Tavis and Bunyard Tries to Stop a 4-Year-Old Girl's Birthday

Is Stopping a 4-Year-Old Girl's Birthday Party with Her Friends Really in the Best Interest of the Child, Mr. Bunyard?

It's time to unwrap Shawn Bunyard of Tavis & Bunyard.

A Family Law Firm Shows the True Intent of Family Law When It Attempts to Derail

a Party for a Little Girl and Her Friends

Mr. Bunyard, I'm tempted to say that you have made the P.R. blunder of your

short, now potentially shorter career. But before looking at the absurdity of

your decision to attempt to stop my four-year-old daughter from having a

birthday party with her friends, perhaps I should ask you what your own

childhood was like and what your relationship is like with your child that

would not compel you to realize what a terrible mistake you've made

even if you thought that preserving high conflict by taking this action would

somehow net you more money or give you an advantage in your client's

custody battle. Because Lucy, you got some splainin' to do.

Sir, are you a complete idiot? Or do you consider yourself a master strategist?

Is drawing the fire somehow going to lessen the public's wrath for your client, a client

who has made allegations against four other men before me including claims of rape,

child sexual endangerment, and abandonment? A client who has multiple children with

multiple last names, and collects child support from two of their dads. Or did you figure

that since your client is losing on the truth front (you've seen the evidence; you're about

to confront more of it), you might have a better chance of prevailing if you just stick with

the order set down by James Bertoli, a judge who, divorced three times, already has demonstrated he

has no business adjudicating over other people's families? As your colleagues on the Family Law circuit say,

"He couldn't get it right himself...three times." Not exactly credentials that inspire confidence in anyone hoping that justice is blind. One might conclude that it's deaf and dumb, too. Have you examined his order rendered when he subbed in for the custody judge in November 2013? "No third party contact during supervised visits."

Did you ever consider the absurdity of that ruling and the bias it exudes?

...PETITIONER AND JUDGE BOTH DIVORCED MULTIPLE TIMES...

Well, consider this: Mother (your client) had no problem with my securing, scheduling, and paying for horseback riding lessons for our daughter. One would think that the horse riding coach, not to mention the horse, would be considered a third party. Or maybe we should count the horse twice considering it has two sets of legs. And what about all those destinations I've taken my daughter to such as three country fairs, the beach, ceramic painting class, the air show, and public (notice the word 'public') parks? Wouldn't all of the people at those locations, like the 10,000 who were around us at the Sonoma County Fair, qualify as third parties? That's one helluva (third) party. What about the children my daughter plays with on slides, swings, in the sand box? What about the cheering section (mostly adults) she has developed at my office when she races inside to check out the latest creatures that have emerged from our 3D printer? Does the presence of those people not violate the order? And have you considered exactly who you're up against here? A dad who will risk prison to see that his four-year-old daughter gets her birthday party? That's the kind of formidable adversary who is afraid of very little. And is not afraid to keep exposing the likes of you and your very evil industry. Nor are his friends. Your client can't arrest all of us, Mr. Bunyard. There are simply too many. Indeed, you might have to build a second San Quentin.

... MOM WAS OK WITH HORSE RIDING LESSONS, THE COUNTY FAIR, POTTERY CLASS, THE BEACH, THE AIR SHOW, A PUBLIC PARK, BUT NOT OKAY WITH OUR 4-YEAR-OLD CELEBRATING HER BIRTHDAY WITH HER FRIENDS?...

To be sure, Mr. Bunyard, were the supervisor and I and LuLu, my daughter, to adhere to the letter and spirit of a ridiculous order, we would have to meet once a week inside my house just to avoid third parties. Oh, but wait, then we would have to ask my housemate to leave the premises. She does, after all, run her business from our home. She's a big fan of LuLu as well; even attended her birthday party, as did a number of adults and children who think you, Bertoli and the entire band of criminals who make up your family-destroying industry, should be drummed off the planet. Or simply exposed for the evil you've been allowed to force on children for too long. But I digress.

Mr. Bunyard, if you were acting on the request of your client, who, I understand, screamed at the paid supervisor when she discovered that although we canceled the very public party at a gazebo in a local public park (there's that word again), and instead took it indoors to a local ice cream shop, then perhaps we should really look at the motivation of your client. Because, after all, you're only working in her best interest. Oh, yeah, what about those words? 'Best interest.' Does LuLu's mother really believe that stopping a four-year-old girl from having her birthday party after she begged me to have it and begged me (have you seen the video?) to have it with her friends present, really qualifies as in our daughter's best interest? Mr. Bunyard, even you, with all of your recent schooling, and as a father to a young boy, must recognize the lunacy in this and the true motive behind the demand: It was designed to harm me, and, in turn, to harm LuLu. Because four only comes once, Mr. Bunyard. Although in your case, one could argue that childhood is something you've never left. Because you come off as a whining child, especially when you're before a judge in a court room. Have you ever seen yourself on video? Might be a good idea to have someone record you sometime. You seem really pathetic, and not just as a lawyer. That might explain your less than stellar reviews on the RIPOFF REPORT and Yelp! Yes, you attempted to rebut those, but even your rebuttals made you out to be a third-rate attorney. (You could seriously benefit from someone like me. An editor.)

