julian worrell: legally kidnapped, unlawfully


My son, Julian, first from left (second grade)
My son, Julian, first from left (second grade), next to “Emmett Pratt”

“julian jacob worrell” of family, saloom

legally kidnapped, unlawfully

ABDUCTED UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW BY THE WORRELL FAMILY,

Last Seen with/by: Father, Matthew James Worrell; Nancy G. Worrell, Tomball, Texas (Harris County, Precinct 4 Constable on Cypresswood Drive in Spring, Texas); Diane M. Worrell, Houston, Texas (Harris County); complicit, John Kenneth Worrell; Brian and Carey Worrell (League City, Texas, Harris or Galveston County), on knowledge, belief, and strong “demonstrative” and circumstantial evidence with direct testimony

ABDUCTED NEAR HOUSTON, TEXAS

PEARLAND, TEXAS IN BRAZORIA COUNTY

MISSING FROM HIS LOVING MOTHER, “joni faith saloom, “SINCE:  MAY 08, 2012

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN America, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

Texas Family Code Chapter 109| Appeals


     

Texas Family Code

Chapter 109

Appeals: Another Exercise in “Programmatic” Futility

Texas Family Code 109, Appeals, statute/code, but not necessarily US Constitutionally compliant law, Chapter 109, is another problematic “programmatic” issue that plagues the “‘state of Texas'” and its families because those of us who have been coerced and forced (initiation) through legal abuse, or otherwise, into the family court fraud /CPS/adoption/foster care scheme–The Texas Family Code (the bible of these racial hygiene and ethnic cleansing courts for Eugenics and imported Nazi and masonic racists and misogynistic criminal psychopaths in charge, and the “responsible” fathers and stepmothers that support them along with the “no fault divorce” family managing State Bar of Texas (“SBOT”))–do not “under stand” that indigent parents are rarely afforded the right and are routinely blocked from all hope of appeal of clearly legal (but unlawful) official custom, policy, and ratification.  

     We also do not under stand that one cannot appeal without an attorney, list of appellate points, and without findings of fact or conclusions of law, and certainly without any record or transcript of proceedings which are also routinely denied (and were to author of this blog, Julian’s Real Mommy, by the perniciously retaliatory, malicious 310th court and sundry personnel, Judge Lisa Millard, associate Judge Conrad Moren, CPS-appointed guardian ad litem, Donna Everson, and official court “recorder,” Benjamin A. Alva).

     This reads as yet another extortion method in the proverbial toolbox of the “CPS Cluster Courts” of East Texas and adoption and foster care R.I.C.O. court con industry.  

That includes you, bribed Judge Lisa A. Millard and associate Judge Conrad Moren of the 310th court in Houston, Texas (Harris County), but only after Cheryl Harvick, Brazoria County CPS supervisor in Pearland first permanently terminated my “possessory conservatorship” rights on May 08, 2012 before I was compelled and conned into your courtroom.  May others be saved by reading your tactics, and also from your judicial prostitution ring which expands the meaning of child/human trafficking from Florida, Georgia, and Texas (quoting Greg Todd, investigator). 

TEXAS FAMILY CODE

TITLE 5. THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP

SUBTITLE A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 109. APPEALS

Sec. 109.001.  TEMPORARY ORDERS DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL.  (a)  Not later than the 30th day after the date an appeal is perfected, on the motion of any party or on the court’s own motion and after notice and hearing, the court may make any order necessary to preserve and protect the safety and welfare of the child during the pendency of the appeal as the court may deem necessary and equitable.  In addition to other matters, an order may:

(1)  appoint temporary conservators for the child and provide for possession of the child;

(2)  require the temporary support of the child by a party;

(3)  restrain a party from molesting or disturbing the peace of the child or another party;

(4)  prohibit a person from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court;

(5)  require payment of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses;  or

(6)  suspend the operation of the order or judgment that is being appealed.

(b)  A court retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders rendered under this section unless the appellate court, on a proper showing, supersedes the court’s order.

(c)  A temporary order rendered under this section is not subject to interlocutory appeal.

(d)  The court may not suspend under Subsection (a)(6) the operation of an order or judgment terminating the parent-child relationship in a suit brought by the state or a political subdivision of the state permitted by law to bring the suit.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.  Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 539, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Sec. 109.002.  APPEAL. 

(a)  An appeal from a final order rendered in a suit, when allowed under this section or under other provisions of law, shall be as in civil cases generally under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

An appeal in a suit in which termination of the parent-child relationship is in issue shall be given precedence over other civil cases and shall be accelerated by the appellate courts.

  The procedures for an accelerated appeal under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to an appeal in which the termination of the parent-child relationship is in issue.

(b)  An appeal may be taken by any party to a suit from a final order rendered under this title.

(c)  An appeal from a final order, with or without a supersedeas bond, does not suspend the order unless suspension is ordered by the court rendering the order. 

 The appellate court, on a proper showing, may permit the order to be suspended, unless the order provides for the termination of the parent-child relationship in a suit brought by the state or a political subdivision of the state permitted by law to bring the suit.

(d)  On the motion of the parties or on the court’s own motion, the appellate court in its opinion may identify the parties by fictitious names or by their initials only.

 

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.  Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 6.17, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;  Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 421, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001;  Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 539, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 75 (H.B. 906), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2011.

 

 Sec. 109.003.  PAYMENT FOR STATEMENT OF FACTS. 

 

(a)  If the party requesting a statement of facts in an appeal of a suit has filed an affidavit stating the party’s inability to pay costs as provided by Rule 20, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the affidavit is approved by the trial court, the trial court may order the county in which the trial was held to pay the costs of preparing the statement of facts.

 

(b)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit an official court reporter to be paid more than once for the preparation of the statement of facts.

 

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.  Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 472, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;  Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 5.0025, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

 

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

 

Tutt Case, Texas CPS Steals Another


As usual, the only media or press allowed against Department of Family and Protective Services and the local CPS County Boards responsible for unconstitutional, illegal, and completely irrational “child” kidnappings–“removals”–supports the Texas General Fund.  Thus, another adoption/foster care fraud case, among others of the family court fraud and R.I.C.O. scam genre plaguing this nation engaged in a silent war follows, below:

RE-Blogged, Below

The Tutt Case, Texas Home School Association article, letter link below

http://www.thsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2014-01-27-tutt-dfps.pdf

Tutt Case – Call to Action

JANUARY 28, 2014 BY TIM LAMBERT

The Tutt case continues, so we are issuing this update and a call to action. While some of the Tutts’ children have been returned to their home, they have been traumatized by their removal. Some of them were told while in CPS custody that they could not refer to their adopted parents as “mom and dad” but only by their first names. The children are still in public school, and the academic assessment of the children ordered by the judge has not been done, nor has the order to psychologically examine Mrs. Tutt been scheduled. Another child remains in foster care. Three weeks after the order by the judge, and nothing has been done! It appears that no one in the judicial or CPS system is interested in bringing this family back together.

THSC has written a letter to the Texas commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, the department that oversees CPS, and is demanding an investigation into the caseworker and her supervisor who facilitated this travesty. You can read that DPS letter here. We are asking for those who would like to help the Tutts get all their children back and be allowed to resume their home education to help us by contacting Governor Perry’s office and the Texas legislators who make up theSenate Health and Human Services Committee and the House Human Services Committee, committees which oversee CPS. Urge them to contact DFPS and to launch an immediate investigation of the CPS caseworker (Ms. Shan Robinson) and her supervisor (Ms. Diana Etheridge).

These CPS officials facilitated the illegal removal of the Tutt children. For background, see my previous posts on the Tutt case. The bottom line is that a CPS worker investigated an incident and initially said all was well but a month later demanded a psychological evaluation and parenting classes. When Mrs. Tutt pointed out that classes had been taken and that she had a certificate from her physician noting she was physically and mentally fit to care for children, the caseworker said she would consult with her supervisor to see if that would be sufficient.

With no further communication with the family, the caseworker sought a court order to force Mrs. Tutt to have a psychological evaluation. This evaluation was sought in a November 15, 2013, ex parte hearing, of which the family was not notified nor represented and at which the caseworker was not present.

The caseworker stated that Judge Graciela Olvera refused to sign the order and “recommended that the children be removed from the home and placed in custody due to neglectful supervision and also the pattern of CPS referrals during the year.” She also stated, “Judge Olvera expressed concern about the mental state of the parents.”

In other words, the judge who professed to be “concerned about the mental state of the parents” refused to sign an order requiring a psychological evaluation but did sign an order to remove the children based on two of the children wandering away briefly and also on a pattern of CPS allegations, all of which had been ruled unfounded.

The caseworker stated in the presence of Mrs. Tutt and her 25 year-old daughter that she knew there was no cause for removal but that she had to come up with something to satisfy the judge who had issued the order for removal.

This is judicial abuse that was facilitated by CPS officials, and they must be held accountable. Please call Governor Perry’s office at (512) 463-2000 as well as the legislators who oversee CPS (listed in the links above) and demand an investigation into the CPS officials who followed the illegal ruling of Judge Olvera.

THSC will be hosting a press conference to publicize this issue and to demand an investigation into CPS and Judge Olvera on January 29 at 1:30 p.m. at the Dallas County Courthouse. Please join us and friends of the family in support of the Tutts as we publicly call for justice for this family and the return of their children and their freedom to resume home schooling. It is important that we have as many people as possible there in order to draw attention to this travesty. Please spread the word and join us in Dallas on Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. at the Dallas County Courthouse. Old Red Courthouse building at 100 S. Houston Street, Dallas, TX 75202

Call The Governor and Texas Legislators

Governor Rick Perry – (512) 463-2000 – Main Switchboard
Send a message.

Senate Committee on Health and Human Services

Committee Chair:
Jane Nelson
(817) 424-3446 – Grapevine
Send an email.

Vice Chair:
Bob Deuell
(972) 279-1800 – Mesquite
(903) 450-9797 – Greenville
Send an email.

Committee Members:
Joan Huffman
(281) 980-3500 – Houston
Send an email.

Robert Nichols
(903) 589-3003 – Jacksonville
(936) 588-7391 – Montgomery
(936) 564-4252 – Nacogdoches
(936) 699-4988 – Lufkin
Send an email.

Charles Schwertner
(979) 776-0222
(512) 863-8456
Send an email.

Larry Taylor
(281) 485-9800 – Pearland
(281) 332-0003 – League City
Send an email.

Carlos I. Uresti
(210) 932-2568 – San Antonio
(830) 758-0294 – Eagle Pass
(432) 447-0270 – Pecos
Send an email.

Royce West
(214) 467-0123 – Dallas
(214) 741-0123 – Dallas
Send an email.

Judith Zaffirini
(956) 722-2293 – Laredo
Send an email.

House Human Services Committee

Committee Chair:
Richard Peña
(956) 753-7722 – Laredo
Send an email.

Vice Chair:
Naomi Gonzalez
(915) 775-9937 – El Paso
Send an email.

Committee Members:
Pat Fallon
(469) 362-0500 – Little Elm
Send an email.

Stephanie Klick
(817)281-0079 – North Richland Hills
Send an email.

Elliott Naishtat
(512) 463-0668 – Austin
Send an email.

Toni Rose
(214) 371-3300 – Dallas
Send an email.

Scott Sanford
(972) 548-7500 – McKinney
Send an email.

Scott Turner
(972) 722-7887 – Rockwall County
(972) 987-1447 – Collin County
Send an email.

John Zerwas
(281) 533-9042 – Simonton
Send an email.

Share this:

Related Posts:

  1. PRESS RELEASE: THSC CALLS ON CPS TO INVESTIGATE CASEWORKER IN TUTT CASE
  2. Tutt Case Update
  3. Tutt Case – Partial Victory
  4. Tutt Case Press Conference

FILED UNDER: PARENTAL RIGHTSTUTT FAMILY

About Tim Lambert

Tim Lambert, president of Texas Home School Coalition (the state home school support organization since 1986), has been involved in home school leadership in Texas since 1984. He and his wife Lyndsay taught their four now-grown children at home for 16 years, graduating the last two in 2000. As the head of the organization for the leading home school state in the country, Tim is recognized as an authority on home education issues in Texas. In this capacity, he has testified before numerous Texas legislative committees on issues related to home schooling. He often deals with state government agencies, including the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, on home education issues and has served as an expert witness on home education in a number of court cases. He has also addressed such conferences as the Texas Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissi

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

ons Officers on the topic.

Tim holds a B.A. in political science from Texas Tech University and is active in the political arena, having served eight years as Republican National Committeeman for Texas. He is committed to serving the home schooling community and to protecting parents’ right to choose the method of education of their children.

MORE FAMILY COURT FRAUD: Murphy v. MurphyI


Judge Quillian A. Baldwin.Michelle Murphy Case.Coweta County.GA.Newnan.Free Jack and Thomas

CHIEF JUDGE QUILLAIN A. BALDWIN,  credit to author of MURPHY V. MURPHY; Newnan, GA (Coweta County Superior Court)

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF GEORGIA Case No. ___________
Nancy Michelle Murphy and Millard Farmer, Petitioners
vs.
John Harold Murphy, Respondent
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia The Court of Appeals Decision is Case No. A14A1137
Millard Farmer Georgia Bar No. 255300
P.O. Box 1728 Atlanta, GA 30301-1728
(404) 688-8116 millardfarmer@millardfarmer.com
Counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy and Millard Farmer
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Questions Presented
Question One.
     Whether the Court of Appeals, as did the trial court, without any evidence to support an indirect contempt conviction, could, by shifting the burden of proof and using an illegal standard of proof, affirm the trial court’s adjudication of Nancy Michelle Murphy of civil indirect contempt for violating the trial court’s August 23, 2013 Order directing that, “[e]ach party and the Children shall fully cooperate with the custody evaluator” that the guardian ad litem selected and the Court designated.
 Question Two.
      Whether the Court of Appeals and the trial court could, without violating the protections accorded Millard Farmer by the United States Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection provisions and the corresponding protections of the Georgia Constitution, the laws and Rules of Court of Georgia and the holdings of the appellate courts of Georgia, uphold the criminal indirect contempt conviction of Millard Farmer, adjudicate him in absentia, without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, under the following fatal, legal infirmities with the criminal conviction:
1.      When, in a case with two jointly participating lawyers, the charging document only identified the charged individual, as “defendant’s lawyer” [singular, with no further identity]. 
2.      When the August 23, 2013 Order (R. V11 p. 2192) placed a restriction upon the “parties” discussing matters with the children except for implementing the August 23, 2014 Order or the final decree that was used as the basis of the criminal contempt conviction of Millard Farmer.
     The restriction provided, in its entirety, as follows. Neither party shall discuss any of the issues, allegations or claims in this case with the Children, unless such discussions are necessary to implement the terms of this Order or the terms of the Final Decree.
3.      When the restriction was written in the August 23, 2013 Order by the Prosecutors/Plaintiff’s attorneys and when they charged the alleged illegal conduct relating to this “don’t discuss” restriction in their September 27, 2013 Amended motion for contempt, (R. V14, p. 2781) they stated that the charge was that “Neither party shall discuss.”
     This restriction applies only to the “Parties” and certainly cannot be used as the basis for a criminal conviction for anyone other than a “Party.” Millard Farmer was not a “Party.”
     The “Parties” were identified sixteen (16) times in the August 23, 2013 Order, that clearly identified the parties to be only the parents. In another segment of the Order, where the lawyers were intended to be included, the lawyers were identified as the “Parties’ lawyers.”
     There was no restraint placed upon Millard Farmer by the August 23, 2013 Order drafted and presented with an ex parte, hand delivered letter to Judge Baldwin by a Glover & Davis lawyer in order to have 2 the August 23, 2013 Order executed by Judge Baldwin with information never supported by oath or any other form of admissible evidence. (R. V11, p. 2214)
     The August 23, 2013 Order, sought to be enforced with criminal contempt charges, resulted from the wealth of the Plaintiff and his current wife to engage in habitual, litigious efforts to capture Jack and Thomas from these Children’s mother with unnecessary, expensive to defend, schemes that only these wealthy litigants could afford to successfully litigate with their judge-shopped jurist.
4.      When this criminal contempt action was based upon the August 23, 2013 Order that, in part, held and reaffirmed as follows:
     On July 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint and requested this Court have a temporary hearing to determine whether circumstances exist which support a temporary change in the physical custody of the Children * * *
     Pursuant to the terms of the Final Decree, Defendant was awarded physical custody of the Children. . . . The Final Decree specifies the parties have joint legal custody of the Children but it is silent as to which parent has “final decision making authority” on legal custody issues. * * *
Conclusions of Law
     It would not be in the best interests of the Children for temporary custody to be changed.  
Order
     The physical custody of the Children shall not be changed at this time.
     The parties shall continue to exercise the parenting time with the Children as detailed in the Final Decree. 
5.      When, albeit that Millard Farmer was not legally charged, noticed, or that the August 23, 2013 Order was not applicable to Millard Farmer and that Millard Farmer was convicted in absentia, without any admissible evidence showing that he was engaged in any type of discussion that was not a necessity to implement the terms of the August 23, 2013 Order, or the Final Decree.
6.      When there was no evidence supporting the following finding of fact identifying Millard Farmer.
     Based upon the Court’s review of two affidavits signed by the children and filed by Defendant on September 23, 2013 in support of her Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt, the Court further finds that Defendant and Millard Farmer, one of her lawyers, are discussing the issues, allegations, and claims in this case with the children and that such discussions are not necessary to implement the terms of the August Order.

