Friday, August 1, 2014

FILED July 23,2014 Orange County, Ca. Case #30-2014-00735864

                                                        GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

     This complaint for the cause of action for malicious prosecution is being brought according to the California Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 340.6 and any other related codes permitting a complaint to be filed for malicious prosecution.


1.     David Klassen and Yolanda Marsili were actively involved in bringing and continuing a cross complaint lawsuit against Brooke Skiles aka Bralalalala on the causes of action of extortion and malicious prosecution in Orange County California, case #30-2011-0047-4023. Their suits were first filed on August 3, 2011, both individually and jointly suing Brooke Skiles aka Bralalalala. The trial court dismissed the suits as to the cause of action for extortion without leave to amend when Brooke Skiles filed a demurrer with the court.  The court permitted the cause of action for malicious prosecution relating to a temporary restraining order request, and the filing of a police report to stand for trial.
     2.     Skiles spent much time and effort attempting to block the extortion cause of action in the appeals court where Skiles’ effort was unsuccessful. Klassen and Marsili then filed the cross complaint cases again for the cause of action for extortion after being granted leave to amend by the appeals court. The trial court Judge Lewis expected a speedy trial date, which Skiles was thus unprepared for. The case judges were changed at that time.  Klassen and Marsili’s initial post appeal filing was rejected by the court clerk on November 22, 2011. Yet, only as of the first intended trial date on March 8, 2013, where they appeared before the court Judge Moberly, did they raise this issue in any remotely formal fashion with the court again, that they intended still to sue Skiles for extortion. Their last minute verbal argument to delay the trial based on their alleged need to sue Skiles, permitted an additional delay in Skiles prosecuting her case against Klassen and Marsili, when the judge permitted the delay, after Marsili threatened to appeal any trial ruling in advance of the trial, based on her belief she did not need to file a writ previously when the clerk rejected her amended cross complaint in November of 2011. The date of the second cross complaint filing was March 15, 2013 after that issue conference the first day of the would be trial. The second filing for extortion also came with a bonus lawsuit against Roger Condon for extortion. Condon was named in the initial suits, along with Julianna Taylor, but neither were served with summons.

     3.     The lawsuits filed by David Klassen and Yolanda Marsili on March 15, 2013 against Brooke Skiles aka Bralalalala ended in favor of Brooke Skiles aka Bralalalala at trial in September 26, 2013, with a judgment in favor of Plaintiff ultimately filed by the court on December 26, 2013. Klassen and Marsili each represented themselves at the time of the trial, and neither appeared at the trial.

    4. No reasonable person in either David Klassen or Yolanda Marsili’s circumstances would have believed that there were reasonable grounds to bring the lawsuit against Brooke Skiles aka Bralalalala, who had sued David Klassen after he sexually assaulted her, intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her and libeled her, all by the assistance of Klassen’s accomplice Yolanda Marsili, who was also sued accordingly. The court not only dismissed Klassen and Marsili’s cross complaints against Skiles, but additionally ruled that Klassen and Marsili were liable for all the causes of action alleged against them by Skiles. The court also dismissed the lawsuit against Roger Condon.

    5. David Klassen and Yolanda Marsili acted primarily for a purpose other than succeeding on the merits of the claim. Their ulterior motive was to prejudice the case against them for sexual assault, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress, by attempting to make vicious and unfounded character attacks on Skiles having nothing to do with the facts surrounding the evening of the incident of the sexual battery. Klassen and Marsili presented no factual evidence to support claims of extortion, or malicious prosecution, but the concepts alone they felt were strong ones, generally speaking, which therefore would defend against any lawsuit brought against them. Pairing their imaginative concepts with the social predicament of the generally socially marginalized transgender woman, Brooke Skiles, seemed like an easy victory not even requiring a trial appearance. The case of sexual battery has been filed to the office of the Orange County district attorney by Newport Beach police three times in total to date. The most recent filing in June, 2014 was based on civil trial video depositions of the defendants for the case 30-2011-00474023. Some of the admissions included in those depositions are hereby provided as Exhibit A. The modus of defendants generally has been that anything factually occurring to Skiles by the conduct of the defendants is irrelevant in the face of their general character evaluation of Skiles, including their fabrication of her life story, which they surmised entirely based on presumption, prejudice and a grotesquely false sense of self entitlement upon Skiles.

6. Brooke Skiles, as a consequence of the cross complaints against her, faced delays in prosecuting her case against Klassen and Marsil by one year or more. Skiles incurred extra costs during this time as well, as her one time business relationship with additional cross defendant Roger Condon was strained, as he would no longer be able to assist Skiles directly or with any emergency needs not related to the pending lawsuits. Brooke Skiles was also subjected to years of despicable and unwarranted public scrutiny, consequence to the false cross claims of Klassen and Marsili, who claimed at their depositions for the case that Klassen’s reputation in the film business would be enough reason to ignore Skiles’ allegations.

7. David Klassen’s and Yolanda Marsilis’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Brooke Skiles harm.
                                       JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. The court has jurisdiction over defendants because they are residents of and/or doing business in the State of California.

9. This venue is proper in this county in accordance with Section 395(a} of the California code of Civil Procedure because the defendants, or some of them, reside in this county, and the injuries alleged here occurred in this county.


10. Plaintiff is an individual, who at all times during the events alleged herein resided in Orange County.

11. Defendants are and were at all times relevant hereto were and are residents of Orange County.

12. This cause of action for malicious prosecution arose in Orange County with various filings of cross complaints made by these defendants at the Santa Ana Courthourse under case # 30-2011-00474023.
13. At all times mentioned in this complaint, unless otherwise alleged, each defendant was the agent, partner or employee of every other defendant, and in doing the acts alleged in this complaint, was acting within the course, scope and authority of that agency, partnership or employment, and with the knowledge and consent of each of the other defendants.