Marc E. Angelucci is a practicing attorney who has taken on high profile cases involving paternity fraud and male victims of domestic violence in CaliforniaHe graduated phi beta kappa from U.C Berkeley in 1996 with a B.A. in Philosophy and received a J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 2000 where he received several public interest awards and founded two student bar associations.
He joined NCFM as a law student in 1997 after seeing his friend physically abused for years by his wife and then denied domestic violence services because he is male. In 2001 he formed the L.A. chapter of NCFM and served as its president until 2008, during which time NCFM-LA became an active chapter that organized rallies, filed lawsuits and received significant media attention.
Police Info/Details of the Shooting:
Homicide Detectives are investigating the murder of Marc Angelucci in Cedar Pines Park — DATE/TIME: Saturday, July 11, 2020 4:03 p.m.
INCIDENT: Murder Investigation
LOCATION: 22400 Glenwood Drive, Cedar Pines Park (Twin Peaks jurisdiction)
VICTIM: Marc Angelucci, 52 years old, resident of Cedar Pines Park
SUSPECT: Unknown male
On Saturday, July 11, 2020 at 4:03 p.m. Twin Peaks deputies responded to a report of a shooting at 22400 Glenwood Drive. Upon arrival deputies found the victim, later identified as Marc Angelucci, unresponsive and suffering from apparent gunshot wounds. Medical aid also responded and Angelucci was pronounced deceased at the scene.
The investigation is ongoing. The motive for the shooting is unknown at this time.
Men’s rights activist attorney shot and killed outside home in San Bernardino County
An attorney who rose to prominence in the men’s rights movement was shot and killed at his mountain home on Saturday, according to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.
Detectives are investigating the death of 52-year-old Marc Angelucci as a homicide.
Angelucci was the vice president and board member of the National Coalition for Men. He was the longtime president of the group’s Los Angeles chapter, which he founded.
“Marc was an unbelievably generous man, living on a shoestring despite some personal health challenges so he could donate many millions of dollars of his time to mostly voluntary legal work on behalf of men’s rights and the genuine gender equality that is so badly needed in this country and this world,” said a statement from NCFM.
Angelucci had recently won an equal protection case against the Selective Service Administration overturning male-only draft registration. He previously won a case in California, Woods. V. Horton, that held it is unconstitutional to exclude male victims of domestic violence from state funding for victim services.
He attended the University of California at Berkeley and went to law school at UCLA School of Law. In his career as an activist, he appeared on television shows like Phil Donahue and Dr. Phil, and he also appeared in “The Red Pill,” a documentary from 2016 about the men’s rights movement.
Major Lawsuit Takes On CPS Child Removal Racket in California
Child Protective Services (CPS) is facing a First Amendment challenge in court that could forever change the laws that allow CPS to seize children from their biological parents. Andrea Wood and a minor child have filed a civil rights and conspiracy to violate civil rights lawsuit against Contra Costa County and the California Department of Social Services among others.
The case is being heard in United States District Court — Northern District of California San Francisco Division. Wood’s children were seized following an anonymous call from a vengeful neighbor regarding Wood’s house being trashed — a fake tip that sparked a nightmare for Wood, who eventually got her teenage son back. But her daughter was placed in the care of the very neighbor who called in the fake complaint.
The lawsuit states:
“This case concerns the shocking truth that the County of Contra Costa (“County”), through it agencies Children and Family Services (“CFS”) and Office of the Sheriff and David O. Livingston (together, “Sheriff”), operate under a policy, practice and custom by which they act under color of law to seize children regardless of whether the statutory requirements of “serious harm” or “substantial risk” have been met,”
Plaintiffs believe that the proceedings authorized under Section 300 of California’s Welfare and Institutions Code are criminal in nature, in that they can result in the loss of family unity, a well-recognized fundamental constitutional right. For this reason, Plaintiffs believe that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury, the right to confront accusers, the right to compel witnesses in the defendant’s favor, and the right to an attorney in the “Dispositional” phase of a trial proceeding under the challenged statute. Presumably, Defendants believe otherwise. 192. The Sixth Amendment states, in its entirety: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
A representative for the plaintiff sent us a statement describing the plaintiff’s assertions regarding county counsel allegedly violating HIPAA:
Officers of the court in Contra Costa County are violating Federal Law in attempting to adversely influence the findings of a prominent doctor in a case involving a child with special needs. The County receives federal funding every time a child is seized and retained and they are further incentivized in cases of children with special needs. Could this be why they are so resistant to returning special needs children to their families?
In this case, the attempts by the mother to be reunited with her child have been met with obstacles at every possible juncture. Having completed her recommended case plan to have her child returned, she was informed by the court that she first she would have to admit guilt to a number of charges which were based purely on hearsay. If she admitted to these trumped-up charges, the mother could have her son taken from her in the future based on unsubstantiated reasons and she would virtually be waiving her rights to pursue any type of remedial action.
Ms. Lowe committed a further act of fraud in claiming that the county had not received proof of the mother’s completion of the case plan which included letters of recommendation from her therapist. The mother was not given to opportunity to challenge these lies as she was silenced by Judge Hinton.
To commit fraud, to impinge on patient privacy and to do so for monetary gain at the expense of families and children with special needs, constitutes corruption by any definition. For an officer of the court to does so, in the full belief that she is above the law, suggests that this corruption is systemic. In fact, when Andrea Packwood, President of California Family Advocacy, brought the situation to the attention Grand Jury, the District Attorney’s office and Supreme Court Judge Barbara Hinton, it went unchecked. It seems none of them are willing to enforce the law.”