You are guided not to peruse, examine, review or otherwise utilize this website if any of the following conditions exists:
- you have committed a crime
- you have reported or filed one or more false criminal or civil allegations or declarations
- you are Palos Verdes Estates resident Cindy or Dan Dunbar, or have any possible intent of conveying information from or about this website to Cynthia Dunbar or Daniel Dunbar (review the Dunbar Disclaimer below)
Defendant.com extends its deepest gratitude to our country's preeminent First Amendment attorney, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA Eugene Volokh. Eugene's 2013 law review article, "One-to-One vs. One-to-Many Speech" inspired Defendant.com founder's determination to soundly and definitively defeat his false accuser (see below). Thereafter, Eugene's judgement and opinions have been of immeasurable assistance in designing and structuring Defendant.com's online mission to help others similarly targeted by malicious false accusers and biased, misguided social-justice seeking prosecutors. In April 2019, coincident with the widely acclaimed victory by Defendant.com's founder over Cindy and Dan Dunbar, Torrance Judge Gary Y. Tanaka, Deputy District Attorney Elicia Stoller, and the entire Palos Verdes Estates Police Department, Volokh launched a video series on First Amendment Law (click here). Professor Volokh's dedication to thwarting illegal rulings like that of judge Gary Tanaka has led him to form a group that will consider writing an amicus brief to defend your righteous defense (click here).
Defendant.com also owes acknowledgements to both the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Loyola Law School professor Aaron Caplan. The EFF's exhaustive work defending online free speech has included filing numerous amicus briefs (click here) in a variety of invalid, illegal claims of website-based harassment. Professor Caplan also has been a tireless defender of online free speech, including his often-quoted 2013 law review article "Free Speech and Civil Harassment Orders."
"Public Safety Risk" & Husband Besiege Neighbor: The back story of Defendant.com essentially involves alleged malicious prosecution by a one-time convicted felon (Cindy Dunbar, or the "Convict"). The Convict was psychologically evaluated by a police department corporal as "emotionally traumatized" and determined by the California Nursing Board to be a "public safety risk." While calling the police department to report that she could not log into her Nextdoor.com account (actually did this), the Convict herself admittingly stammered to a confused police dispatcher, "I sound like an insane person, don't I?" After years of alleged harassment of a neighbor by the Convict, the California Superior Court granted a restraining order against the Convict. In retaliation, submitting false declarations and testimony under the penalty of perjury, the Convict and her husband (Daniel Dunbar, attorney) induced an incompetent, misinformed, biased and/or corrupt judge into granting an illegal civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) against that same neighbor (the "Victim").
Police Department & District Attorney Both "Play Along": A corrupt and tremendously biased local police department investigation was headed by detective Russell Venegas, who illegally colluded with the Convict. The Convict's husband had contributed money to an effort to save that same department from being replaced by the local sheriff. The Convict's husband for a period of time had his license to practice law in California suspended by order of the California Supreme Court for "simulating" (forging) his client's signature on a settlement agreement. Together with colluding police department officers including Steve Barber, Sean Tomlins, Erick Gaunt and Ken Ackert, Russell Venegas misinformed and misguided Deputy District Attorney Elicia Stoller into filing invalid charges against the Victim. DDA Stoller maliciously maintained her soon-invalidated charges despite being in possession of a tremendous amount of exculpatory and false-accuser credibility impeaching evidence.
Local, Conflicted Defense Attorney Misconducts Himself: Hired to defend the Victim, a seemingly conflicted defense attorney J. Patrick Carey came close to causing serious harm to his victim client. This deceitful attorney falsified and misrepresented settlement communications he had initiated with the District Attorney against his client Victim's explicit instructions. Pat Carey's goal was simple: a (failed) attempt to manipulate and pressure his Victim client into a highly conditional, premature and undesired settlement in order to avoid doing legal work that he "loathed" but for which he had been pre-paid. Victim, suspecting something was awry, acutely modified his interaction with the suspect attorney. By demanding settlement conditions he knew the DA would not accept, Victim successfully delayed and then derailed the settlement discussions in anticipation of an inevitable appellate victory over Cindy and Dan Dunbar (see below).
Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court's Incompetence: Fortunately, before this defense attorney's deceit and duplicity could play out, the Victim's civil appellate attorney prevailed, leading to the illegal order being unanimously reversed by the California Court of Appeal. Consequently, the maliciously prosecuted criminal case was dismissed. In late 2019, Victim filed a $20 million malicious prosecution claim against the local city and its police department.