The affidavits (R. V14, pp. 2761, 2768) do not in any manner provide evidence that even if discussions took place the discussions were not due to the professional obligation of the lawyer for Michelle Murphy in order to implement Michelle Murphy’s rights under the August 23, 2013 Order.
     The court only found that defendant’s counsel, Millard Farmer, was found to be in contempt of the provision of the August Order prohibiting “parties” from discussing this case — that would be the professional obligation of an attorney in a case where the client was charged with criminal contempt, as was Michelle Murphy, who was charged with contempt.
     The children had the 4 recorded statement that proved John Harold Murphy swore falsely (R. V14, p.2721) in the contempt charging papers. Millard Farmer was not convicted of anything relating to the final decree.
 7.      When the burden of proof was upon the Prosecutors/Plaintiff in this criminal case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the communications took place and thereafter that the communications were not necessary to implement the terms of the August 23, 2013 Order, and the prosecutors proved neither.
8.      When the prosecutors did not even carry their burden of proving that there were communications about the case or the August 23, 2013 Order.
     And they never presented any information that there was not a necessity to discuss the numerous changes relating to visitation in the August 23, 2013 Order that were necessary to implement that Order.
9.      When the Court, failing to convict Millard Farmer of anything relating to the final decree, which eliminated the issues regarding the final decree, as this would be an acquittal of that criminal charge due the absence of a conviction of that charge.
The criminally charged violation segment of the August 23, 2913 Order follows:
Neither party shall discuss any of the issues, allegations or claims in this case with the children unless such claims are necessary were not to implement the terms of the [August 23, 3013] Order (R. V11, p. 2192)
5      Millard Farmer was criminally convicted of indirect criminal contempt as follows with language not contained in the Order alleged to be violated, supported or noticed in the criminal charging document, unsupported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
     Defendant’s counsel Millard Farmer is hereby found to be in contempt of the provisions of the August Order prohibiting Defendant or her attorneys from discussing this case or the issues raised herein with the Children.
     Mr. Farmer further is found in to be in contempt of this Court because of Defendant’s failure to appear at the duly noticed contempt hearing on October13 Mr. Farmer shall be immediately incarcerated in the Coweta County, Georgia jail for a period of 20 days or until he pays One Thousand Dollars.(“$1,000) to the Court. (R. V17, p. 3628)
     The prosecuting attorneys falsely stated above in the Order that they drafted and Judge Baldwin signed, “…the provisions of the August Order prohibiting Defendant or her attorneys…”
10.      When the Order adjudicating Millard Farmer omits adjudication of the exempting part of the discussing restriction, i.e., unless such claims are necessary to implement the terms of this Order.
     The segments of the criminal charging document that were used as the basis for the criminal conviction of Millard Farmer for indirect contempt of court are as follows.
7.      The Order also provides the following: Neither party shall discuss any of the issues, allegations or claims in this case with the children, unless such claims are necessary to implement the terms of this Order, or 6 the terms of the Final Decree.
8.      Since the entry of the Order, [August 23, 2013] the Children have made several comments to Plaintiff that clearly indicate Defendant and her lawyer have allowed the Children to read the hearing transcript from the August 13 hearing.
     Furthermore, it is evident Defendant and her lawyer have discussed the issues and allegations in this case with the Children since the entry of the Order. (R. V14, p. 2781)
Question Three
     Whether Judge Baldwin was disqualified from adjudicating any of the November 19, 2013 indirect contempt adjudications after January 1, 2013, when the Clerk of Coweta Superior Court, pursuant to the authority of Coweta Judicial Circuit’s long mandated, but only recently enacted, Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management plan, administratively assigned this case to Superior Court Judge Dennis Blackmon, as confirmed to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Georgia by letter (R. V7, p. 1435) that the Coweta Clerk entered into the record of this case, as also confirmed by Judge Blackmon, who, without adjudicating the pending not adjudicated disqualification motions against Judge Baldwin, illegally attempted to transfer the case back to Judge Baldwin (R. V8, p. 1670 and R. V7, p. 1503), as both judges had illegally failed to act upon and comply with the intent of USCR 25.3 and the constitutional Due Process and Equal Protection protections afforded the accused. See, Horn v. Shepherd, 294 Ga. 468, 470 (2014).
     Judge Baldwin is further disqualified, based upon the unadjudicated disqualification motions pending against him at the time that he adjudicated the contempt motions (R.V14, p. 2941) and for his personal bias against Millard Farmer, Larry King, Michelle Murphy and “defendant’s lawyer” (singular, not otherwise identified). (R. V10, pp.1913, 1918, 1927, R. V12, p. 2327; R. V14, pp.2732-2733, 2812, 2898, 2905, 2929; R. V16, pp. 3377, 3379; R.V17, pp. 3652, 3654; Tr. Oct 13, 2013, pp. 17-18, passim)
     The following unadjudicated motions to disqualify Judge Baldwin were pending and not referred to an independent judge for adjudication as mandated by Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 at the time that Larry King identified his plea to the personal jurisdiction of Judge Baldwin and was placed in custody for identifying the disqualification motions in the packed courtroom awaiting the calendar call.
  State v. Hargis 294 Ga. 818 doctrine Record Cite June 13, 2012 No USCR 3.1 case management plan confirmed by Clerk of Court (R. V3, p.437)
July 2, 2012
     Order appointing Elizabeth F. Harwell as Guardian ad Litem at the request of Elizabeth Griffis, disq. Co-Sponsor with Glover&Davis (R. V3, 503) August 19,2013 not allowing evidence, on granting GAL illegal authority to modify custody without Ct, approval and for modification of full Court Standing Order to allow Plaintiff to remove children from jurisdiction of Court. (R. V10 p.1914)
August 28, 2013
     Judge Baldwin’s threat to put Michelle Murphy in jail if she doesn’t physically force children to visit their father (R. V11 p.2195)
Sept. 13, 2013 for continuously violation of USCR 25.3 mandate to cease to act upon the merits of the matter” (R. V12 p.2321)
8      Judge Baldwin denied numerous requests for certificates for immediate review.
     The illegal standard that Judge Baldwin maintained for disregarding his disqualification, as stated many time was as follows.
     So the — on the motion to recuse, I’ll just right now tell you, I find that that motion was not timely filed. I have been in this case for over a year.
     One of the things you have to have is showing that — that has to be filed within — I forget what it is — so many days after you find out who the judge is, stating what the causes are.
     I’ve been in this thing for over a year. You have already tried to recuse me one time, and the Court of Appeals did not uphold your efforts to recuse me, and so my finding is, is it was not timely filed, and that you had already been denied a motion to recuse once before.
     And I don’t believe you can continue, as you go through a case, every time you don’t like some order that the judge has given, that you can try to recuse, and recuse, and recuse him. So that’s my ruling on that. Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 39, line 18 – p. 40, line 9
 Question Four
     Whether the trial court, acting as the trier of fact and the law, used an illegal and unconstitutional standard of law in adjudicating the pending Motions to disqualify him, to proceed at both the contempt hearing and in adjudicating each of the contempts. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 5, l. 23 – p. 6, l. 18)
Question Five
     Whether the court erred in holding Michelle Murphy in contempt for not cooperating, within the time provided by the Court, with the expert witness, Nancy McGarrah, the custody evaluator, who presented an illegal condition for Michelle Murphy to perform in order to “cooperate” by requiring that Michelle 9 Murphy execute this psychologist’s contract (R. V17 p.3627), when, even if Michelle Murphy violated any directive of the custody evaluator, it placed an illegal condition upon Michelle Murphy that would have subjected Michelle Murphy to additional expensive litigation for relief from the following, illegal conditions: Michelle Murphy was required to execute a contract that is void against the public policy of the State of Georgia, in that:
(a)     the contract which Michelle Murphy was ordered to sign in order to be released from jail required Michelle Murphy to grant the psychologist expert witness full immunity from liability (R. V17, p. 3785), (see, OCGA § 13-8-2 (a)(1); Unami v. Roshan, 290 Ga. App. 317 (2008); (see also, fraud issues pending before this Court in Hoard v. Beveridge, S15D0360); not just immunity from liability provided by statute that exempts immunity to a custody evaluator resulting from her bad faith;
(b)      the contract required that Michelle Murphy become financially liable for fees that she cannot afford, as it requires that she pay expensive fees to obtain discovery and production, testimony at trial, or be deprived of this expert witnesses’ evidence that could be necessary to her defense of the expert witness psychologist’s findings or for use by her as evidence against the plaintiff;
(c)      the contract provides that the psychologist be paid 18% interest for late payments of fees (R. V16, p. 3461);
(d)      unless Michelle Murphy executed the contract, the psychologist would not inform her counsel of the method to be used for the “custody evaluation,” and would not provide other information about the scope 10 of the investigation of John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud that would be conducted before rendering an opinion to the Court;
(e)      unless Michelle Murphy executed the contract, the expert witness psychologist stated that she would not talk to Michelle Murphy’s counsel or Michelle Murphy;
(f)      Michelle Murphy would have been subjected to a psychologist who was selected by the guardian ad litem, who was exposed by Michelle Murphy’s counsel for converting to her personal use trust funds provided to her in the case, in violation of USCR 24.9 (8)(g) and exposed for engaging in other illegal conduct that was similar to some of the illegal conduct of John Harold Murphy (R. V12, p. 2326); and,
(g)      the Order appointing the expert witness psychologist stated that “[a]t the final hearing in this case, the Court shall decide whether to allocate the costs of this evaluation between the parties” (R. V11, p. 2192) that could subject Michelle Murphy to having no assets to provide for her children, as the modification of custody litigation has been used to divest Michelle Murphy of her assets with costs a hair stylist cannot afford.
Question Six
     Whether the Court erred in failing to grant the motion to dismiss the charges of contempt (Tr. Oct 13, p. 113) as requested by Larry King.
     The charges did not set forth a cause of action against Millard Farmer or Michelle Murphy relating to the charged conduct, as Judge Baldwin did not have personal jurisdiction of the case with the numerous motions to disqualify him pending that he had not 11 adjudicated, or forwarded to another jurist for adjudicating.
     The charges against Millard Farmer were an abuse of the criminal process designed to weaken the legal representation of Michelle Murphy and thereby also create unnecessary legal cost to Michelle Murphy that these lawyers knew their hand selected jurist would never award to Michelle Murphy, as this jurist has actively participated in attempting to drain the personal assets of Michelle Murphy and made threats that he would not provide her attorney fees. (R. V16, pp. 3648, 3652) In re Crane, 253 Ga. 667 (1985)
Question Seven
     Whether the Court erred in adjudicating attorney fees against Michelle Murphy in an attempted criminal contempt case against her and her attorney under OCGA § 19-9-3, without specificity of the basis for the amount, or consideration of the disparity of the financial assets of the parties.
     The award of the attorney fees was as follows. (R. V17, p. 3627) Findings of Fact In addition to the $6,400 Plaintiff previously paid in connection with the custody evaluation, Plaintiff also has incurred substantial and unnecessary attorney’s fees in seeking to compel Defendant’s compliance with the August Order and in bringing Defendant’s contempt to the Court’s attention.
Conclusions of Law
     Defendant Michelle Murphy shall pay the amount of $5,000 to Plaintiff John Murphy within 30 days of the date of this Order.
     This amount is awarded pursuant of OCGA 19-9-3 and is based on, inter alia the attorney’s fees Plaintiff incurred in seeking to compel Defendant’s compliance with the August Order an in bringing Defendant’s contempt to the Court’s attention. 12 (R. V17, p. 3628)
Additional Reasons in Support of Granting the Petition upon the Questions Presented, i.e., Enumerations of Error
     The grant of the Writ is of great concern and importance to the public required to be subjected to examination by expert witnesses who require full immunity from prosecution as a condition of their service, and to lawyers whose reputations are affected by criminal convictions resulting from an abuse of the criminal process by opposing parties and lawyers seeking criminal convictions and financial assets from the opposing counsel and party after selecting a judge, trier of fact, in a court without a mandated case management plan.
     The “custody evaluator” scheme in no more than the “expert witness” scheme once used in medical malpractice case well-funded medical groups obtained legislative and judicial branch protection. is no such protection for the litigant with less financial resources in a domestic relations case. The choice is, as it was for Michelle Murphy, take it or go to jail and lose by that choice.
Introduction
     This Mother, with sole physical custody of two children, initially with the father’s absence from the family and thereafter by the incorporation of an Settlement Agreement into a 2006 Divorce Decree has successfully raised Jack and Thomas since the children were physically abandoned by their father when they were toddlers, Jack Murphy, age 16, and Thomas Murphy, who will be 14 on January 1, 2015, are legally and constitutionally deserving of due 13 process rights that this hair stylist can afford.
     There have been a barrage of financial attacks upon Michelle Murphy and her counsel, as they have sought to obtain a constitutional forum in which the issues relating to Jack and Thomas can be resolved.
     This fair and equitable forum has not included that of the current jurist, who was obtained by counsel for the Plaintiff’s judge shopping.
     Michelle Murphy obtained counsel without any judicial political connection, as her lawyers had earlier successfully assisted her in recovering for a part of the malpractice by her divorce lawyer that prevented a fair distribution of the marriage assets of the Plaintiff, long before he married his current wife, who is an enormously wealthy hedge fund operator. (R. V14, p. 2925)
     The divorce proceeding, under the absence of a Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 mandated case management plan, shifted Michelle Murphy’s case among five (5) judges, with each picking up a fresh file upon their selection, as judge shopping is prevalent in such a system. (R. V14, p. 2927)
     The absence of a Rule 3.1 case management plan is extremely detrimental to the litigant who does not have a lawyer with judicial political associations.
     Attempting to correct this illegal system has been detrimental to Michelle Murphy, as her lawyers’ only strength was to provide Michelle Murphy and her children statutory and constitutional protections that resulted in a liability to this family, as John Harold Murphy engaged the politically connected Glover & Davis law firm at the suggestion of 14 Judge Louis Jack Kirby, another Coweta Judicial Circuit Judge. (RV10, p. 1919)
     Once the judge-shopped judge was in place, the house of cards begins to tumble with the judge’s selection of the guardian ad litem, who selects the custody evaluator experts favorable to the lawyer who so successfully judge shopped.
     The representation of John Harold Murphy, once the case began with a designated appellate panel, expanded his representation from the three Glover & Davis lawyers to the assistance of the must larger, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, law firm with its cadre of corporate lawyers, whose briefs before the Court of Appeals panel frequently cite to Christopher J. McFadden, et al., Georgia Appellate Practice.
     This petition, with only reliance upon the law and constitutional protections, seeks this Court’s protection that has offered the only glimmer of legal respite for unconstitutional and illegal treatment of Michelle Murphy and the disabling of her counsel.
     The underlying modification of custody action was initiated after Michelle Murphy and the Children chose not to succumb to the threat of John Harold Murphy to be subjected to a modification action if the family did not move from Newnan, GA to Chattanooga, TN in order to live near the Lookout Mountain mansion of Renee L. Haugerud, an extremely wealthy hedge fund operator now married to John Harold Murphy and wanted the children. (R. V10, p. 1919)
15      In this case, the Superior Court of Coweta County never implemented a mandated case management plan until after sustained challenges by Michelle Murphy’s counsel (R. V2, p. 310, R. V17, p. 3649) and until this day, Chief Judge Baldwin has not complied with the mandates of Superior Court Rule 25 et seq. (Recusal) and particularly by not complying with Rule 25 (3.l) of presenting his disqualifying motions to another jurist.
     Judge Baldwin will not allow another jurist to review any of the numerous disqualification motions that enumerate his disqualifying conduct within the required five (5) day of the conduct occurring.
     Judge Baldwin’s unconstitutional application of the law, often expressed as expressed to Larry King at the beginning of the day that these contempt matters were adjudicated, is as follows.
Question Presented One (E of E One)
     The Court of Appeals, as did the trial court, without any evidence in support of Michelle Murphy being held in civil contempt, ordered her to pay John Harold Murphy $5,000 in attorney fees under OCGA §19-9-3 “based on inter alia, the attorney’s fees Plaintiff incurred in seeking to compel Defendant’s compliance with the August Order and in bringing Defendant’s contempt to the Court’s attention” (R. V17, p. 3637) without these lawyers bringing supporting testimony, for what amounts to a failed, illegal attempt to have Michelle Murphy held in criminal contempt for visitation issuesthat even the Court would not accept (R. V17, p. 3627).
16       Michelle Murphy was ordered to pay $5,000 to learn of the treatment of her lawyer, Larry King, for offering to call Judge Baldwin’s attention to legal documents and for not making Michelle Murphy come to Court, and to further learn that her other lawyer, at that time, would be criminally convicted, in absentia, and fined for no legal reason and for no practical reason but to diminish the legal representation of Michelle Murphy and the best interest of Jack and Thomas.
     Malicious abuse of the criminal process, an actionable tort, is one of the detrimental results of judge shopping that occurs when the protections of the Uniform Superior Court Rules are not allowed to protect the politically and financially weak in our society.
     During the attempt at the hearing to have Michelle Murphy held in indirect civil contempt, in absentia, Judge Baldwin, on several occasions warned the Glover & Davis lawyer that he had not presented any admissible evidence to support that Michelle Murphy had not complied with the August Order relating to the expert witness, custody evaluator.
     On one occasion, Judge Baldwin warned the Glover & Davis lawyer as follows. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013 p. 56, l. 8)
THE COURT:      You know, let me tell y’all, I want — One of the problems in this case is, is really to get in the information y’all want to get in, we really need the evaluator, and we really need the driver.
     You know, I’ll let him [John Harold Murphy] go so far as trying to tell things, but a lot of this stuff you just can’t get in because it’s hearsay, and 17 I just — you know, I don’t understand why those folks are not here. I understand the evaluator may cost money and may, you know, have other things to do, but, shoot, I think — you know, I think we need to get them here.
     On the other occasion, Judge Baldwin had held Larry King in direct contempt and ordered him held in custody until he paid a $1000 for attempting to notice the Court of a plea to the personal jurisdiction of Judge Baldwin.
     The affidavit of Larry King in support of the Response to the Amended Motion for Contempt, which the Court of Appeals used at another segment of its opinion, states as follows (R. V14, p. 2910):
17.      During John Harold Murphy’s testimony, Judge Baldwin stated that he wished to talk to counsel in chambers. The court reporter did not proceed to chambers, or take down the communications that occurred in chambers.
17.1      As counsel walked down the hallway with Judge Baldwin to his chambers, he stated, “I did not want to embarrass anyone out there, but I can’t do anything about the failure to cooperate with the evaluator unless I hear from her.” (meaning the Custody Evaluator).
     The Glover and Davis lawyer did not present the custody evaluator or anyone who fulfilled the burden of proof. Judge Baldwin finally reasoned as follows:
The Court:     Okay. It appears to me that just like the situation in a woman getting up and saying, “He hasn’t paid my child support,” it’s necessary for that guy to be in court and refute what was being said. And, of course, his – the plaintiff’s testimony, I believe is sufficient to 18 show that she’s not cooperating with this deal. Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 110.
Judge Baldwin did not make the legal distinction that it was not failure to cooperate with John Harold Murphy that was at issue. Judge Baldwin issued the following Order, prepared by the Glover & Davis lawyers. (R. V17, p. 3627)
     Defendant Michelle Murphy is hereby found to be in contempt of the custody evaluation provision of this Court’s August Order. Defendant shall be immediately incarcerated in the Coweta County, Georgia jail until she complies with the August Order by signing the document previously submitted to her by Dr. Nancy McGarrah’s office.
     The reasoning of the Court of Appeals for upholding the contempt conviction of Michelle Murphy is equally fallacious as that of Judge Baldwin. The Court of Appeals opined as follows.
     And, in a response to the amended motion for contempt which she filed on October 22, 2013, [that was not due or filed until after the October 3, 2013 hearing] Nancy Michelle Murphy expressly defied the August 23 order and declared herself justified in refusing to sign the documents that were a prerequisite to the custody evaluation.
The trial court was therefore authorized to conclude that she had not signed those documents. See OCGA § 24-8-821 (“Without offering the same in evidence, either party may avail himself or herself of allegations or admissions made in the pleadings of the other.”). Murphy v. Murphy, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 760, 18-19 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2014)
19      Counsel for Michelle Murphy was entitled to offer a defense to the criminal contempt conviction that the Glover & Davis lawyer sought, which Judge Baldwin did not impose, and was entitled to present alternative defenses in a brief, as any litigant is entitled to present in any civil case.
     The information that the Court of Appeals claims supported the infirm, indirect civil contempt adjudication was as follows, in Michelle Murphy’s response to the contempt motion prepared by counsel, beginning at R. V16, p. 3459:
     The Conduct of Judge Baldwin on October 3, 2013 is a Part of the Pattern of Obstruction of Justice in the Case