...THE PAID SUPERVISOR ENDORSED OUR DAUGHTER'S BIRTHDAY PARTY,

SO MOM AND HER LAWYER DEMANDED SHE BE REPLACED...

As any editor will tell you, you can learn as much from what is not said as from what is. It's very telling that in your demand to the supervised visit agency (signed by your paralegal, by the way; what, we're you too scared to attach your name to it, so you thought you'd have an underling run interference?), you never once referenced the birthday party. Best not to go on record with that one. Best to just state that the supervisor has "lost objectivity and has failed to protect this young child in a manner consistent with the court order" and should, therefore, be replaced. Lost objectivity? Failed to protect this young child...from her own birthday party? Or was the supervisor actually doing her job when she recognized, and then stated in writing (oh, don't worry, you'll see it soon enough) that she determined it was very much in LuLu's best interest to go ahead with the party. Indeed, the supervisor helped make the adorable invitations, which LuLu signed one after another. The invitations she along with the supervisor delivered to her daycare hoping her friends could attend her party. (Mom put a stop to that part, as you know.) The supervisor also authored three glowing reports about my performance as a father and my interaction with my daughter during the past 30 months -- 30 months -- of paid supervised visitation at $175 per visit. (Do the math. It's more than what your client now owes you in fees.) Then again, perhaps your client, and you as her representative, decided that since almost three years of supervised visitation was not delivering you the ammo you had hoped for, it was probably time to change the playing field, shake it up, bring in a new supervisor. Because what can you possibly do with three glowing reports about my role as a dad when this evidence can't possibly help your case? Of course, nor can the videos capturing my daughter begging to stay with me and not return to her mother.

Mr. Bunyard, is any of this getting through to you? Are you assuming it will never see the light of day in Family Court? You know, you may be right. But it certainly hit the radar with the District Attorney. You see, Mr. Bunyard, when your client defrauded the court, the FCS facilitators, and the Petaluma PD claiming that I had threatened to abduct my child during a mild argument with her in September 2012, the same one where I broke off the engagement one hour before she phoned the police, that was pretty dumb of her to do. Because as you certainly know by now, we went and talked with some of the people to whom she said I had repeated that statement. They've denied it, including her former pastor. (You've no doubt seen his sworn affidavit.) But that alone, wouldn't qualify for the D.A.'s office. They prefer not to get involved in domestic disputes. But when your client engaged in an active, intentional conspiracy with another woman who planted letters even a forensic linguist concluded I didn't write in an attempt to set me up? Yeah, that one raised some eyebrows. Which is why she should probably carve out part of the money she's trying to earn at her $19/hr retail job to pay the $33,000 in legal bills you have invoiced her for (you're hoping to get that from me, right? yeah, good luck with that) and redirect it to a criminal defense attorney. Something tells this dad she'll need one. Oh, wait till you see the evidence supporting that investigation. Ouch. A little bit above your pay grade, I suspect.

Now briefly back to that P.R. blunder, Mr. Bunyard. As you read this, so are a few print journalists and one online journalist who work for outlets you've probably heard of. Do you read the paper, Mr. Bunyard? Well, you may want to stop. Because what's coming is going to make you toss up your Cheerios. Just like a little girl who's sick from a broken heart.

Shawn R. Bunyard

Tavis and Bunyard

Santa Rosa, CA

Ralph and his daughter LuLu

by R, Scott

Shawn Bunyard Shawn Bunyard Tavis and Bunyard Tavis & Bunyard The Tavis Bunyard The Tavis and Bunyard Firm

Shawn Bunyard Shawn R. Bunyard Shawn Bunyard Shawn R. Bunyard Tavis and Bunyard Law Firm of Tavis and Bunyard Tavis and Bunyard Family Law Shawn Bunyard attorney Shawn Bunyard Shawn Bunyard Tavis and Bunyard Tavis & Bunyard The Tavis Bunyard The Tavis and Bunyard Firm

Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Want to tell these people what you think

about their Gestapo-style practices

aimed at little children and at destroying families for profit?

Shawn Bunyard: shawn@tavislaw.com

TAVIS & BUNYARD

4010 Montecito Avenue,

Santa Rosa, CA 95404

(707) 578-9386

info@tavislaw.com

A Sample of Visits from Around the World

COMMENT:

First Name:

First Initial of Last Name

City:

State/Province:

Country:

(Optional) Request a follow-up?

Please provide your email address:

Double click here to add text.

All Comments are subject to editorial review. We reserve the right to edit for limitations of space and considerations of taste. (We recognize that this is a lightning rod issue which can induce extremes of emotion, but please try to be nice.) Due to the high volume of submissions, we cannot guarantee that your comment will be posted right away, but we will make every effort to do so. Except for persons who are public figures (judges, attorneys, celebrities, etc.), please avoid the use of personal names of anyone you reference in your replies. Thanks!

COMMENTS POSTED TO DATE

OUTRAGED?

