed. In particular, before a fair trial beings, Jeff Younger has a guaranteed right to take depositions of key witnesses, to obtain the medical records supporting Georgulas' contentions (or obtain admissions that there are no such records), and to obtain Georgulas' financial information.
What is more, under California law Jeff Younger has a guarantee of an attorney fee award in his favor so as to achieve "parity" in the parties' ability to afford the cost of litigation. Younger is currently unemployed, while Anne Georgulas is a pediatrician, and presumably makes over $200,000 / year.
Perhaps most importantly of all, Younger has a right to a public trial, as opposed to the top-secret medieval Star Chamber proceeding going on now. Even the Wikipedia article "Jeff Younger custody battle" makes it appear as though the case is long over.
Because none of the elements of a fair trial are present, Younger was forced to file an ex parte Motion to Continue Trial, set for hearing on Monday, July 22. Younger sought a 1-year postponement, asking the Court to reset the trial for August of 2025. However, Los Angeles Superior Court was allegedly subjected to a "devastating ransomware attack" and closed down that day.
Judge Juhas' assistant Mary Arnold later claimed the Court had no record of the filing.
Eventually, through highly-unusual email chains with Judicial Assistant Arnold, Younger's Motion to Continue trial was set for Friday July 26. All parties were ordered to appear in person, and to bring with them paper copies of all pleadings in the case.
This is beyond highly unusual, it is unprecedented, at least in this author's considerable experience. Apparently, the Los Angeles Superior Court is now claiming to have lost the case file in Georgulas v. Younger as a result of the "ransomware" attack. This, after first intentionally deleting the public record of the entire file on May 30.
Alana Chazan is a family law attorney who says she "focuses on the needs of LGBTQ families in Los Angeles." Chazan's newly-merged firm is All Family Legal. She represents Anne Georgulas since the case was moved from Texas to Los Angeles.
Faced with Jeff Younger's Motion for a Continuance of what would be an illegal Show Trial, Chazan filed an ex parte "Request for Other Orders." Since Chazan and Georgulas seek criminal prosecution and arrest, we feel this latest action is better known as "Request to Jail Jeff."
Now set for hearing (illegally, as it turns out, see upcoming article "Racketeering in Robes") on Friday August 2, 2024, the "other orders" Chazan seeks against Younger are following, with the author's comments interspersed.
Criminal Penalties Sought by Chazan and Georgulas, Item 1:
1. All videos of hearings from this case that have been posted by Respondent [Jeff Younger] and/or one of his agents [referring to Alexander Baker or attorney Tracy Henderson], be immediately removed from the internet.
Baker states unequivocally that he acted alone in recording and posting the video of the top-secret June 5, 2024 Star Chamber hearing. Although Baker has worked professionally in the Younger case, when it comes to recording and publishing, Baker is most certainly NOT Jeff Younger's "agent" in that context.
Baker, Younger, and attorney Tracy Henderson all confirm that Baker acted alone. Jeff Younger has no ability to remove the video from the internet even if Chazan somehow succeeds getting a judge to order a take-down.
Criminal Penalties Sought by Chazan and Georgulas, Item 2:
2. All pleadings from this case, that have been posted by Respondent and/or one of his agents, be immediately removed from the internet.
Court documents are in the public domain and in the public interest by definition. There is one reason, and one reason only, why these woke judges and trans activists have resurrected the medieval Star Chamber against Younger – they seek to cover up evidence of their participation in the crime against humanity.
Under the Nuremberg Code and the legal precedent established in U.S.A. v. Karl Brandt et. al., (The "Doctor's Trial"), "gender affirming care" is non-consensual sterilization of children. It is felony crime. It is worth mentioning that the modern U.S. doctrine of "Judicial Immunity" comes from the case Stump v. Sparkman, in which Indiana Judge Harold D. Stump authorized the forced sterilization of an unwitting teenage girl.
Criminal Penalties Sought by Chazan and Georgulas, Item 3:
3. Alexander Baker is barred from all Los Angeles Superior Courts for any matter in which he is not a party, including appearing via Court Connect.
The trans activists' fear of the truth is on full display, right?