     There was a motion to disqualify Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell (V3 p. 549) that Judge Baldwin denied in a one sentence Order. (V12 p. 2318)
    Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, the guardian ad litem, who is presently still serving, after being caught converting funds, has obtained counsel who has moved to prevent her deposition and inspection of subpoenaed documents, in part, relating to her conversion of trust funds to her personal use.
     This conduct by counsel for the guardian ad litem prevents further documentation of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell’s conversion of trust funds and her other illegal conduct that motivates her retaliation against Michelle Murphy and her counsel.
      The conduct of the guardian ad litem is relevant, as she alone selected a “custody evaluator” to continue the economic assault upon the meager income of Michelle Murphy.
     The contract that the “custody evaluator” requires Michelle Murphy to execute is void as against public policy when the party is ordered by a 20 Court to obtain the services of the “custody evaluator,” as the contract requires Michelle Murphy to waive not just the OCGA § 19-9-3 (a)(7) statutory immunity provided to the “custody evaluator,” but, additionally, to release the “custody evaluator” from all liability (Contract p. 9 XVII IMMUNITY; V15 p. 3318).
     The “custody evaluator” has communicated that she will not begin the evaluation until all the parties sign the contract, (V15, p. 3322) which requires Michelle Murphy to be responsible for a large amount of money subject to 18% interest for past due payments, which depletion of funds from this family would affect the best interests of the children.
     Michelle Murphy is a hair stylist against whom John Murphy and his now spouse, a hedge fund operator, have engaged over six lawyers to economically bully Michelle Murphy into surrendering the children to John Murphy for the sole reason that they can provide the children better economic benefits than Michelle Murphy.
     The Glover & Davis lawyers illegally and unconstitutionally prepared documents to have Michelle held in criminal contempt and civil contempt, without a subpoena or rule nisi to obtain either her presence or the presence of the designated custody evaluator, Nancy McGarrah, that they failed to support with any evidence.
     The trial court illegally required Michelle Murphy to pay attorney fees based upon OCGA §19-9-3 for what was no more than the failure of these prosecuting lawyers to properly notice and prepare their case, if they had one and were not just waiting for a judge-shopped gratuity (R. V17, p. 3627).
     In keeping with the Court of Appeals’ conduct of attempting to supply evidence from the response to the motion, the 21 affidavit of Larry King is again relevant on the absence of notice issue and on the issue of the bias of Judge Baldwin. Larry King swore as a part of the Response as follows. (R. V14, p. 2907)
14.      In response to the calendar call I was prepared to make my announcement in the following order
14.1      I wanted to provide Judge Baldwin of the dates of the pending disqualification motions that were awaiting a ruling by him and that Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 required Judge Baldwin to cease acting on the matter until he ruled upon the disqualification motions.
     The following documents relating to the disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. are pending and awaiting a ruling by Judge Baldwin or an independent judge assigned to hear the motions.
     These disqualification motions are summarily identified as follows.
July 2, 2012
     Consolidated Motions for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. Monday,
August 19, 2013
     Consolidated Motions for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., Constitutional Challenges to Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 et seq. and for Other Uses as Allowed by Law August 28, 2013:
Amendment to Monday, August 19, 2013
Consolidated Motions for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.,
Initiated with this Judge’s “I’ll Put You in Jail” Threats that Motivated John Murphy to Sic the Deputy Sheriff of Coweta County on the Mother of the Children whom She Raised Since John Murphy Abandoned the Family.
Friday, September 13, 2013
 Addendum to Wednesday, August 28, 2013 22
Amendment to the Monday, August 19, 2013
 Consolidated Motions for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.
14.2      After informing Judge Baldwin of the pending disqualification motions, I wanted to advise the Court that the required personal service and a Rule Nisi, had not been given and that the matter was not before the Court.
14.3      I wanted to advise the Court that it had no jurisdiction, as the Amended Motion for Contempt attempted to add what could be one of two parties, identified as the “lawyer” for Nancy Michelle Murphy.
     The adding of one of possible two new parties to the motion for contempt was a violation of the rights of the newly added party but was additionally prejudicial to Nancy Michelle Murphy, as such conduct is detrimental to Michelle Murphy to have Judge Baldwin allowing the Glover & Davis lawyers attacking her lawyer.
14.4      I wanted to advise the Court that the August 23, 2013 Order was on appeal and that any contempt of that Order was superseded by the appeal.
14.5      Additionally, I wanted to advise the Court that the September 27, 2013 motion was not noticed nor ripe for hearing on October 3, 2013.
15.      At some point during my monotone announcement of the above statements of what I felt to be an initial consideration, Judge Baldwin stated something like, “I hold you in contempt. I am tired of all this stuff you all are doing. I order you incarcerated until you pay $1000.00 attorney fees as a purge.”
     It was in this judicial environment that Larry King attempted to defend Michelle 23 Murphy, Millard Farmer, himself and “defendant’s lawyer.” (R. V14, p. 2942)
     The conviction of Michelle Murphy should not stand, as the trier of fact expressed his bias to her counsel for presenting constitutional and statutory defenses. “All parties before the court have the right to an impartial judicial officer.” Stephens v. Stephens, 249 Ga. 700, 702 (292 SE2d 689) (1982).
     The issue of judicial disqualification can rise to a constitutional level since “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (75 SC 623, 99 LE 942) (1955). See also Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (129 SC 2252, 173 LE2d 1208) (2009).
     Judicial integrity is “a state interest of the highest order” because the power and prerogative of a court to resolve disputes rests upon the respect accorded by citizens to a court’s judgments which, in turn, depends upon the issuing court’s absolute probity. Id. at 889.
     “If the public lacks confidence in the impartiality of judges, or worse, refuses to comply with judicial decisions voluntarily, the notion that ‘we are a government of laws’ would necessarily collapse.” Dmitry Bam, Making Appearances Matter: Recusal and the Appearance of Bias, 2011 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 943, 968.
       It is vital to the functioning of the courts that the public believe in the absolute integrity and impartiality of its judges [see Smith v. Guest Pond Club, 277 Ga. 143, 146 (586 SE2d 623) (2003)], and judicial recusal serves as a linchpin for the underlying proposition that a court should be fair and impartial. 2011 B.Y.U. L. Rev., supra, at 949. n 1
24      The commitments of Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (2012) are of no moment to Michelle Murphy, Millard Farmer and her children if she is retroactively shielded from the protections until the expiration of the illegal conduct of a judge and a person to whom the judge has illegally delegated his authority.
     The law books, Uniform Superior Court Rules and Constitutional protections toppled like a house of cards once Judge Baldwin was judge-shopped and initially made no pretense of fairness, by, over strong objection, signing without reading the appointment of the guardian ad litem who had co-sponsored with the Glover & Davis lawyer the night before, a judicial fundraiser attended by Judge Baldwin. (R. V14, p. 2722)
     The Order illegally delegated authority to the guardian ad litem to temporarily change custody of the children without approval of the Court, which Elizabeth Harwell attempted to use. (R. V16, p, 3371; R. V10, p. 2012)
Question Presented Two (E of E Two)
     The August 23, 2013 Order, criminally adjudicating Millard Farmer, and the charging document were each prepared by Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis PA and signed with express consent for Taylor Drake by Michael Warner.
     The August 23, 2013 Order and the charging document were also approved as to form by Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, the guardian ad litem.
     The Glover & Davis lawyers and the Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP lawyers for John Harold Murphy sought upholding of the criminal conviction of Millard Farmer in the Court of Appeals.
25      It is relevant to understand that each of the documents that used the criminal process to financially and otherwise diminish the ability of Michelle Murphy were initiated, prepared and attempted to be enforced by the lawyers attempting to deprive Jack and Thomas of their lives with their mother while enriching themselves with an enormous amount of attorney fees and depleting the financial resources of Michelle Murphy.
     There is no way to gently state that, with the assistance of Judge Baldwin, these lawyers and the guardian ad litem, who is a lawyer, have been compensated to maliciously abuse the criminal process by having Millard Farmer criminally convicted and immediately incarcerated until he pays $1,000, or expends many times over that to be relieved of the criminal conviction that the Court of Appeals has upheld, at their insistence.
     The Order was apparently hastily drafted on Friday, August 23, 2013 by an inexperienced drafter, if it was intended to pass muster for a criminal conviction.
     The Order was drafted to accommodate the social schedule of John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud as a priority to Thomas’s football jamboree that he had planned to attend if the visitation, alternating weekend schedule, had not been changed with the August 23, 2013 Order. (R. V14, p. 2770)
     Within five (5) days of obtaining the August 23, 2014 Order, the lawyers for John Harold Murphy filed a contempt action against Michelle Murphy based in part upon a false swearing by John Harold Murphy, evidence of which one of the children had 26 recorded after the child was informed that John Harold Murphy was no longer going to allow accommodation of the children’s local obligations and visitation as they desired. (R. V14, p. 2765)
     Anyone with teenaged children realizes that children that age do not hang around the house and visit with their parents, nor do they wish to sit in an expensive hotel room at some resort; instead, the children, as their mother well knew, wished to be with own social group around their school friends, as compensation for accomplishing their school work and behaving during the week.
     It is an unrealistic person and judge who yelled at Michelle Murphy as follows about the children not wishing to visit with John Harold Murphy, who made no attempt to participate with the children’s activities, but instead sent a chauffeur to pick up the children on their visitation weekends. Tr. Aug. 13, 2013, p. 259, lines 1 –15
[The Court] . . . I’m going to say that they have got to both go to visitations when they go.
     I am ordering you to make them go.I don’t care whether they jump up and down, scream and holler, lock themselves in their room. Whatever they do, you have got to make them go. Do you understand that?
MS. MURPHY:     Yes.
THE COURT:      And that’s going to be in the order. And I don’t -want you to — I don’t know how to say it any plainer than this, now. And this same thing is going to go for Mr. Murphy. If you don’t do what I tell you to do– and I’m telling you to see that they go; I’m not giving them the option and I’m telling them they’ve got to go. But if you don’t do that, I’ll put you in jail.And I’m not kidding with you.
      Okay?
27      Attempting to treat the children as commodities resulted in exposure of judicial misconduct that even illegal contempt Orders cannot suppress. On the day that Judge Baldwin adjudicated his contempt convictions from the bench, Larry King, one of the lawyers for Michelle Murphy who has now retired and is no longer in the case, was greeted by Judge Baldwin with a boisterous, “You are in contempt” as Larry King, in a crowded courtroom, attempted to announce his presence and to explain his plea to the personal jurisdiction of Judge Baldwin. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 7)
     Larry King was immediately taken into custody by the Deputy Sheriff and required to pay $1,000 in cash, as Judge Baldwin would not accept his check before he was loosened from the Deputy Sheriff. (R. V14, p. 2942)
     Later that morning, Judge Baldwin informed Larry King that he had been mad when he held him in contempt and would refund his money. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 19)
     At the end of the day, Judge Baldwin again summarily announced that he was finding Larry King in contempt for not having Michelle Murphy present in Court and again took his $1,000. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 112)
The Court of Appeals resolved the contempt of the lawyers’ “failure” to have Michelle Murphy present by overturning the conviction of both Larry King and Millard Farmer after an expensive appellate process that still left the contempt convictions of Millard Farmer and Michelle Murphy and required Michelle Murphy to pay John Harold Murphy’s attorney fees illegally based upon OCGA §19-9-3 for 28 the Glover & Davis lawyers’ illegal attempt to present evidence on alleged contempts.
     The point in describing the criminal action of Judge Baldwin against Larry King is to identify the depth of the vindictive hostility of Judge Baldwin to both of the lawyers representing Michelle Murphy.
     The prosecutors of the criminal contempt actions knew that they only need ask and Judge Baldwin would allow them to prepare and obtain the retaliatory criminal conviction against Millard Farmer, who Judge Baldwin accurately knew, brought the disqualification motions and other actions against him, in order to obtain a judge that on appellate review could obtain Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 310 Ga App. 878 (2011) approval.
     Counsel opposing Michelle Murphy were not naïve in expecting that the Glover & Davis lawyers could obtain the criminal conviction from Judge Baldwin that would please their paymasters.
     They knew that with Judge Baldwin, they could draft a criminal conviction Order on which they stood a good chance of obtaining treatment accorded them in Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson Cook Co., 310 Ga App. 878 (2011) with the Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP name on the appellate brief. The lawyers who initialized and attempted to enforce the criminal contempt action against Millard Farmer have adequate legal training in interpreting contracts, and even without criminal prosecuting experience understand the meaning of the charges that they used to obtain a criminal conviction.
29      The term “Defendant’s lawyer” (singular, without further identity) in a case involving two lawyers, both of whom were known personally by the prosecuting individuals, with neither lawyer served a rule nisi or subpoena, that was used to obtain the conviction of Millard Farmer, fails muster for a charging document and procedure seeking the option of obtaining a criminal conviction of either lawyer in the case.
     These lawyers knew that “party” as they used the word in the August 23, 2013 Order did not mean Millard Farmer or Larry King.
     The supporting argument and authority for Questions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is contained in the question presented or in other argument, or authority, as we have reached that thirty (30) page red light. Request for Relief Nancy Michelle Murphy requests that the petition be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
/Millard Farmer Millard Farmer
Georgia Bar No. 255300
P.O. Box 1728
Atlanta, GA 30301-1728
(404) 688-8116
millardfarmer@millardfarmer.com
Counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy and Millard Farmer
30 SECOND DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MCFADDEN and BOGGS, JJ.
NOTICE:
     Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
November 17, 2014
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A14A1137. MURPHY v. MURPHY.
MCFADDEN, Judge.
     Although this is our third opinion in this custody modification action, we are still not presented with a final order on the petition to modify. Instead we are presented with a series of rulings holding appellant Nancy Michelle Murphy and her attorneys, Millard Farmer and Larry King, in contempt of court. Farmer has been held in contempt of an earlier order that prohibited the parties from discussing the case with their children.
     As Farmer signed a brief to which he exhibited affidavits of the children echoing their mother’s anger at John Murphy, there is sufficient evidence to support that ruling; and we find that Farmer received sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard before he was held in contempt.
    Nancy Michelle Murphy has been held in contempt of another provision of that order which Appendix 1, Page 1 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals required her to cooperate with a custody evaluator.
     Any insufficiency of the evidence presented on that charge at the contempt hearing was supplied by her own brief in opposition to the motion for contempt. In that brief she announced that she deemed herself to be entitled to defy the provision directing her to cooperate with the evaluator. And again we find sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard.
    Finally Farmer and King have been held in contempt for failure to have Nancy Michelle Murphy present at the contempt hearing. But as she was not under subpoena and had not been ordered to appear in person, she was entitled to appear through counsel; so that ruling must be reversed. We therefore affirm the trial court’s contempt order in part and reverse it in part.
1. Prior appeals.
     Nancy Michelle Murphy and John Murphy were divorced in 2006. They have two children, born in November 1998 and January 2001.
     In April 2012, John Murphy filed this action, seeking to modify the child custody provisions of the divorce decree. Nancy Michelle Murphy has repeatedly moved to recuse the trial court judge.
Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829 (747 SE2d 21) (2013), her first appeal in this case, was a direct appeal from an interlocutory order denying one of her motions to 2 Appendix 1, Page 2 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals recuse.
     We dismissed on the basis the order was not appealable as a collateral order and was not appealable under the version of OC
GA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) adopted in 2013, which authorizes direct appeals from “judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in contempt of such child custody judgment or orders.”
     Our Supreme Court granted Nancy Michelle Murphy’s petition for certiorari to address whether we erred when we concluded that the 2013 amendment of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) applied retroactively.
     In Murphy v. Murphy, 295 Ga. 376 (761 SE2d 53) (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment did not apply retroactively but nonetheless affirmed the dismissal of Nancy Michelle Murphy’s appeal on the ground that, “even under the prior version of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), there was no right of direct appeal from the recusal order at issue.” Id. at 379.
In the meantime, on August 23, 2013, the trial court entered an order that, among other things, denied John Murphy’s motion to temporarily change physical custody of the children, directed the parties not to discuss the case with the children, ordered a custody evaluation, and directed the parties to cooperate with the custody evaluator. In Nancy Michelle Murphy’s second appeal to our court, Murphy v. Murphy, __ Ga. App. __ (759 SE2d 909) (2014), we affirmed that order.
     We imposed a frivolous appeal penalty against Nancy Michelle Murphy’s counsel, finding that the appeal was frivolous and dilatory and rife with violations of Court of Appeals Rule 10, which forbids oral or written personal remarks that are discourteous or disparaging to any judge, opposing counsel, or any court.
2. Facts underlying the present appeal.
     Six days after the August 23, 2013 order was entered, John Murphy filed a motion seeking to hold Nancy Michelle Murphy in contempt for violating its visitation provisions.
     In response Nancy Michelle Murphy filed affidavits from the children, testifying that the motion for contempt had been read to them in the presence of their mother, that their mother had not interfered with their father’s visitation as alleged in the motion for contempt, and that they were extremely angry at their father for not telling the truth to the court.
     John Murphy then amended his motion for contempt. He alleged that Nancy Michelle Murphy and “her lawyer” were in contempt of the order’s provision prohibiting the parties from discussing the case with the children.
     He also alleged that Nancy Michelle Murphy was violating the requirement of the August 23 order that she cooperate with the custody evaluator in that she had refused to complete the paperwork the custody evaluator required before beginning the evaluation.
     The trial court conducted a hearing on the contempt motion on October 3, 2013. Nancy Michelle Murphy and Farmer did not appear, but King did appear on behalf of Nancy Michelle Murphy.
     After hearing testimony from John Murphy and the driver hired to transport the children from Nancy Michelle Murphy’s residence to John Murphy’s residence, the trial court found Nancy Michelle Murphy, Farmer, and King to be in contempt.
     The trial court found Farmer to be in contempt for discussing the case with the children in violation of the August 23 order.
     It found Nancy Michelle Murphy to be in contempt for wilfully refusing to cooperate with the custody evaluator in violation of the August 23 order.
     And it found King and Farmer to be in contempt because of Nancy Michelle Murphy’s failure to appear at the contempt hearing. Nancy Michelle Murphy, Farmer, and King filed an application for discretionary appeal of the contempt order. We granted the application, and this latest appeal followed.
     We first address John Murphy’s motion to dismiss the appeal, then turn to the deficiencies in the appellants’ brief, and finally, address the merits of the challenges to the contempt order.
3.      Motion to dismiss the appeal. 5 Appendix 1, Page 5 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals
     Because this is an appeal from a contempt order, the appellants were not required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure. OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (2); Massey v. Massey, 294 Ga. 163, 164-165 (2) (751 SE2d 330) (2013) (citations omitted); see also OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) (making “[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in contempt of such child custody judgment or orders” immediately appealable); OCGA § 5-6-37 (“Unless otherwise provided by law, an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by filing with the clerk of the court wherein the case was determined a notice of appeal.”).
     Because they filed an application for discretionary appeal, we have jurisdiction regardless of whether or not they were entitled to follow the direct appeal procedure. OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). So we do not decide if they were so entitled, and we deny John Murphy’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
4. Deficiencies in the appellants’ brief.
     As a threshold matter, we address the deficiencies in the appellants’ brief. The Appellate Practice Act, at OCGA § 5-6-40, provides that enumerations of error are to be concise and “shall set out separately each error relied upon.”  “It is desirable that each enumeration be explicit, precise, intelligible, unambiguous,  unmistakable, and unequivocal.” MacDonald v. MacDonald, 156 Ga. App. 565, 569 (1) (d) (275 SE2d 142) (1980) (physical precedent).
     Our rules direct that, “[t]he sequence of arguments in the briefs shall follow the order of the enumeration of errors, and shall be numbered accordingly.” Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (1).
 