Defendant.com's mission is to help other innocent defendants in the public - victimized by malicious prosecution - gain perspective and a thorough understanding on how one such victim prevailed over injustice. Inspired by famed defense attorney Alan Dershowitz's bestseller chronicling and disproving the malicious prosecution of him by Virginia Giuffre, Defendant.com presents the following timeline underlying the back story that inspired this site itself. As with Dershowitz's "Guilt by Accusation," it is Defendant.com's sincere hope that other public defendants victimized by malicious prosecution may learn how to dodge the myriad landmines laid by your false accuser, corrupt law enforcement officers, misguided prosecutor, and perhaps even conflicted, dishonest defense attorney. Defendant.com's goal is to eliminate for the public the shock and awe that comes with discovering first hand how the criminal injustice system truly operates.
(Note: links to more case documents, exculpatory and Dunbar-credibility impeaching evidence forthcoming)
- Victim's 2007-2014 friendship with neighbor and attorney Dan Dunbar, despite heightened concerns over wife Cindy Dunbar's mental stability
- Victim's 2014 discovery of wife Cynthia "Cindy" Dunbar's criminal record (including, during the period of 2010-2012, a felony drug conviction)
- Victim's 2014 discovery that Cindy Dunbar had been determined to be a "public safety risk" by the State of California Nursing Board (click here), which caused the surrender of her nursing license
- Victim's July 2014 communication to Cindy Dunbar that victim and his family had determined to terminate any relationship/interaction with Cindy Dunbar
- Cindy Dunbar's 2014-2016 alleged harassment of Victim's wife in reaction to Dunbar's being socially rejected
- Victim's 2014-2016 six E-mails to Dan Dunbar sent only after each of six separate incidents of alleged harassment and/or defamation by his wife, with the clear, legitimate purpose of imploring him to discourage his wife's deleterious behavior; at no time - until after Cindy Dunbar was served a restraining order - does either Dunbar protest or otherwise discourage any of these E-mails
- Cindy Dunbar's alleged harassment of Victim on May 31, 2017 serves as "final straw"
- Temporary Restraining Order granted to Victim vs. Cindy Dunbar by California Superior Court Commissioner Glenda Veasey on June 1, 2017
- Daniel Dunbar's June 17, 2017 retaliation on behalf of his wife, utilizing provably false declarations under the penalty of perjury to obtain temporary restraining order (TRO) vs. Victim
- Torrance, California based Superior Court Judge Gary Tanaka's July 2017 failure to understand and/or apply properly California Code of Procedure Code 527.6. Judge Gary Tanaka's incompetence and/or bias was recognized implicitly when his decision was reversed by unanimous California Court of Appeal decision; click here
- Cindy Dunbar's 2017-2018 feverish efforts to use the illegal CHRO as a "sword instead of a shield," making false reports of order violations in a failed effort to have Victim arrested. In the end, Convict was forced by Victim's attorney to spend time in Inglewood courthouse while Victim never set foot in it.
- Cindy Dunbar's 2017-2019 reported citywide disparagement of Victim, making countless defamatory statements related to having obtained the (illegal and to-be-reversed) CHRO.
- Victim's 2013-2018 efforts to save Palos Verdes Estates from insolvency by replacing Palos Verdes Estates Police Department with Los Angeles Sheriff's Department at less than half the PVEPD's cost (click here).
- Palos Verdes Estates Police Department's (see above) 2017-2018 biased anti-Victim misconduct/collusion with PVEPD financial supporter Daniel and Cindy Dunbar, including myriad violations of explicit Palos Verdes Estates Police Department written policy
- Palos Verdes Estates Police Corporal Kenneth Ackert's October 2017 declaration that Cindy Dunbar's mental state qualifies as "emotionally traumatized"
- Cindy Dunbar's audio-recorded February 2018 admission to confused Palos Verdes Estates Police officer Catherine Placek, "I sound like an insane person, don't I?"