Criminal Penalties Sought by Chazan and Georgulas, Item 4:
4. Monetary sanctions against Respondent [Jeff Younger] pursuant to CCP § 177.5
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 177.5 states that a "judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) ... payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification."
There is no lawful court order in play here. The prohibition against recording remote appearances and the Star Chamber Order are both unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
And, Baker's recording and publishing was done with good cause and substantial justification - namely, gathering evidence of criminal and intentionally tortious conduct by these Rainbow Mafiosos. Baker believes that he has not only the right, but an affirmative duty to record and publish what is going down in Georgulas v. Younger.
Criminal Penalties Sought by Chazan and Georgulas, Item 5:
5.Any other relief the court finds appropriate pursuant to § CCP 128, CCP § 1211 and/or arrest pursuant to Penal Code sections 166(a)(4), 166(a)(5), and 632 (emphasis added).
Cal. Code Civ. Pro Section 128 basically says that a judge can find you in contempt and order you to appear in court if you are disobedient to your overlords. All of § 128 applies only to lawful orders. In the Younger case, the Los Angeles Superior Court is so far out of bounds and acting so illegally in so many ways it is almost beyond belief (until you experience it).
Penal Code Section 166 describes several circumstances under which a person can be charged, tried and convicted of criminal contempt. Chazan and Georgulas ask Judge Juhas (a family court judge with zero jurisdiction in the criminal court), to enforce and prosecute under subsections (a)(4) and (a)(5), which authorize your government to prosecute you for:
• Willful disobedience of the terms, as written, of a process or court order or out-of-state court order, lawfully issued by a court, including orders pending trial.
• Resistance willfully offered by a person to the lawful order or process of a court.
Nothing is lawful about the Court orders Chazan seeks to enforce, even if Juhas did have jurisdiction over criminal matters, which he does not.
Penal Code Section 632 makes "eavesdropping" a crime, allowing your government to prosecute a person who:
intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
The key here is "confidential communication." Ever since the abolition of the Star Chamber in 1641, a court proceeding is a public proceeding, by definition. The Supreme Court of California explains that:
An individual … involved as a party to a civil case is entitled to a fair trial, not a private one. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1210-1211, bolding added)
The Supreme Court of the United States explains why:
The traditional Anglo-American distrust for secret trials has been variously ascribed to the notorious use of this practice by the Spanish Inquisition, to the excesses of the English Court of Star Chamber, and to the French monarchy’s abuse of the letter de cachet. All of these institutions obviously symbolized a menace to liberty.
Whatever other benefits the guarantee to an accused that his trial be conducted in public may confer upon our society, the guarantee [of an open courtroom] has always been recognized as a safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as instruments of persecution. (In re Oliver (1948) 333 U.S. 268, 269, bolding added)
Georgulas and Chazan Waived Confidentiality by Filing a Medical Lawsuit
Chazan contends that James' medical records are confidential, and may not be published. While medical records are generally considered confidential and privileged under HIPPA, there is a very important exception that applies here:
There is an implicit waiver of a plaintiff's constitutional rights to privacy for medical records directly relevant to a plaintiff's claim. By filing a personal injury action plaintiffs place in issue their past and present physical and/or mental conditions related to the injury sued upon. All medical and/or psychological records that are directly related to the claimed injuries are discoverable. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 996, 1016; Britt v. Sup.Ct. (San Diego Unified Port Dist.) (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 844, 862-864, emphasis added)
The automatic privacy waiver regarding medical records in a medical case makes perfect sense. Suppose somebody sues you because they supposedly suffered a broken spine on your property, and are now paralyzed, seeking millions of dollars in damages. Should you, as defendant, not have a right to demand medical records showing the alleged injury?
Chazen and Georgulas Provably Lied to the Court Multiple Times
An attorney owes a "duty of candor" to the tribunal. Supposedly, an attorney will be held in contempt of court and professionally disciplined (if not disbarred) for lying to the court. As to a party like Georgulas, lying under oath about an important issue constitutes the crime of perjury. We wonder: How many lies will Judge Juhas (or any of these Rainbow Mafiosos) perpetrate in service of the goals of the enterprise?