     As to each enumeration of error, an appellant is to specify how the error was preserved and to state concisely the applicable standard of review. Court of Appeals Rule 25 (a). Briefs and enumerations of errors that do not conform to those requirements hinder our ability to determine the basis and substance of an appellant’s appeal. Williams v. State, 318 Ga. App. 744, 744-745 (734 SE2d 745) (2012).
     Appellants’ brief does not conform to those requirements.
     Their brief and enumerations of error is rambling and difficult to follow; several enumerations contain multiple allegations of error.
     These deficiencies are illustrated by enumeration of error four, which is set out in the margin.
1 1      “Whether the court erred in holding Michelle Murphy in contempt for not cooperating, within the time provided by the Court, with the custody evaluator, who presented an illegal condition for Michelle Murphy to perform in order to “cooperate” by requiring that Michelle Murphy execute the psychologist’s contract. (V17 p.3627)
     The contempt adjudication was not supported with proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Michelle Murphy’s violation of the Order.
     If proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Michelle Murphy violated any directive of the custody evaluator, the directive placed an illegal condition upon Michelle Murphy that is being appealed.
     In order to accomplish what Judge Baldwin ordered, Michelle Murphy would have had to be As to some of the issues that appellants attempt to raise, these deficiencies constitute abandonment.
     Appellants do not address each enumeration of error in the argument section of their brief, and their arguments in that section do not follow the order of the enumeration of errors.
     And many of the alleged errors referenced in the enumeration of errors, are not supported with arguments, citations to the record, or citations of authority.
Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) provides, “Any enumeration of error which is not supported in the brief by citation of authority or argument may subjected to the following, illegal conditions: Michelle Murphy would have been required to execute a contract that is void against the public policy of the State of Georgia, in that:
(a)      the contract that requires Michelle Murphy to grant the psychologist full immunity from liability, not just the immunity from liability provided by statute that exempts immunity to the psychologist resulting from her bad faith;
(b)      the contract requires that Michelle Murphy become financially liable for fees that she cannot afford, as it requires that she pay expensive fees to obtain discovery and production, testimony at trial, or be deprived of this evidence that could be necessary to her defense of the psychologist’s findings or for use by her as evidence against the plaintiff;
c)      the contract provides that the psychologist be paid 18% interest for late payments of fees;
 (d)      unless Michelle Murphy executed the contract, the psychologist would not inform her counsel of the method to be used for the “custody evaluation,” and would not provide other information about the scope of the investigation of John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud that would be conducted before rendering an opinion to the Court;
(e)      unless Michelle Murphy executed the contract, the psychologist stated that she would not talk to counsel for Michelle Murphy or Michelle Murphy; and,
(f) Michelle Murphy would have been subjected to a psychologist who was selected by the guardian ad litem, who was exposed by counsel for Michelle Murphy for converting to her personal use trust funds provided to her in the case, in violation of USCR 24.9 (8)(g).”
      Appendix 1, Page 8 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals be deemed abandoned.” See also Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) (i) (“Each enumerated error shall be supported in the brief by specific reference to the record or transcript. In the absence of such reference, the Court will not search for or consider such enumeration.”).
     In spite of these deficiencies, we will review the claims of error that we are authorized to reach to the extent that we can ascertain the appellants’ arguments, Williams, 318 Ga. App. at 744-745, and to the extent they have not abandoned them.
 5.      Claim that trial judge is disqualified.
     The appellants argue that the Honorable A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. was disqualified from adjudicating the contempt motion for two reasons:
     because another judge’s transfer of the case to Judge Baldwin was illegal,
     and because unadjudicated disqualification motions were pending against Judge Baldwin at the time that he decided the contempt motion.
However, the appellants have cited no authority for the 
     Finally as noted above, our previous opinion rebuked appellants for repeated violations of Court of Appeals Rule 10 which provides, “Personal remarks, whether oral or written, which are discourteous or disparaging to any judge, opposing counsel, or any court, are strictly forbidden.” Murphy v. Murphy, __ Ga. App. __, __ (4) (759 SE2d 909) (2014).
     Their present brief is only somewhat better. It includes, for example, repeated unsupported and irrelevant assertions that a particular witness has substance abuse problems.
     We again rebuke appellants. This lack of professionalism does less than nothing to advance their cause. 9 Appendix 1, Page 9 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals proposition that the transfer of the case to Judge Baldwin was illegal.
On the contrary, Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.3 authorizes “an assigned judge [to] transfer an assigned action to another judge with the latter’s consent in which event the latter becomes the assigned judge.” And there are no unadjudicated disqualification motions.
     Judge Baldwin orally denied all such motions before hearing the contempt motion. See Uniform Superior Court Rule 25.1 (“In no event shall the motion [for disqualification] be allowed to delay the trial or proceeding.”).
     The appellants argue that Judge Baldwin was deprived of jurisdiction to consider the contempt motion because the August 23 order was currently on appeal and subject to supersedeas.
     Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (e), however, when a party appeals an order granting nonmonetary relief in a child custody case, the order stands until reversed or modified by the reviewing court unless the trial court states otherwise in its judgment or order.
     The trial court did not state otherwise in the August 23 order, so that order stood and remained enforceable through contempt proceedings notwithstanding the pending appeal. See Walker v. Walker, 239 Ga. 175, 176 (236 SE2d 263) (1977) (custody award that is not subject to supersedeas is enforceable through contempt; decided before July 1, 2011 effective date of OCGA § 5-6-34 (e)).
6.      Contempt citations. 10 Appendix 1, Page 10 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals
     Having addressed these preliminary matters, we now turn to the trial court’s order finding Farmer to be in contempt for discussing the case with the children in violation of the August 23 order, finding Nancy Michelle Murphy to be in contempt for wilfully refusing to cooperate with the custody evaluator in violation of the August 23 order, and finding both attorneys to be in contempt because of Nancy Michelle Murphy’s failure to appear at the contempt hearing.
(a) Violation of the prohibition of discussing this case with the children.
     The trial court held attorney Farmer in contempt after finding that he was “discussing the issues, allegations, and claims in this case with the children and that such discussions are not necessary to implement the terms of the August Order.”
     The appellants argue that this judgment of contempt must be reversed because Farmer did not receive adequate notice and because the evidence does not support it.
(i) Notice.
     The appellants argue that the trial court erred in finding that they had sufficient notice of the contempt allegations against them and the hearing on the contempt. We conclude that the notice was reasonable.
     Whether or not a party is entitled to notice of the charges of contempt and a hearing on those charges depends on the type of contempt he is charged with.
     “Acts 11 Appendix 1, Page 11 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals of contempt are either direct, meaning they are committed within the sensory perception of the judge, or they are indirect, meaning they occur outside the sensory perception of the judge.” In re Shook, 254 Ga. App. 706, 707 (563 SE2d 435) (2002) (citation and punctuation omitted).
     When a party is charged with committing direct contempt, no advanced notice is required and due process is satisfied “by simply giving [the party charged] an opportunity to speak on her own behalf.” Johnson v. State, 258 Ga. App. 33, 36 (2) (b) (572 SE2d 669) (2002) (citation omitted).
     When a party is charged with committing indirect contempt, the party is “entitled, among other things, to reasonable notice of the charges, to counsel of his own choosing, and to the opportunity to call witnesses.” Ramirez v. State, 279 Ga. 13, 16 (3) (608 SE2d 645) (2005).
     Farmer was charged with indirect contempt and therefore was entitled to reasonable notice of the allegations against him. “[T]he notice must be reasonably calculated to inform persons of the charges against them and their opportunity for a hearing at a specific time and place to present their objections.” Hedquist v. Hedquist, 275 Ga. 188, 189 (563 SE2d 854) (2002) (citation omitted). The notice here met those requirements.
 12      Appendix 1, Page 12 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals Appellants were adequately informed of the charges.
     The amended motion for contempt sufficiently specified the allegedly contumacious conduct.
     It sought to hold counsel in contempt for discussing the issues in the case with the parties’ children.
     The appellants argue that referring to “Defendant’s lawyer” instead of “Millard Farmer” rendered the motion insufficient.
     They cite no supporting authority for that argument, and we reject it.
     Appellants were adequately notified of their opportunity to be heard at a specific time and place.
     On September 12, 2014, counsel for John Murphy served upon counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy a “Notice of Hearing” that specified the date, time, and location of a hearing before the trial court “in order for [the trial court] to consider the relief requested in Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt filed in the above captioned matter on August 29, 2013.”
     Counsel served that “Notice of Hearing” by United States mail and by email. Additionally the trial court issued a calendar to counsel for the parties, confirming that a hearing was scheduled for October 3, 2013.
     The appellants do not deny receiving the notice of hearing or the calendar. Counsel for John Murphy served the amended motion for contempt upon counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy on September 27, 2013, six days before the scheduled hearing. Under these facts, we find that the trial court did not err in concluding that the
13       Appendix 1, Page 13 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals appellants received reasonable, sufficient notice. See Gibson v. Gibson, 234 Ga. 528, 529-530 (3) (216 SE2d 824) (1975) (notice less than five days before hearing, which appellant did not dispute receiving, was reasonable). Compare Hedquist, 275 Ga. at 190 (notice of hearing that did not specify that trial court would hear the contempt motions at pretrial conference was inadequate).
(ii) Sufficiency of the evidence.
     Farmer argues that the contempt must be reversed because the evidence does not support the finding of contempt. Our standard of review is dictated by the nature of the contempt, whether criminal or civil. In re Waitz, 255 Ga. App. 841, 842 (567 SE2d 87) (2002).
     The trial court sentenced Farmer to “be incarcerated in the Coweta County, Georgia jail for a period of 20 days or until he pa[id] One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) to the Court.” Because he was sentenced to imprisonment for a specified, unconditional period, Farmer’s contempt was criminal. See In the Interest of J. D., 316 Ga. App. 19, 21 (1) (728 SE2d 698) (2012) (“If the contemnor is imprisoned for a specified unconditional period . . . the purpose is punishment and thus the contempt is criminal.”) (citation, footnote, and punctuation omitted).
“On appeal of a criminal contempt conviction the appropriate standard of appellate review is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier 14 Appendix 1, Page 14 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re Waitz, 255 Ga. App. at 842 (citation and punctuation omitted).
     After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the trial court could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
     Farmer signed the brief to which the affidavits reflecting the children’s knowledge of the case were attached. Also attached to that brief is an affidavit of Farmer himself, notarized on the same day by the notary who notarized the children’s affidavits.
     To the extent Farmer argues that he cannot be held in contempt for violating a provision directed at the parties rather than himself, his argument is unavailing.
     The violation of a court’s order by one who was not a party to the proceedings can be punished as a contempt if the contemnor had actual notice of the order and is in privity with, aided and abetted, or acted in concert with the named party in acts constituting a violation of the order. The Bootery v. Cumberland Creek Props., 271 Ga. 271, 272 (2) (517 SE2d 68) (1999). It is undisputed that Farmer had actual notice of the order and acted as Nancy Michelle Murphy’s representative when obtaining the affidavits from the children.
(b)      Failure to cooperate with the custody evaluator. 15 Appendix 1, Page 15 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals The trial court held Nancy Michelle Murphy in contempt after finding that she had not cooperated with the custody evaluator. The appellants argue that this judgment of contempt must be reversed because Nancy Michelle Murphy did not receive adequate notice and because the evidence does not support it.
(i) Notice.
     Nancy Michelle Murphy was entitled to reasonable notice related to the allegations of indirect contempt for violating the August 23, 2013 court order.
     For the reasons discussed in Division 6 (a) (1), supra, we conclude that she received such notice.
(ii) Sufficiency of the evidence.
The trial court sentenced Nancy Michelle Murphy to incarceration “until she compli[ed] with the August Order by signing the documents previously submitted to her by [the custody evaluator’s] office.”
     This was a civil contempt. See In the Interest of J. D., 316 Ga. App. at 21-22 (1) (“If the contemnor is imprisoned only until he performs a specified act, the purpose is remedial and hence the contempt is civil.”) (citations omitted).
     In civil contempt appeals, if there is any evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that its order had been violated, we are without 16 Appendix 1, Page 16 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals power to disturb the judgment absent an abuse of discretion.” In re Waitz, 255 Ga. App. at 842 (citation omitted).
     We hold that some evidence supported the conclusion that Nancy Michelle Murphy violated the August 23 order by refusing to cooperate with the custody evaluator. The August 23 order set an October 15, 2013 deadline for completion of the custody evaluation. John Murphy testified that he had done everything the custody evaluator required in order to begin the evaluation, yet the evaluation had not proceeded.
     It is not disputed that as of November 19, 2013, the date of the trial court’s contempt order, that evaluation had not occurred.
     And, in a response to the amended motion for contempt which she filed on October 22, 2013, Nancy Michelle Murphy expressly defied the August 23 order and declared herself justified in refusing to sign the documents that were a prerequisite to the custody evaluation.
     The trial court was therefore authorized to conclude that she had not signed those documents. See OCGA § 24-8-821 (“Without offering the same in evidence, either party may avail himself or herself of allegations or admissions made in the pleadings of the other.”).
     This is sufficient evidence to authorize the trial court to conclude that Nancy Michelle Murphy violated the August 23 order by refusing to cooperate with the 17 Appendix 1, Page 17 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals custody evaluator. See Edwards v. Edwards, 254 Ga. App. 849, 854 (563 SE2d 888) (2002) (a person who simply ignores a court order that she believes is erroneous “does so at [her] own peril and must assume the risk of being held in contempt”) (citation and punctuation omitted).
(c)      Nancy Michelle Murphy’s failure to appear at the hearing. We agree with the appellants that the trial court erred in holding Farmer and King in contempt because of Nancy Michelle Murphy’s failure to appear at the contempt hearing.
      Absent a properly served subpoena or court order requiring a party to appear in person, a party may choose not to be present at the trial of the case and to be represented solely by counsel.
     This rule accords with the long-established principle that there is full power on the part of the counsel to represent the client, and it is just the same as if the client were there in person. In re Estate of Coutermarsh, 325 Ga. App. 288, 290 (1) (752 SE2d 448) (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted). See also Masonry Standards v. UPS Truck Leasing, 257 Ga. 743, 743-744 (363 SE2d 553) (1988) (trial court erred in sanctioning defendant for failing to appear in person at trial).
     John Murphy has pointed to nothing that required Nancy Michelle Murphy to appear in person at the 18 Appendix 1, Page 18 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals contempt hearing.
     And because Nancy Michelle Murphy was not required to appear in person, Farmer and King could not be held in contempt for her failure to appear. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Doyle, P. J., and Boggs, J., concur. 19 Appendix 1, Pagge 19 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta, December 04, 2014.
I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.
, Clerk.