- Cindy Dunbar, along with biased/corrupt PVEPD, during January-March 2018 misguiding and misinforming the District Attorney into filing five petty, unsubstantiated false charges of order violation (click here and see Pages 5 & 6 footnotes; see Elicia Stoller on Defendant.com's "Lawyers Page")
- Cindy Dunbar's 2017-2018 frenetic false reporting of order violations to the PVEPD, unsuccessfully attempting to get DA to stack more charges onto the original complaint
- Cindy Dunbar's 2018-2019 post-CHRO grant multiple video recorded incidents of alleged vehicular assault vs. Victim, including one instance while Victim was carrying his one-year old son
- Cindy Dunbar's 2017-2019 post-CHRO grant multiple video recorded incidents of solitarily approaching Victim at close proximity despite declaring falsely, under penalty of perjury, to be "terrified" of Victim
- Cindy Dunbar's 2018 post-CHRO grant multiple incidents of initiating (unanswered) written communication with Victim, despite having obtained court order restraining same non-contacting Victim from making contact with her
- PVEPD and District Attorney in Summer 2018 are required to turn over mother lode of Brady information and evidence (due to sheer volume, must be posted later). Brady evidence a) disproved Victim's guilt, b) proved Victim's innocence and c) deeply impeached Cindy and Dan Dunbar's credibility and that of her accomplices
- Cindy Dunbar's June 2018 inducement of allegedly criminally false testimony to Deputy District Attorney by her friends/neighbors Marilyn Merrill, Sarah Semitekol, Jennifer Laity, Asli Uzumcu and Selin Uzumcu; in June 2019, police department transmits to District Attorney alleged crimes against public justice by all five via violation of California Penal Code §148.5, but statute of limitations precludes further prosecutorial action.
- Appellate attorney Jeff Lewis's July 2018 filing of Appellant's Opening Brief en route to 2019's CHRO dissolution (click here)
- Victim discovery in August 2018 that the Convict's husband, who along with Convict had filed false declarations under the penalty of perjury, for a period of time had his license to practice law in California suspended by order of the California Supreme Court for "simulating" (forging) his client's signature on a settlement agreement.
- Pre-trial Trombetta motion to dismiss filed in October 2018 exposing Palos Verdes Estates Police Department malice, bias, and misconduct in violation of its own formal policy manual
- Appellate attorney Jeff Lewis's January 2019 filing of Appellant's Reply Brief en route to 2019's CHRO dissolution (click here)
- Appellate attorney Jeff Lewis's January 2019 filing of a motion for sanctions against Daniel Dunbar and his attorney Casey Olsen for making unwarranted personal attacks and false, inaccurate and/or misleading statements
- Pre-trial Gonzalez motion to dismiss (click here and here) filed in January 2019, copying Jeff Lewis's appellate briefs that convincingly argued Judge Gary Tanaka's July 2017 CHRO was illegal and thus DA's related criminal charges "cannot stand"
- Defense attorney J. Patrick Carey's February-March 2019 misconduct in secretly and deceitfully pursuing unfavorable, untimely and undesired pre-trial settlement against his Victim client's explicit instructions (click here)
- Appellate attorney Jeff Lewis's March 2019 filing of a motion for sanctions against Daniel Dunbar and his attorney Casey Olsen for making repeated false statements
- Appellate attorney Jeffrey Lewis in April 2019 prevails in reversing Dunbar's illegal CHRO by unanimous California Court of Appeal decision led by Super Judge Gregory Weingart (click here)
- District Attorney's May 2019 dismissal of all charges following the Court of Appeal's reversal of Judge Gary Tanaka's illegal CHRO
- Torrance, California Superior Court Judge Gary Tanaka, disgraced by the higher court's unanimous ruling that he essentially had failed as a trial judge, appears to impede his required minute order filing for a full month; Tanaka finally complies on July 26, 2019 (click here)
- Victim in November 2019 files $20 million malicious prosecution claim against City of Palos Verdes Estates and its police department.
Views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in Defendant.com's website comment sections belong solely to each comment's author, and not necessarily to the author’s employer, organization, committee or other group or individual. Defendant.com explicitly disclaims any agreement or disagreement with, or endorsement of such views, thoughts and opinions.
Defendant.com's founder engaged in discussion with America's preeminent First Amendment lawyer, Los Angeles's Eugene Volokh, in assessing legal issues relating to its comment sections. Please click here and here for more information on Mr. Volokh's constitutional work. You may click here to watch a 2020 interview with Professor Volokh entitled, "Civil liberties in an epidemic."
Relevant Case Law: "[Courts] as well have recognized that online blogs and message boards are places where readers expect to see strongly worded opinions rather than objective facts. " Summit Bank v. Rogers (2012), 206 Cal. App. 4th at 697; see also, Chaker v. Mateo (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 1148)