The "James has a treating physician" lie
Chazan and Georgulas have founded this entire Los Angeles action on the February 2024 claim that James Younger had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by Danielle Hurwitz, LCSW, and seen by a “treating physician,” who allegedly “recommends” "puberty blockers" immediately.
The name, contact information and medical records of the supposed "treating physician" was requested on April 17, 2024 in Younger's written discovery. On May 17, Chazan and Georgulas produced a "response" that objected to literally every single request, including Younger's needing to know about the "treating physician."
Younger strongly suspects (but cannot prove without discovery) that the reason his ex wife conceals the truth about "treating physician' is because pediatrician Anne Georgulas herself is the treating physician. Younger further suspects that Georgulas has already put James on puberty blockers.
On June 28, 2024, after stonewalling discovery, and ignoring all efforts to "meet & confer," (as required during a discovery dispute), Chazan emailed Younger's legal team, stating:
I [Alana Chazan] will be sending you [Younger's legal team] the pediatrician's contact information as well as the medical documents that my client [Anne Georgulas] has today. They will be encrypted as the there are current orders precluding your client from having this information. If any of these documents are leaked online or the doctors name's (as Dr. Conn's already was) are leaked online or the child's private medical records are leaked online, I will file for an immediate protective order and for sanctions directly against you as being the only person with access to these records.
Chazan did indeed deliver some documents later on June 28. However, the pediatrician was NOT the alleged "treating physician" in this case. The pediatrician disclosed was one Julie Meichi Yen, MD, while who conducted a "Well Child Physical Exam" with James on May 21, 2024, months after the filing of the request for permission to medically experiment on James, months after they claimed there was a "treating physician" who "recommends puberty blockers" back in February. Here is a screenshot of that report:
As we can see, Dr. Yen did NOT diagnose James with anything, did NOT recommend puberty blockers (or anything), and reported "no acute distress," thus invalidating the contention that James has gender dysphoria, which diagnosis positively requires "distress."
To this day, Chazen and Georgulas have not disclosed the identity of any “treating physician” who has diagnosed anything prior to her filing the instant Request for Order, nor produced any such medical records that existed prior to February 2024.
The "James was diagnosed with GD before February 2024" lie
Georgulas' action, filed in February 2024, contends that James had already been diagnosed with gender dysphoria at that time. Younger served written discovery on April 17, 2024. Only then, on April 23, 2024, did Georgulas take James to see social worker Hurwitz to get a "gender assessment."
The moving papers on which this Los Angeles case are founded, including Georgulas' sworn declaration, are false and perjurious. For example, at ¶ 47 of her 2/26/2024 sworn Declaration, Georgulas states that:
Per Dr. Conn's declaration, Luna has gender dysphoria...
This is patently false. While Bridgid Mariko Conn is a member of WPATH and an outspoken advocate of "gender affirming care," even she would not diagnose James with gender dysphoria. What Dr. Conn actually stated on p. 4 of her "To Whom It May Concern Letter" is:
Without puberty blockers, it is not a matter of if, but when, Luna [i.e. James] will experience Gender Dysphoria, which will have significant impact on her [sic] physical and mental health, and myriad areas of psychosocial functioning.
Dr. Conn most certainly did not diagnose gender dysphoria. She predicted that James will experience it, unless he gets puberty blockers, a distinction made clear in Dr. Grossman's Declaration and Report.
Chazan's "Conn Declaration" lie
Not only that, but Dr. Conn's Letter is not a "declaration" at all. "Declaration" has a legal meaning. To even possibly be considered as evidence, a declaration must offer that the person as a witness, and must be signed under oath and under penalty of perjury. Dr. Conn did neither.
Chazan knows perfectly well what a declaration is, and what it is not. For her to pass off the letter written by Conn as a "declaration" is just another in a long list of lies. Or should we call it a "Conn Job?"
Chazan's "parentage action" lie
On May 28, 2024, the day before a hearing, they brought an Ex parte Motion to Close the Courtroom and "Seal" the Entire Case. The supposed bases for this Star Chamber Order were twofold: (1) Chazen and Georgulas claimed that this was a "parentage" action, i.e. a case to determine who were the parents of a minor child or children; and (2) that because Younger's twin boys were conceived through "assisted reproduction" (in vitro fertilization) that Georgulas was entitled to exercise privacy rights.