 Court of Appeals of Georgia.

MURPHY v. MURPHY.

No. A13A0206.

Decided: July 12, 2013

     Nancy Michelle Murphy appeals an interlocutory order denying her motion to recuse the trial court judge in this change-of-custody case. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

     Nancy Murphy and John Murphy were divorced in 2006. In 2012, John Murphy filed this action, seeking to modify the child custody provisions of the parties’ divorce decree.

      The case was assigned to Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. Nancy Murphy moved to disqualify Judge Baldwin. Judge Baldwin denied the motion, and Nancy Murphy filed a notice of appeal. The case remains pending below.
     “This [c]ourt has a duty to inquire into its jurisdiction to entertain each appeal.” (Citation omitted.) Hammonds v. Parks, 319 Ga.App. 792, 793(2), 735 S.E.2d 801 (2012). Under the version of OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11) in effect when Nancy Murphy filed her notice of appeal, a party could file a direct appeal from “[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases including, but not limited to, awarding or refusing to change child custody․” See generally Collins v. Davis, 318 Ga.App. 265, 268–269 & n. 17(1), 733 S.E.2d 798 (2012) (holding that clear and unambiguous language of former OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11) authorized direct appeal of any order in proceeding in which child’s legal custody, physical custody or visitation was an issue, and noting that it was for legislature to narrow scope of this right of direct appeal).
     Such orders were no longer subject to the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5–6–34(b) or the discretionary appeal procedures of OCGA § 5–6–35(a)(2). See Taylor v. Curl, 298 Ga.App. 45, 679 S.E.2d 80 (2009).
    Effective May 6, 2013, however, the legislature amended OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11) to provide that a party can file a direct appeal from “[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody․” SB 204 §§ 1, 2 (2013).
     The uncodified preamble to the amendment states that its purpose is “to limit the scope of judgments or orders in child custody cases which are subject to direct appeal.”
     And although laws that affect substantive rights apply prospectively only, procedural laws, which prescribe the methods of enforcement of rights, duties, and obligations, apply retroactively. Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804, 808–809(2), 654 S.E.2d 121 (2007). “[W]here a statute governs only procedure of the courts ․ it is to be given retroactive effect absent an expressed contrary intention.” Polito v. Holland, 258 Ga. 54, 55(2), 365 S.E.2d 273 (1988).
     Nancy Murphy filed her notice of appeal from the order denying her motion to recuse. That order does not award, refuse to change, or modify child custody.
     Consequently, the order is not appealable under OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11), we lack jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed. See Stevens v. State, 292 Ga. 218, 734 S.E.2d 743 (2012) (dismissing direct appeals from trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the indictment due to an alleged constitutional speedy trial violation because eight days before, the Supreme Court had determined that such orders were no longer directly appealable but had to follow the interlocutory application procedures).
     To the extent that Nancy Murphy argues that we have jurisdiction over her appeal because orders denying motions to recuse are directly appealable under the collateral order doctrine, we disagree.
     The Georgia Supreme Court has held that a party who wants to appeal a pretrial ruling on a recusal motion has the option to seek an interlocutory appeal or to appeal directly after an adverse final judgment See White v. Lumpkin, 272 Ga. 398, 529 S.E.2d 879 (2000); Chandler v. Davis, 269 Ga. 727, 728, 504 S.E.2d 440 (1998).
     We, too, have held that the appeal of an interlocutory order denying a motion to recuse “requires compliance with the interlocutory appeal provisions of OCGA § 5–6–34(b).” (Citation omitted.) Ellis v. Stanford, 256 Ga.App. 294, 295(2), 568 S.E.2d 157 (2002). See also Rolleston v. Glynn County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 213 Ga.App. 552, 553, 445 S.E.2d 345 (1994); In re Booker, 186 Ga.App. 614, 367 S.E.2d 850 (1988).
     In fact, the interlocutory appeal provision of OCGA § 5–6–34(b) explicitly provides that:
     Where the trial judge in rendering an order, decision, or judgment, not otherwise subject to direct appeal, including but not limited to the denial of a defendant’s motion to recuse in a criminal case, certifies within ten days of entry thereof that the order, decision, or judgment is of such importance to the case that immediate review should be had, the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals may thereupon, in their respective discretions, permit an appeal to be taken from the order, decision, or judgment if application is made thereto within ten days after such certificate is granted.(Emphasis supplied.)
     Nonetheless, in Braddy v. State, 316 Ga.App. 292, 729 S.E.2d 461 (2012), without acknowledging the prior cases or the language of OCGA § 5–6–34(b), we held that an order denying a motion to recuse met the requirements for application of the collateral order doctrine because the ruling concern[ed] a matter wholly unrelated to the basic issues to be decided in the [underlying] case.
     Whether the trial judge could properly preside over the case would be unresolved if review had to await final judgment.
     Finally, the order resolve[d] the matter completely and nothing remain[ed] in the underlying case to affect it.Id. at 293(1), 729 S.E.2d 461.
     This holding misapplied the collateral order doctrine and directly conflicted with OCGA § 5–6–34(b)‘s explicit inclusion of “the denial of a defendant’s motion to recuse in a criminal case” in the category of orders needing a certificate of immediate review, thereby rendering the provision meaningless.
     In Scroggins v. Edmondson, 250 Ga. 430, 431–432(1)(c), 297 S.E.2d 469 (1982), our Supreme Court adopted the test from Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), for determining whether an order falls within the collateral order doctrine.
      Under that test, the collateral order doctrine applies if the order
(1)      completely and conclusively decides the issue on appeal such that nothing in the underlying action can affect it;
(2)      resolves an issue that is substantially separate from the basic issues in the complaint; and
(3)      might result in the loss of an important right if review had to await final judgment, making the order effectively unreviewable on appeal. See Scroggins, 250 Ga. at 432(1), 297 S.E.2d 469(c).
     Braddy misapplied the “effectively unreviewable” prong of the test.In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981), the United States Supreme Court stressed the stringency of the “effectively unreviewable” prong of the Cohen test:
     “To be appealable as a final collateral order, the challenged order must constitute a complete, formal, and, in the trial court, final rejection, of a claimed right where denial of immediate review would render impossible any review whatsoever.” (Emphasis supplied; citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 376.
     In Braddy, we held that this prong was satisfied because “[w]hether the trial judge could properly preside over the case would be unresolved if review had to await final judgment.” Braddy, 316 Ga.App. at 293(1), 729 S.E.2d 461.
     But orders denying motions to recuse may be reviewed and relief afforded after the entry of final judgment. In Johnson v. State, 278 Ga. 344, 349(3), 602 S.E.2d 623 (2004), for example, the Supreme Court reversed a defendant’s convictions for felony murder and related crimes because the trial court should have granted her motion to recuse. In Gillis v. City of Waycross, 247 Ga.App. 119, 122, 543 S.E.2d 423 (2000), an appeal of a final judgment entered after a three-day trial, we remanded the case so that a different judge could consider the plaintiffs’ motion to recuse.
      Because review after entry of final judgment of orders denying motions to recuse can protect parties’ interests adequately, such orders are not appealable as collateral orders.
     And to hold otherwise ignores the explicit language of OCGA § 5–6–34(b). We therefore overrule Braddy, 316 Ga.App. at 292, 729 S.E.2d 461.
     Other courts that have considered the issue generally have held that the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule does not encompass an order denying a motion to recuse because the parties’ interests can be protected adequately in an appeal from a final judgment. See, e.g., In re Martinez–Catala, 129 F.3d 213, 217(II) (1st Cir.1997); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 614 F.2d 958, 960–961(I) (5th Cir.1980); State of Florida v. Countrywide Truck Ins. Agency, 270 Neb. 454, 703 N.W.2d 905 (Neb.2005); State v. Forte, 150 Vt. 654, 553 A.2d 564, 565 (Vt.1988); Kreig v. Krieg, 743 A.2d 509, 511 & n. 4 (Pa.Super.1999).
     In other words, because recusal questions are fully reviewable on appeal from a final judgment, the collateral order doctrine does not apply.
Appeal dismissed.
McFADDEN, Judge.PHIPPS, C.J., ANDREWS, P.J., BARNES, P.J., ELLINGTON, P.J., DOYLE, P.J., MILLER, DILLARD, BOGGS, RAY, BRANCH and McMILLIAN, JJ., concur.