THEN SHARE YOUR ANGER

WITH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

ATTORNEY COMPLAINT HOTLINE

800-843-9053

WHY WE MUST STOP HER BEFORE

SHE CAN

CONTINUE

HURTING MY DAUGHTER.

Tavis and Bunyard, Tavis & Bunyard, Tavis and Bunyard, Tavis & Bunyard, Tavis and Bunyard, Tavis & Bunyard, Tavis and Bunyard, The Tavis Bunyard, The Tavis Bunyard, The Tavis Bunyard, Shawn Bunyard, Shawn Bunyard, Shawn Bunyard, Tavis Law, Tavis Law, Tavis Law, Tavis and Bunyard Family Law, Tavis and Bunyard Family Law, Tavis and Bunyard Family Law, Sonoma County Family Lawyers, Sonoma County Family Lawyers, Sonoma County Family Law, Sonoma County Family Law, Sonoma County Divorce Attornies, Sonoma County Divorce Attorney, Sonoma County Custody Attorneys, Sonoma County Cusoty Attorneys

'Beware the man with nothing to lose.'

-- Anonymous

THE UGLY TRUTH

A case worker speaks up

"Are Family Courts biased against men?"

ASK THIS FAMILY LAWYER

Tavis and Bunyard, Tavis & Bunyard, Tavis and Bunyard Family Law, Sonoma County Family Lawyers, Sonoma~County Family Lawyers, Sonoma County Family Law, Sonoma County Family Law, Sonoma County Divorce Attornies, Sonoma County Divorce Attorney, Sonoma County Custody Attorneys, Sonoma County Custody Tavis and Bunyard, Tavis & Bunyard, Tavis and Bunyard, Tavis & Bunyard, Tavis and Bunyard, Tavis & Bunyard, Tavis and Bunyard, The Tavis Bunyard, The Tavis Bunyard, The Tavis Bunyard, Shawn Bunyard, Shawn Bunyard, Shawn Bunyard, Tavis Law, Tavis Law, Tavis Law, Tavis and Bunyard

I can't imagine my daughter's

mother would understand this.

We know her attorney doesn't.

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez says:

"It's all about money, not the

best interest of the children."

 pink clarinet

Looking at this segment from OPRAH, it's impossible to miss how much this explains my Ex, and how aggressively she has put my daughter at risk because she insists on carrying on the cycle of insanity.

THIS COMMENT SUMS IT UP: Wtf kind of sick demented piece of trash (no offence to trash) would do something like this to a child? There is rope readily available at most stores. I suggest he go hang himself as to not inflict anymore stupidity on our fellow human beings. - William G., Ontario, CANADA

------------------

LuLu's

must be hitting the

right note. Voices of outrage are sounding off from:

Sydney,

Oslo,

Toronto,

Stockholm,

London,

the U.S., Auckland,

Bogota,

Paris,

Johannesburg,

British Columbia,

Adelaide,

Okinawa,

Vilnius,

Madrid,

Mexico City

and yes, right

in his firm's backyard:

Santa Rosa, CA

Birds of a Feather?

Should a lawyer and

the judge he presents cases before really be friends on FB?

 pink clarinet

DECEIVING THE PUBLIC SINCE 2013. THERE IS

'TAVIS & BUNYARD'

The Fathers' Rights Movement is a movement whose members, both men & women, are primarily interested in issues related to family law and child custody.

It is a movement whose members are primarily interested in issues related to family law, including child custody and child support that affect fathers and their children. Many of its members are fathers who desire to share the parenting of their children equally with their children's mother – either after divorce or as unwed fathers. The movement includes women as well as men, often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law.

Most of the members of the fathers' rights movement had little prior interest in the law or politics. However, as they felt that their goal of equal shared parenting was being frustrated by the family courts, many took an interest in family law, including child custody and child support.

Since the 1970’s the divorce laws in most western nations recognized fathers as real parents and both parents are financially responsible, was the emergence of custody battles. Before the 1970’s child custody battles were almost unheard of in the United States.

http://yourchildyourdivorce.com/wordpress/child-custody-rights-for-fathers/

Though it has been described as a social movement, members of the movement believe their actions are better described as part of a civil rights movement. Objections to the characterizations of the movement as a social movement are related to the belief that discrimination against fathers moves beyond the social sciences and originates in government intervention into family life.

Website

http://www.fathersrightsmovement.us/

How to Spot a Narcissist.

There is No Tavis & Bunyard

LATEST UPDATE: BUNYARD BOWS OUT!

We're going to cut you some slack, Mr. Bunyard. After all, given how many times you have visited here in the past year, often at 3, 4, and 5 a.m., just to read and reread, as thousands of others already have read, about the P.R. blunder of your career, it's probably time you were given the chance to rebuild your hemorrhaging practice and, well...get some sleep. But if you try to piss us off in the future, or if you piss off any of our friends and colleagues who have had the misfortune of being dragged into your evil industry, know that we can press the 'PUBLISH' button at any time. Hey, that should keep you up at night.

Oh, by the way, as you're reading this, we're once again capturing your I.P.even when you access this site remotely. Who knew?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hidden for the present. But you never know when it might come back like a freakin' freight train....