It is true that under Family Code Section 7643 a parentage action filed before January 1, 2023 may be deemed confidential. But parentage was never disputed in this case, ever, during its entire eight years pending. Chazan and Georgulas just lied to the Court.
As to "assisted reproduction," there was no mention of that in this Los Angeles case at all until May 28, when Georgulas herself offered up that information in her publicly-filed declaration. Other than needing an excuse to deem this case top-secret, there was no reason whatsoever for Georgulas to offer offer up this information. None.
It's a bit rich to release your own confidential information, then complain that your confidential information is being released. Knowing that there was no precedent for deeming an entire family law case to be top-secret, yet desperately fearing the truth be told, Chazan and Georgulas had to come up with some excuse. And it worked.
On May 30, 2024, Judge Kazadi granted – on an ex parte basis no less – what we now call the Star Chamber Order. The entire case is "sealed," whatever that means. Under the law, certain documents can be filed "under seal," meaning they are hidden from the public record of the case. But the strong presumption is against sealing a document, and the burden of proof is on the party wishing show that a privacy concern outweighs the strong public interest in free access to all court records.
But sealing an "entire case"? That's not even a thing.
As Younger's legal team explained in the Motion to Set Aside the Star Chamber Order, Judge Kazadi didn't bother to even attempt to explain the legal basis for sweeping this entire case under the rug.
Chazan's "Rules of Court authorize this criminal prosecution" lie
In her 7/26/2024 ex parte Request to Jail Jeff Younger, Chazan says:
In reality, Cal. Rule of Court 1.150 says no such thing. Seriously, don't take this author's word for it, just click on the link and read for yourself. There is no reference in Rule 1.150 to § 128, or § 1209, or Penal Code § 166, or Penal Code § 632.
Alana Chazan is just MAKING SHIT UP. This would be bad enough in any case, but here, Alana Chazan is MAKING SHIT UP so as to facilitate Anne Georgulas' insane determination to amputate the perfectly healthy penis and testicles of an innocent little boy.
Rule 1.150 prohibits “photographing, recording, and broadcasting in court.” The rationale for Rule 1.150 is stated in the rule itself, namely it exists to prevent “interference with the proceedings of the court.” See subsection (f). Rule 1.150 is silent on screen-capturing a remote hearing that is already being broadcast by the court.
A review of Rule 1.150 clearly indicates that the Legislature was concerned about media equipment, i.e. “cameras,” “microphones and wiring,” “distracting sound or light,” “operators moving equipment,” “media logos,” etc. See subsections (A) - (F). In sum, Rule 1.150 is entirely concerned with whether a recording or photographing is distracting or interfering with the Court proceedings.
In Younger, Baker did not use a camera, did not use a microphone, did not have wiring, did not make any distracting sound or light, and did not display any logo. All of the lights, cameras and microphones at issue belong to, and were operated by, the Los Angeles Superior Court, not Baker. Since nobody was even aware of Baker recording, it cannot be argued that Baker distracted or interfered with the Court proceedings whatsoever.
No Legislature, and no Court has ever said that the purpose of prohibiting recording was to prevent the disclosure of the truth about what goes down in court. Yet, that is exactly how Georgulas, Chazan and the Rainbow Mafia want to use it now.
Other Penalties Sought by Chazan and Georgulas, Item 6:
6. Sanctions against Respondent [Jeff Younger] pursuant to Ca. Fam Cd. §271
Cal. Family Code § 271 authorizes the Court to award attorney fees caused by the obstreperous litigation conduct of the other side. In anything resembling a fair proceeding,it is Chazan and Georgulas who would be punished for all of the above documented lies.
The attempted use of § 271 to punish free speech is, as far as we know, unprecedented. It is especially troublesome here, where Jeff Younger is not the one who recorded a court hearing, and published court documents. Again, Alexander Baker did, he admits it, he pledges to keep doing it, he acted alone, and stands 100% responsible.
“If these woke judges and trans-activist lawyers want to try to put me in jail because I’m recording them and exposing them – go ahead. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.”
- Alexander C. Baker, J.D., 07/22/2024
Comments