– See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1638666.html#sthash.3tJZiiOs.dpuf

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TROUP COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

Nancy Michelle Murphy,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Civil Action No. 15-CV0109

     Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc., Defendants [Only two Defendants remaining after Fulton Superior Court transfer] The Summary Judgment should be Denied and the Demand for a Jury Trial by twelve persons should be Granted Nancy Michelle Murphy’s Response to the Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.5 Theories of Recovery and Statement of Material Facts of Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc.

     This case involves Nan Freeman, who is an official court reporter engaging in illegal conduct. Nancy Michelle Murphy (or “Michelle Murphy”) responds here to the Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.5, purported Theory of Recovery and purported Statement of Material Facts of Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc. (or, “Nan Freeman,” collectively or individually).

       A substantial portion of Nan Freeman’s Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.5 purported Statement of Material Facts reflects the vindictiveness of those opposing Michelle Murphy for exposing the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin and those, such as Nan Freeman, who attempted to conceal the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin.

     This is to state that Nan Freeman is assisted by persons attempting to support the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin, who have either benefited from the conduct of Judge Baldwin, or who seek to obtain future benefit derived from supporting Judge Baldwin and/or financial benefits derived from John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud.

     The information contained in the March 14, 2014 Motion to Disqualify Nan Freeman in Murphy v. Murphy, in the Superior Court of Coweta County, Civil Action No. 12V-413 (or, “Murphy v. Murphy”) is incorporated and made a part of this introduction, as Attachment 7.

      Nan Freeman’s Motion for Summary Judgment attempts to demean Michelle Murphy and to use the tactics of John Harold Murphy and Judge Baldwin in an attempt to defend Nan Freeman’s illegal conduct and the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin in not adhering to the Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 mandated case management plan.

     Nan Freeman’s Motion for Summary Judgment identifies, as much as anything, the bias of Nan Freeman and that the illegal conduct of Nan Freeman was not that of an innocent court reporter who made a few errors, but that of a person engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct allowing her to obtain illegal compensation and job security by protecting the conduct of Judge Baldwin,  whose judicial authority should have been vacated by the regulatory authorities.

     The e-mails copied and exchanged among those working in Judge Baldwin’s office and Nan Freeman using either the nickname, “Nanny” or “Nan” do not depict Nan Freeman as an independent, unbiased official court report covering matters relating to Judge Baldwin.

     These exchanges, produced in discovery after the deposition of Nan Freeman, are attached to the Affidavit of Kenneth Gordon as “Exhibit D,” and are incorporated here.

     When Judge Baldwin eventually recused himself after twenty or more attempts by Michelle Murphy to disqualify him by all legal means, Judge Baldwin obtained a position for Nan Freeman, as an official court reporter with the newly appointed Coweta Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge W. Travis Sakrison, the son-in-law of Congressman Lynn Westmoreland.

     The recusal Orders of the judges in the Coweta Judicial Circuit in Murphy v. Murphy and the replacement judge are included as Attachment 8.

     No separate response is required to the Theory of Recovery of Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc. (or, “Nan Freeman”, collectively or individually )

     The response of Michelle Murphy to Nan Freeman’s purported Statement of Rule 6.5 Facts Memorandum of Law is incorporated in the Introduction to the Response to Nan Freeman’s Theory of Recovery.

      Just as a heads up — counsel for Nan Freeman filed her motion for summary judgment before Michelle Murphy’s First Amended Complaint was filed and therefore Nan Freeman’s issues in her current motion for summary have become stale and mostly legally immaterial before the allotted time for Michelle Murphy to respond.

     An official court reporter, as was and is Nan Freeman, cannot legally design a template, as she did around 1996, and use it in each of her official court reporting’s contractual fulfilments until she is caught producing illegal transcripts with that template in 2014 and then creditably urge the defense of “mistake” — the law burdens Nan Freeman, as a condition of qualifying and being compensated, as an official court reporter, both to learn and to comply with the legally permissible fees and the legal requirements for the preparation of transcripts pursuant to the Fee Schedule mandated by the Judicial Council of Georgia and OCGA § 15-14- 5.

     Returning compensation which was illegally taken does not absolve one of the consequences of violating the law. Nan Freeman held a position of trust that required both her competence and integrity that she breached to the detriment of Michelle Murphy, that consumed Michelle Murphy’s financial resources and created an enhanced level of prejudice against Michelle Murphy’s effort to obtain custody of J. M. and T. M., her children.

     It is relevant to understand that Judge Baldwin was the exclusive trier of fact in Murphy v. Murphy.

     Michelle Murphy could not obtain a jury trial in that case The fees and the conditions upon which an official court reporter in the State of Georgia can obtain compensation is mandated by the Judicial Council of Georgia.

     Nan Freeman was required by law to charge only the Judicial Council of Georgia authorized fees to persons who wished, or were required, to purchase transcripts from her in her capacity as an official court reporter for the Coweta Judicial Circuit.

     The fees follow that were allowable for Nan Freeman to charge for legally prepared transcripts in the Superior Court of Coweta County case of Murphy v Murphy.

     Nan Freeman did not comply with the certificate requirements, which were legally imposed upon her by the OCGA § 15-14-5, Duty to transcribe statute — Nan Freeman used an abbreviated, incomplete version of the required certificate. OCGA § 15-14-5. Duty to transcribe; certificate.

     It shall be the duty of each court reporter to transcribe the evidence and other proceedings of which he has taken notes as provided by law whenever requested so to do by counsel for any party to such case and upon being paid the legal fees for such transcripts.

     The reporter, upon delivering the transcript to such counsel, shall affix thereto a certificate signed by him reciting that the transcript is true, complete, and correct.

     Subject only to the right of the trial judge to change or require the correction of the transcript, the transcript so certified shall  be presumed to be true, complete, and correct. emphasis supplied

     Nan Freeman, as a part and parcel of her habitual violations of the laws of Georgia, did not provide Michelle Murphy’s transcripts with an OCGA § 5-14-5 required certificate containing the certification that the transcript is “true, complete and correct” as required by OCGA § 5-14-5 — — The transcripts provided and paid for by Michelle Murphy were not true, complete or correct. Nan Freeman has never provided to Michelle Murphy, or other litigants, the required certificate that is an indication of the pattern of her illegal conduct.

     The habitual violations of the OCGA § 15-14-5 requirements and the authorized fees is relevant to identify that Nan Freeman did not just make a onetime error, but instead engaged in a pattern of illegal conduct, including overcharging and not including the required certificate.

     Nan Freeman was therefore not entitled to any compensation, as she prepared no transcript meeting the OCGA § 15-14-5 requirements. If she had complied, the following fees, with which she also did not comply, govern.

     Nan Freeman, by using a template that consistently produced a transcript that did not comply with OCGA § 15-14-5, and using a template that consistently allowed her to collect more compensation than she was permitted to receive under the law, engaged in illegal conduct and actionable fraud, negligent misrepresentation of facts, theft by taking, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion.

     The laws of Georgia do not deprive Michelle Murphy from obtaining damages from an official court reporter who engaged in the illegal conduct in which Nan Freeman engaged.

Procedural Background

Michelle Murphy, through counsel, first, informally and very politely, sought the audio recording of the May 27, 2014 proceedings from Nan Freeman, the official court reporter in Murphy v. Murphy— counsel approached Nan Freeman while she was still sitting at her court reporting station.

     The audio recordings were initially sought by counsel to provide to regulatory authorities to report the Code of Judicial Conduct violations by Judge Baldwin that had just occurred.

     The report of the conduct of Judge Baldwin was appropriate, as his violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct were prevalent on several earlier occasions, but none were as monstrous as Judge Baldwin’s mental blowout on May 27, 2014.

    The audio was relevant to obtaining the removal of Judge Baldwin from Murphy v. Murphy.

     Nan Freeman initially refused the literal begging of counsel to purchase the audio recording for Michelle Murphy’s use — counsel then, to no avail, sought the audio recording with a Georgia Open Records Act request to Troup County, Coweta County and Nan Freeman.

     The Open Records Act request is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 to the Deposition of Nan Freeman, and is Attachment 6 to this response. Counsel sought assistance from the Board of Court Reporting, with first an informal request for help, followed by a formal complaint.

     Counsel for Michelle Murphy was refused assistance in obtaining the audio recordings for Michelle Murphy until after an action was filed against the Board of Court Reporting, Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc., that, with other efforts and concessions, resulted in Michelle Murphy obtaining the audio recordings.

     It was a review of the audio recording that supported the illegal conduct of Nan Freeman.

     Nan Freeman, over an extended period of time, thought to have begun on, or before, 1996, engaged in illegal court reporting that counsel for Michelle Murphy discovered and documented at the initial cost of in excess of $10,000.

     The Answer of Nan Freeman to the original complaint against her by Michelle Murphy is included as Attachment 1.

      That Answer, as well as the complete record of the original case, are now in the records of the Superior Court of Troup County and are relied upon in support of this response. The litigious nature of Nan Freeman in not fulfilling her contract with Michelle Murphy, by engaging in false, demeaning depictions of Michelle Murphy, in this Motion for Summary Judgment and elsewhere, qualifies Nan Freeman’s breach of contract for an award of attorney fees and punitive damages.

     A video recording and official copy of the transcript and video deposition of Nan Freeman are in the record of the Superior Court of Troup County.

      Nan Freeman’s attorney attached a copy of that transcript, without Exhibits, of Nan Freeman’s deposition to Nan Freeman’s motion for summary judgment.

     It is relevant to distinguish between the stringent requirements for an official court reporter to receive compensation, from the requirements of a court reporter, who, for example, reports at depositions.

     In order to obtain the audio recordings of the May 27, 2014 hearing and to have transcribed omitted portions of the transcripts that were thought available with the audio recordings, the Georgia Open Records Act requests were filed by counsel for Michelle Murphy. See Attachment 6 hereto, and Exhibit 6 to the deposition of Nan Freeman includes the Georgia Open Records Act requests to the Counties of Troup and Coweta, and to Nan Freeman.

      After the Board of Court Reporting members were dismissed as defendants from the Superior Court of Fulton County portion of this case, Nan Freeman, on her motion, was successful in having the case transferred to the Superior Court of Troup County.

     The original complaint, upon which the motion for summary judgment relies, was amended before the response Michelle Murphy to this motion for summary judgment was due.

     The Complaint against Nan Freeman contains issues that are embedded within each of the causes of action that affects the damages that should be awarded against Nan Freeman.

     The embedded issues in each cause of action are

(1)      the proportion of the tortious conduct by Nan Freeman that can be attributed to her violation of protections provided to litigants by the Code of Judicial Conduct, OCGA §15-14-5, the Uniform Superior Court Rules, the Constitutional provisions of the United States and the State of Georgia equivalent, First Amendment, Equal Protection, Due Process protections, statutes, decisional law, Georgia Code of Professional Conduct, the Court Reporter Code of Professional Ethics (or, collectively, or separately, “LAW*”).

     Nan Freeman’s intentional participation in the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin in order to deprive Michelle Murphy and her children of their protections under the LAW* by Nan Freeman’s reckless and wanton disregard of consequences, evinced an intention to inflict injury upon Michelle Murphy —

(2)      the proportion of Nan Freeman’s tortious conduct that is attributed to her intent to obtain illegal financial and employment benefits for herself —

(3)      the proportion of Nan Freeman’s tortious wrongdoing that is attributed to her fraud and negligent misrepresentation; and —

(4)      the damages caused to Michelle Murphy as the result of Nan Freeman’s illegal and unethical conduct that included Nan Freeman’s participation in attempting to secret and otherwise participate in the illegal conduct and other violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct by Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. Response to the Individual Statement of Purported Facts relied upon by Nan Freeman in support of her motion for summary judgment. [The purported statement of fact by Nan Freeman is first quoted in an italicized font, then the response follows.]

     Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 12 of 28 1.

     Since 2012, Ms. Freeman has served as the court reporter for Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. of the Coweta County Superior Court. Dep. of Nan Freeman at 8:19-9:12. A copy of the transcript of Ms. Freeman’ s Deposition is attached to the Affidavit of Kenneth Lamar Gordon (“Gordon Affidavit”) as Exhibit A. Response to No. 1

     Nan Freeman has been an official court reporter in the Coweta Judicial Circuit since approximately 1999, and a court reporter since approximately 1996 (Freeman Dep. p. 8).

     During that time, she has been the official court reporter first for Judge Keeble, then Judge Baldwin, and, now, the newly appointed Judge W. Travis Sakrison. At all times excepting August 13, 2013, when another reporter, Alice Moore, was assigned to the case for that one hearing, Nan Freeman was the official court reporter during the Murphy v. Murphy case.

     The official transcript of the deposition of Nan Freeman is filed in the Superior Court of Troup County.

     Counsel for Nan Freeman did not attach the exhibits to the deposition of Nan Freeman, which are relevant to the testimony contained in the transcript.

     The exhibits are attached to the official transcript filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of Troup County. 2.

     From April 2012 until February 2015, (other than a brief period of time in which the case had been transferred to another judge) Judge Baldwin presided over child custody litigation between Plaintiff and her ex-husband, John Murphy (the “Child Custody Litigation”) See Murphy v. Murphy, No. 2012-cv-413 (Ga. Super. Ct., Coweta Cnty. filed Apr. 11, 2012). Response to No. 2

     After Michelle Murphy filed extensive challenges to the absence of a Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management plan with disqualification motions and otherwise in the Superior Court of Coweta County, a Rule 3.1 mandated case Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 13 of 28 management plan was implemented by the Coweta Judicial Circuit.

     Under that plan, Judge Dennis Blackmon was assigned the Murphy v. Murphy case, as confirmed by the Clerk of the Superior Court of Coweta County. Judge Baldwin, through a process that did not comply with the LAW*, obtained the case from Judge Blackmon.

     There were continuous pleas to the jurisdiction of Judge Baldwin presiding after Judge Blackmon’s Rule 3.1 case management plan assignment. The Murphy v. Murphy case was a modification of custody, or in the Alternative, Parenting Time of John Harold Murphy that also involved a modification of child support.

     John Harold Murphy initiated the litigation that resulted in Counterclaims against John Harold Murphy and a Third Party Complaint against Renee L. Haugerud, his spouse, who is a hedge fund operator. At that time, the case in the Superior Court of Coweta County was styled as follows.

     John Harold Murphy, Plaintiff vs. Civil Action No. 12V-413 Nancy Michelle Murphy, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff vs. A Jury Trial is Requested on the Child Support Issues, the Counterclaim and the Third Party Complaint Renee Haugerud, Third Party Defendant The hedge fund operator, third party defendant was dismissed by Judge Baldwin without allowing a hearing.

     Judge Baldwin refused counsel for Michelle Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 14 of 28 Murphy the right to depose Renee L. Haugerud or to call her as a witness at any time, despite numerous requests. 3.

     On April 1, 2014, Judge Baldwin issued an Order in the Child Custody Litigation (a) requiring Plaintiff to submit to a psychological examination pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-35;

(b)      setting a compliance hearing for May 27, 2014; and

(c)      warning Plaintiff that the issue of temporary custody of the children would be considered at the compliance hearing, if necessary.

     A copy of the April 1, 2014 Order in the Child Custody Litigation is attached to the Gordon Affidavit as Exhibit B. Response to No. 3

     On April 1, 2014, Judge Baldwin filed an Order in Murphy v Murphy, that is incorporated as Attachment 2.

     The Attachment is the representation of the designation of the content of the Order, as Michelle Murphy is opposed to the characterization of the litigation and the characterization of the Order contained in the No. 3 statement of purported fact of Nan Freeman.

4.      On May 27, 2014, Judge Baldwin conducted the compliance hearing in the Child Custody Litigation.

     Following Plaintiff’s admission on the stand that she had failed to comply with the Rule 35 psychological examination, Judge Baldwin awarded temporary custody of the children to Plaintiff’s ex-husband, John Murphy. Response to No. 4 Judge Baldwin, on May 27, 2014 did not conduct a hearing that provided Michelle Murphy her Due Process rights, as Judge Baldwin presided at a proceeding that violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, as evidenced by his recusal. Attachment 8, p. 1 is incorporated here.

     On May 27, 2014, Judge Baldwin commenced what was scheduled to be a hearing in the case of Murphy v. Murphy.

     Judge Baldwin would not allow any of Michelle Murphy’s witnesses to testify and would not even allow direct examination of Michelle Murphy by her counsel, while Judge Baldwin, in attempting to examine Michelle Murphy, violated the Code of Judicial Conduct as well as the protections that the law provided to Michelle Murphy.

     Judge Baldwin abruptly refused to allow Michelle Murphy even to explain her answers to questions that he posed, or questions posed by opposing counsel. Judge Baldwin apparently predetermined that he was going to use his judicial authority to abuse Michelle Murphy. Judge Baldwin, by illegal and unethical conduct, attempted to and did prevent Michelle Murphy from presenting her justifiable defense.

     Judge Baldwin would not allow Michelle Murphy, through her testimony, or through her witnesses’ testimony, to present her defenses.

     The characterization of the litigation and the purpose of the proceeding is inaccurate, and is accurately explained in the Affidavit of Michelle Murphy, Attachment 3.

     Nan Freeman’s illegal conduct deprived Michelle Murphy of a verbatim transcription or even a complete and accurate audio version of the May 27, 2014 proceeding, explained in the First Amended Complaint against Nan Freeman as follows.

     Nan Freeman, intentionally or through negligence engaged in a deceptive physical appearance at the May 27, 2014 proceeding that Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 16 of 28 gave Michelle Murphy and her counsel the appearance that she was fulfilling her legal obligations in the courtroom, as an official court reporter under contract to Michelle Murphy, including being located at her reporting station with her equipment, that was a scheme or an artifice to defraud Michelle Murphy and thereby her counsel and the appellate courts and all other courts.

       On May 27, 2014, Nan Freeman failed to take down, audio record, accurately and completely transcribe Judge Baldwin’s Order and assurance to Michelle Murphy, her children and her counsel that the children would be allowed to testify at the May 27, 2014 proceeding, and, thereby, deceptively engaged in actionable fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct, creating damages sought in the First Amended Complaint against Nan Freeman by Michelle Murphy. See, Affidavit of Millard Farmer attached to this Response.

     At the time of the May 27, 2014 proceeding, Nan Freeman was a person known to Michelle Murphy and her counsel as the official court reporter who was assigned to the case as the official reporter whom Michelle Murphy, through her counsel, contracted to report and transcribe the proceeding on May 27, 2014.

     Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct, requested that Michelle Murphy make payment to her for work which Nan Freeman deceptively failed to perform while appearing to perform as required by the Board of Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 17 of 28 Court Reporting Rules and Regulations.

     Nan Freeman charged, and Michelle Murphy paid for pages of the transcript that did not meet the legal requirements of being page eligible to be included in the fee charged and collected by Nan Freeman.

     In addition to not recording and transcribing the first part of the proceedings, while deceptively appearing to be recording the court proceedings, Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation, provided Michelle Murphy, opposing counsel and the Court a certificate stating that the transcript of the May 27, 2014 proceedings provided to the parties, which Nan Freeman was compensated to produce, was a “true” record of the proceedings. (Freeman Dep., Exhibit 5)

     Not only was the certificate not legal, but Nan Freeman had illegally charged for ineligible pages and omitted portions of the proceedings.

     Nan Freeman, who personally transcribed the transcript from a recording that she produced, (Freeman Dep. p. 7) as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct, in addition to omitting the beginning of the proceeding, omitted the four pages of Judge Baldwin’s massive temper tantrum at the end of the proceeding that no human in attendance could forget.

     Nan Freeman engaged in fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct by attempting to have Judge Baldwin use his authority as the presiding Judge to influence counsel for Michelle Murphy not to bring an action against Nan Freeman that ultimately provided counsel for Michelle Murphy the information to learn of a substantial portion of the fraud and/or alternatively negligent misrepresentation conduct of Nan Freeman, much of which was verified during the deposition of Nan Freeman, where she continued to conceal her fraud and/or alternatively negligent misrepresentation, by first making false statements and frequently feigning that she did not remember.

5.       After issuing this ruling, Judge Baldwin stated ”that’s the end of this hearing today” and left the bench. Compl., Attach. 7, at 41. Response to No. 5 Purported Statement 5 is deceptive, as it attempts to imply the end of the proceeding. Instead, Judge Baldwin stood up, but did not leave the bench, and immediately was engaged by counsel and responded with his monstrous temper tantrum, contained in the omitted pages of the “true record” transcript involving the “Blame Yourself,” “Blame Yourself,” Blame Yourself,” of Judge Baldwin that is included in the Addendum, accompanied with the “indicating” comment and the statement of Larry King to Judge Baldwin that is also included in the Addendum to the May 27, 2014 transcript of Nan Freeman. (Attachment 4)

     Even if Judge Baldwin accosted counsel, as he had during the monstrous temper tantrum, after a hearing, and Nan Freeman had the recorded audio of that conduct, she was equally required to transcribe the conduct of Judge Baldwin in order that the relevance of the conduct could be weighed by the regulatory authorities and an appellate court.

     Purported Statement 5 of Nan Freeman mischaracterizes the type of deceptive conduct in which Nan Freeman engaged when she took money that did not belongto her for preparation of numerous transcripts. See, OCGA §15-14-5; Court Reporters’ Fee Schedule of the Judicial Council of Georgia. It also raises the issue of what conduct and testimony was omitted from the transcripts of other litigants for whom she was contracted to provide transcripts.

6.      Despite Judge Baldwin having ended the hearing, one of Plaintiff’s attorneys in the Child Custody Litigation continued to argue, prompting Judge Baldwin to return to the courtroom and direct Ms. Freeman to “[s]top taking down.” Compl., Attach. 8, at 4.

      Response to No. 6 Purported Statement 6 continues to mischaracterize the litigation and the conduct of counsel for Michelle Murphy, and the location of Judge Baldwin in the courtroom.

     At a point in time, at the end of the proceeding’s omitted pages of the certified as “true” transcript, Judge Baldwin, while remaining in the courtroom, did direct Nan Freeman to stop taking down the statements of counsel to Judge Baldwin.

      This occurred at the very end, after the omissions of Nan Freeman that she, after being caught, included in the Addendum. Attachment 4, p. 4. 

     On June 5, 2014, Judge Baldwin entered an Order in the Child Custody Litigation regarding his award of temporary custody of the children to Plaintiff’s ex-husband. A copy of the June 5, 2014 Order in the Child Custody Litigation is attached to the Gordon Affidavit as Exhibit C. Response to No. 7 The June 5, 2014 Order in Murphy v. Murphy is attached to the Gordon Affidavit as Exhibit C.

     There are problems with the veracity of the content of Orders of Judge Baldwin. It is the opinion of counsel that the false statements contained in the Orders of Judge Baldwin are most predictably derived from persons other than Judge Baldwin. Counsel for Michelle Murphy observed that Michael Williams Warner, a young Glover & Davis lawyer, made a false swearing to the Magistrate Court of Coweta County that other Glover & Davis counsel acquiesced in Michael William Warner’s using.

     This case against Nan Freeman does not include the illegal conduct of persons other than Nan Freeman, although the illegal conduct of persons other than Nan Freeman is identified, as Nan Freeman attempts to demean Michelle Murphy and her counsel.

     Having observed the legal ability of Judge Baldwin during this litigation, counsel for Michelle Murphy has the opinion that Judge Baldwin did not write the June 5, 2014 Order, but that a person undisclosed to counsel for Michelle Murphy, either presented the Order to Judge Baldwin’s law clerk, or to Judge Baldwin for Judge Baldwin’s signature.

     The June 5, 2014 Order contains false statements not supported by evidence that comports with Due Process requirements, or obtained while Judge Baldwin was conducting a proceeding within the requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

     Nan Freeman, upon their request, earlier provided the Glover & Davis lawyers a copy of the last portion of her transcript, which she certified as “true” and which she filed with the Court that did not include the Addendum. It was that early provided portion of the transcript that was used for the drafter of the June 5, 2014 Order signed by Judge Baldwin, most likely, again, without him reading the Order before he signed it.

      The Addendum was not produced by Nan Freeman until June 11, 2014. See Attachment

9.      Judge Baldwin has signed Orders prepared by the Glover & Davis lawyers in the Murphy v. Murphy case without reading them on at least two other occasions during that litigation. This comports with Judge Baldwin’s signing without invoices presented by Nan Freeman to authorize payment by the Counties for her services as official court reporters, without checking to see that she is in compliance with the law. (Freeman Dep. pp. 34-35)

8.      At the request of Plaintiff’s attorneys in the Child Custody Litigation, Ms. Freeman prepared and filed an “Addendum” to the transcript of the May 27, 2014 hearing.

     The “Addendum” included the additional statements made by Plaintiff’s counsel after Judge Baldwin had terminated the hearing. Compl., Attach. 8. Response to No. 8 Nan Freeman, initially in her purported statement mischaracterizes the litigation issues in Murphy v. Murphy, most likely as counsel for Nan Freeman and those opposing Michelle Murphy wish to continue concealing the fact that Nan Freeman assisted Judge Baldwin in attempting to conceal his misconduct.

      The statements by Larry King and Millard Farmer toward the end of the proceeding that are included in the Addendum were made before Judge Baldwin terminated the hearing. Judge Baldwin did not terminate the hearing until the end of the Addendum.

     A copy of the May 27, 2014 Addendum, as provided to us by Nan Freeman, is included as Attachment 4.

9.      On June 10, 2014, one of Plaintiff’s lawyers in the Child Custody Litigation sent an Open Records Request to Ms. Freeman seeking, inter alia, the audio recording of the May 27 hearing. Compl., Attach.

5.       Response to No. 9 Again, Nan Freeman, initially in her purported statement mischaracterizes the litigation issues in Murphy v. Murphy. Attachment 6 and Exhibit 6 to the deposition of Nan Freeman contain the Georgia Open Records Act request sent to the Counties of Troup and Coweta and to Nan Freeman. The audio recordings were sought.

10.      On June 26, 2014, Ms. Freeman and Judge Baldwin forwarded CDs of the audio recording of the May 27 hearing to Plaintiff’s counsel. Gordon Aff., Exhibit D, at 16. Response to No. 10 The events relating to obtaining the audio disk forwarded on June 26, 2014 occurred as follows. On June 18, 2014 Nan Freeman communicated that she would file a copy of the audio recording in the Clerk of Court’s file. Exhibit D, p. 18 to Affidavit of Kenneth Gordon.

       On June 19, 2014 Judge Baldwin sent a letter to Millard Farmer; the copy of this letter which Nan Freeman provided to counsel contains on the right side of the page a note in the handwriting of Nan Freeman as follows, “This email is not altogether accurate, but it of course is what he sent to MF.” Exhibit D, p. 25 to Affidavit of Kenneth Gordon.

     On June 24, 2014, The Board of Court Reporting dismissed the Complaint that was filed for Michelle Murphy against Nan Freeman. Attachment 5 On June 25, 2014, after the dismissal of the Complaint by the Board of Court Reporting, Michelle Murphy filed the civil action against Nan Freeman, et. al. that included as defendants members of the Board of Court Reporting in the Superior Court of Fulton County.

     On June 26, 2014, the CD containing the audio recording of the May 27, 2015 proceeding was forwarded to counsel for Michelle Murphy.

11.       In March 2014, Plaintiff filed a grievance with the Board of Court Reporting challenging Ms. Freeman’s refusal to provide an audio recording of an earlier hearing. Plaintiff alleges that she later amended her grievance to include allegations that Ms. Freeman overcharged for certain transcripts due to the number of spaces per line in the transcripts. The Board of Court Reporting has not issued a decision on Plaintiff’s complaint. Compl. 1.3.1, 1.4.9. Response to No. 11 The Board of Court Reporting had issued a decision on June 24, 2014, as described above in Response to

10.       Attachment 5. Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 24 of 28 12.

     Before Plaintiff raised the “spaces per line” issue, Ms. Freeman was not aware of any error in the number of spaces per line in her transcripts. Ms. Freeman testified that, when she initially set up the word processing program for her court reporting software, she “remember[ed] counting spaces, “but that “at some point,” the spaces per line in her transcript “inadvertently [ ] changed from 63 to 61,”possibly a result of changes in the different versions of Microsoft Word. Freeman Dep. (Gordon Aff. Exhibit A) at 31:2-8. Response to No. 12 Nan Freeman does not create a defense by maintaining that she did not know the law — in fact as an official court reporter, Nan Freeman concedes both her liability and her absence of understanding of her computer program.

13.      As soon as Ms. Freeman learned of the “spaces per line” issue, she immediately corrected her transcript program and recalculated the cost of Plaintiff’s transcripts to determine if the error had resulted in any overcharges. Ms. Freeman determined that, over the entirety of the Child Custody Litigation, the spaces per line issue had resulted in only $45 of overcharges to Plaintiff.

      Freeman Dep. at 28:21-29:24, 31:4-9, 33:5-9, 86:24-87:7. Response to No. 13 An official court reporter, as Nan Freeman, cannot personally design a template, as she did around 1996, and use it in each of her official court reporter’s contractual fulfilments until she is caught in 2014 and then legally urge the defense of mistake — the law burdens Nan Freeman, as a condition of qualifying and being compensated, as an official court reporter, to both learn and comply  with the legally permissible fees and the legal requirements for the preparation of transcripts that qualify for the fees legally obtainable as an official court reporter.

     Nan Freeman stated at her deposition that she produced her transcripts and did not have an assistant do her transcriptions. (Freeman Dep. p.6) Returning compensation illegally taken does not absolve one of the consequence of violating the law.

14.      Shortly after Ms. Freeman’s deposition, Mrs. Freeman’ s attorney, Ken Gordon, tendered Plaintiff a check for $50 to cover any overcharge.

     Gordon Aff.ii7, Exhibit E. Response to No. 14 Nan Freeman’s check in the amount of $50 to cover any overcharge did not cover the liabilities of Nan Freeman.

     For further response, the response to purported Statement 13 is incorporated and included here.

     The fees and the conditions upon which an official court reporter in the State of Georgia can obtain compensation is mandated by the Judicial Council of Georgia.

     Nan Freeman was required by law to charge only the Judicial Counsel of Georgia authorized fees to persons whom wished, or were required to purchase transcripts from her in her capacity as an official court reporter for the Coweta Judicial.

     The fees follow that were allowable for Nan Freeman to charge for legally prepared transcripts in the Superior Court of Coweta County case of John Harold Murphy v. Michelle Murphy, and related Counterclaim, Third Party action Civil Action No. 12V-413 (or, “Murphy v Murphy.”)

     Nan Freeman did not comply with the certificate requirements legally imposed upon her by the OCGA § 15-14-5, Duty to transcribe statute — Nan Freeman used an abbreviated, incomplete version of the required certificate.

OCGA § 15-14-5.

     Duty to transcribe; certificate. It shall be the duty of each court reporter to transcribe the evidence and other proceedings of which he has taken notes as provided by law whenever requested so to do by counsel for any party to such case and upon being paid the legal fees for such transcripts. The reporter, upon delivering the transcript to such counsel, shall affix thereto a certificate signed by him reciting that the transcript is true, complete, and correct.

     Subject only to the right of the trial judge to change or require the correction of the transcript, the transcript so certified shall be presumed to be true, complete, and correct. [emphasis supplied]

     Nan Freeman, as a part and parcel of her habitual violations of the laws of Georgia, did not provide Michelle Murphy’s transcripts with an OCGA § 5-14-5 required certificate containing the certification that the transcript is “true, complete and correct. . ” as required by OCGA § 5-14-5 — — The transcripts provided and paid for by Michelle Murphy was not true or complete or correct.

     Nan Freeman has never provided to Michelle Murphy, or other litigants, the required certificate that is an indication of the pattern of her illegal conduct.

     The habitual violations of the OCGA § 15-14-5 requirements and the authorized fees is relevant to identify that Nan Freeman did not just make an one time error,

Read the rest of this document at

http://freejackandthomas.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/b50410-Resp-to-Freemans-Rule-6.5-Statement-Material-Facts-w-Atts.pdf

 Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • CENSORSHIP IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE America, the real, real one,   THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
    • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
      • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

Ruby and Lexi Dillon Case Update|Federal Lawsuit Filed, Orange County, CA


Ruby and Lexi  Dillon
Mother Ruby and Daughter Lexi Dillon

www.open-public-records.com/court/california-15435091.htm

Ruby Dillon v. Harold LaFlamme, et al

Defendant: Bonnie Breeze, Birute Bruzas-Ranes, John Cate, Howard Chang, Jessica Chlebowski, Grace Coleman, County of Orange, Matthew De Armey, Does, Sheryl Edgar, Kristen Eitner, Rosanne Froeberg, David Glidden, Danise Johnson, Harold LaFlamme, Elizabeth Ramirez Lockmer, Maureen Maganuma, D Alicia Marron-Taylor, Robert Munoz, Patricia Nash, Orange Superior Court, P.A. Nash & Associates, Jennifer Palmquist, Sunday Petrie, Tony Rackauckas, Eva Srikureja, Mahathap Srikureja, Pravit Srikureja, State of California, Carol Stewart, Alan Stokke and C. J. Wilkinson
Plaintiff: Ruby Dillon
Case Number: 2:2015cv01468
Filed: February 27, 2015
Court: California Central District Court
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this

Ruby Dillon v. Harold LaFlamme, et al

Court California Central District Court
Nature of Suit Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights
Cause 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Case # 2:15-cv-01468
Filed Feb 27, 2015
Terminated Mar 02, 2015
last updated: Saturday May 16, 2015 12:05 AM PDT
Monday, March 02, 2015
2 NOTICE RE INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court due to New Case Number 8:15-cv-00339 DFM. (esa)
Friday, February 27, 2015
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-15290912 – Fee: $400, filed by PLAINTIFF Ruby Dillon. (Attorney Patricia J Barry added to party Ruby Dillon(pty:pla))(Barry, Patricia)
  Att: 1 Civil Cover Sheet,
  Att: 2 Supplement Attachmt to civ cov sht

www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/7099997/Ruby_Dillon_v_Harold_LaFlamme_et_al

www.dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2015cv01468/611896

http://www.storyleak.com/orange-county-california-places-abused-child-with-sexually-abusive-parent/

ORANGE COUNTY, CA PLACES ABUSED CHILD WITH SEXUALLY ABUSIVE PARENT

Investigation Shows Pattern Of California Neglect Of Child Abuse And State-Mandated Protections

Something is very wrong with the ‘Child Welfare System’ in California. The story of Lexi Dillon graphically represents so much of what will, and has, gone very wrong in the case of sexually abused children.

What follows are two excerpts[1] from an article which illustrate the terrible injustices that one family has been tortured by over the past couple of years. As shocking as these official court-ordered actions appeared to be, the relevant public records in Orange County, California will substantiate every one of them.

Screen Shot 2014-06-21 at 8.42.11 AM

They concern the very unfortunate predicament of a young girl named Lexi Dillon. Her mother, Ruby Dillon, has been working triple time to free her from an abusive father who the State of California has given implausible protection to.  Incredible though it may sound, the sexually abusive father in this case has been treated as though he is the injured party.   Here is the timeline of the stunning response by the Orange County Child Welfare System, as well as by the concerned courts assigned to the legal proceedings.

““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““

In August 2012, based on probable cause of suspected sexual abuse, the City of Tustin Police Department removed Dr. Ruby Dillon’s minor daughter from the home of the father and took her into protective custody out of fear that she may be in danger. CPS ordered the child returned to the father, the alleged abuser.

Thus, not only did CPS choose not to rescue the minor from her dangerous condition; it also created a dangerous condition when, by returning the minor to her abuser, CPS placed the minor at risk of further sexual abuse.

Second, a duty to rescue also arises if there exists a “special relationship” between the defendant and the victim. “Special relationships” arise when one party assumes responsibility for another; like a parent for a minor child, or a doctor for his patient. In law, the “special relationship” most at issue is the one between emergency response personnel and any member of the community that requires their assistance.

In early March 2011, CPS received a signed affidavit under penalty of perjury from the minor’s teacher (a mandated reporter) confirming the minor’s accusations of sexual abuse. CPS failed to interview the teacher.

In January 2012, the father lost his job and the minor tells law enforcement and CPS that the abuse is occurring almost every time she is at her father’s house. CPS insisted the minor should remain with her father.

On November 7, 2012, the Court appointed therapist (as a mandated reporter) contacted the child abuse registry to report a new allegation of sexual abuse by the father. The Tustin PD immediately sent an Officer to the minor’s school to interview her and removed her from her home into protective custody. CPS dismissed the reporting and had the child sent back to the father.

CPS was specifically created to rescue minors from dangerous situation. Their duty is to respond to reports of suspected child abuse and to act accordingly; that is, CPS are mandated by law to assume responsibility for minors at risk of abuse. Thus, a “special relationship” exists between CPS and Dr. Rubin Dillon’s daughter. In the three instances above, CPS failed to interview the minor’s teacher, ignored the minor’s allegations and dismissed reports by the Tustin Police. Therefore, CPS breached its duty to rescue Dr. Rubin Dillon’s minor daughter.

Another exception to the general rule that there is no duty to rescue is that if one takes a step towards rescue, he then has the responsibility to take reasonable care in conducting his act of rescue. All that the law asks is for the rescuer to do what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. In other words, there must be a breach of the duty of care for liability to rise, and if the defendant has acted reasonably, there is no breach and thus no negligence.

On February 25, 2011, Dr. Ruby Dillon took her daughter to the emergency room at Hoag Hospital. Despite medical records documenting “non-accidental” trauma consistent with sexual abuse, workers at CPS failed to (1) interview the ER physician, (2) conduct a forensic exam, (3) contact law enforcement, (4) conduct a CAST interview of the minor child, and (5) conduct an interview of the suspected abuser: her father.

When CPS accepted the medical records from Hoag Hospital they had taken their Postsfirst step towards rescue of the minor. However, CPS did not act like a “reasonable person” when it then failed to interview the ER physician or the father, conduct any exams of its own or contact law enforcement. Thus, CPS breached their duty to rescue.

To summarize, CPS dishonored the law in at least three ways: (1) CPS created a dangerous condition that placed the minor at risk,  (2) CPS violated its “special relationship” with the victim, and (3) CPS failed to take reasonable care in their attempt to rescue of the minor.

Lexi Dillon

LEXI DILLON

 As unbelievable as these facts are, some of these developments have recently occurred under the scrutiny of the alternative new media.  And yet the appointed judge continues to act with complete impunity.  The actions of the court have put a young child directly in harm’s way and yet the State of California has done nothing to short-circuit a process gone completely awry.

 

What follows is another timeline of events which further delineates this state-sponsored crime spree executed against a powerless child citizen.

Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/orange-county-california-places-abused-child-with-sexually-abusive-parent/#ixzz3aURWIpbs

 Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE H
    • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
    • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
    • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
    • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

Betty’s Baby Kidnapped by CPS (Short Video)


Betty’s Baby Kidnapped by CPS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PvZCm1BnLsU

 

 Uploaded on Jun 21, 2008

Betty Power’s 1 day old Baby is KIDNAPPED by
THUGS from CPS, City Police, and the blessings
of Catholic Judge Garcia and alleged Lesbian Judge

Uploaded on Jun 21, 2008

Betty Power’s 1 day old Baby is KIDNAPPED by
THUGS from CPS, City Police, and the blessings
of Catholic Judge Garcia and alleged Lesbian Judge
Barbara Beck, who was in retirement. TV show OST
Exposed the CPS Kidnapping under-color-of-Law

A RECORD OF U.S. FAMILY COURTS SACRIFICING MOTHERS & CHILDREN


RE-POSTED/RE-BLOGGED AS DEPICTED BELOW,

A RECORD OF U.S. FAMILY COURTS SACRIFICING MOTHERS & CHILDREN

Family Courts Behind an Epidemic of Pedophilia & Judicial Abuse

Posted 23 January 2013

The below-referenced chart lists over 75 family court cases in Connecticut where children’s safety and well being has been jeopardized by unethical and even illegal activities of court professionals who routinely target, extort and exploit Connecticut
mothers.  In many of these cases, where mothers reported a father’s violent crimes against her family, the mother eventually lost custody to the wealthier father when he — the real perpetrator — accused her of alienation.  Violent fathers almost always won sole or joint custody of victims, and in some cases these fathers even went on to become mass murderers.  Insurance companies and the State are being defrauded by medical and mental health professionals who are routinely rewarded handsomely for submitting false claims that misdiagnose fit and loving mothers and their children with mental disorders they do not have; they are also providing diagnosis and treatment plans that are considered illegitimate by the AMA and APA.  Meanwhile, the same professionals justify their billing by deliberately recommending to judges the placement of children in the care of violent fathers, even rapists, and by shielding these offenders from criminal prosecution that might otherwise keep children safe.  The effect is that the whole family becomes damaged and in need of treatment, and are subsequently required to obtain ongoing court affiliated medical and legal professional services.

Some of these cases were outlined in the May 2012 Conscious Being Alliance story A Life Sentence.  The summary of cases spans the past 20 years, with older and newer cases, and where many cases

were drawn out over a decade, or more.

CT COURT CASES HISTORIES & SUMMARIES:

Click link here:
CT Cases Spreadsheet (2-28-2013).xlsx

PHOTO:
MAX LIBERTI.  (See: LIBERTI V. LIBERTI summary.)

 

MAx-Liberti-Photo.jpg

Written by: keith harmon snow

Categories: ,

 

16 Comments

melissa harris | January 29, 2013 2:57 PM

This has happened to me I would like to be part of this also where do I file complaints against lawyers n family service division I reported to the mediators supervision but nothing . So I want to file above the court .my case was in Hartford ct. Thank u for your time sincerely Melissa Harris 860-977-3941 cell or home 860-206-9208 Donna yanofsky I give full permission to talk to her on my behalf

adrienne mcglone | February 12, 2013 5:31 PM

• Give a gift of your signature as support in the battle to stop the corruption in probate and family courts that harm and destory our children and families. Join the Petition Signature-A-Thon.

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governor-of-ma-help-get-child-home
http://www.alexissneedshelp.blogspot.com/

Amy Andersen | February 14, 2013 1:39 PM

Exactly this happened to me also!! I lost custody of my daughter to my abusive ex husband for one reason ONLY,, HE IS VERY WEALTHY! I never so much as received a parking ticket. What happened to my daughter and I was COMPLETELY ILLEGAL IN EVERY WAY! I want very much to be part of this, but I do not know where to start or who to contact. Melissa, I would like to speak with you also if you are willing. Maby we can share information because we both are going through the same nightmare! Please call me and let me know what I can do and where I can start.
Respectfully,
Amy Andersen (203) 269-6114

Jodi Baker | February 24, 2013 4:33 PM

The same situation happened to me. I am looking to make changes in the CT family court system especially New Haven County.

Kendra | April 26, 2013 7:33 PM

Below is a proposed class action lawsuit we can file at 95 Washington Street. Melissa, do you want to take the lead?

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COUNTY OF HARTFORD
————————————————————-x VERIFIED COMPLAINT
JANE DOE 1- XXX
Plaintiff, Index No.:
-against-

Dr. Howard Krieger; Dr. Kenneth Robson,
Dr. Sidney Horowitz; Atty. Steven Dembo;
Atty. Noah Eisenhandler, Jane Does 1-IV and
John Does I-IV.
Defendants
—————————————————————x
SIRS:
The Plaintiffs complaining of the Dr. Howard Krieger; Dr. Kenneth Robson; Dr. Sidney Horowitz; Atty. Steven Dembo; Atty. Noah Eisenhandler; Jane Does 1-IV and John Does I-IV (hereinafter “Defendants”), sets forth and alleges upon information and belief as follows:
1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned Plaintiffs are normal, healthy parents who have endured abnormal and unfathomable circumstances in child custody proceedings.
2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional suffering on Plaintiffs and defamed Plaintiffs for the benefit of increasing conflict in child custody disputes for financial gain and/or job security.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION IN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL SUFFERING

3. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges the allegations listed in paragraphs “1” through “2” as though more fully alleged herein.
4. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants emotionally abused Plaintiffs via heinous conduct beyond the standards of civilized decency.
5. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants advocated and endorsed the use of domestic abuse and domestic discipline in child custody proceedings.
6. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants aided and abetted fathers in feigning allegations to place plaintiffs under supervised visitation or otherwise reduce their access to children, alleging “mental illness”, “emotional abuse” or “parental alienation”.
7. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants slandered, abused, ridiculed, harassed, ignored, humiliated, threatened, attacked and/or financially devastated Plaintiffs.
8. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants blatantly disregarded the rules, manipulated information, falsified evidence, harassed and bullied Plaintiffs.
9. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants financial, emotional and legal abuse of Plaintiffs was intentional, deliberate and/or reckless.
10. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants used the fruits of their abuse to claim that Plaintiffs were “erratic, unstable and unpredictable”.
11. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants endorsed the wealthier parent as primary parents to keep their revenue steam coming via fathers contesting custody of children against stay at home mothers.
12. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional damages and loss of custody of their children in monetary amounts in excess of all of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION IN UNJUST ENRICHMENT

13. Plaintiff repeats reiterates and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “12” as though more fully set forth herein.
14. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants increased conflict in custody disputes for the benefit of their professional fees, job security and/or revenue stream.
15. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants were unjustly enriched by receiving professional fees, income or expenses on account of their improper conduct.
16. That prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants Dr. Howard Krieger and Dr. Sidney Horowitz were sanctioned for committing insurance fraud against Aetna Insurance.
17. Plaintiffs seek restitution of attorney fees and expert fees incurred as a result of defendants’ unjust enrichment, which is in excess of all of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION IN DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER

18. Plaintiff repeats reiterates and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “17” as though more fully set forth herein.
19. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants published false statements about Plaintiffs.
20. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants’ false statements lowered the characters of Plaintiffs in the eyes of others.
21. That at all relevant time prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants slandered, abused, ridiculed, harassed, ignored, humiliated, threatened, attacked and/or financially devastated Plaintiffs in an attempt to substantiate their false statements.
22. That Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional harm on Plaintiffs by facing them with an abusive ex-husband, fear of their children being harmed or removed and a bombardment of medico-legal allegations to substantiate their allegations of “erratic, unstable and unpredictable” behaviors.
23. That Plaintiffs’ were damaged by Defendants’ false statements and intentional infliction of emotional suffering in amounts in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION IN DISCRIMINATION

24. Plaintiffs repeat reiterate and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “23” as though more fully set forth herein.
25. That Plaintiffs have been discriminated against on account of being stay at home mothers prior to the commencement of litigation. Defendants sided with the parent who had the most money to purchase their children.
26. That Plaintiffs sustained damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts on account of this unlawful socio-economic discrimination.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter an award:
(a) Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendants from intentionally inflicting emotional suffering, discriminating against and defaming the characters of Plaintiffs;
(b) Awarding Plaintiffs’ damages in excess of twenty (20) million dollars;
(c) Awarding Plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expert fees involved in pressing this action;
(d) Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

Yours etc

________________________________

VERIFICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
being duly sworn, deposes and says: We are the plaintiffs in the within action; We have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my knowledge, except as to the matters stated therein to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters we believe them to be true.

__________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sworn to before me on this
day of April 2013

Notary Public, State of Connecticut

___________________

T. Moore | April 27, 2013 10:05 AM

My case is still pending … I’m ready to keep up the battle and win the war … it’s been years and I refuse to just walk away – I’ve been w/one of the above Dr. during “Special Masters” …

kendra | April 27, 2013 11:47 AM

Attorneys with a strategy which involves inflicting emotional and financial pain on mothers to make them “erratic, unstable and unpredictable” should be reported to the Grievance Committee so that they are disbarred for a violation of Rule 8.4 (4) for conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The precedence their strategy sets is that a man is encouraged to abuse the mother of his children so that the attorneys can keep their revenue stream going despite the impact this has on mothers and resultantly on their children. Grievance forms can be found here:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/gc006.pdf

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:01 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:02 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:03 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Colleen Kerwick | June 1, 2013 3:52 PM

Here is a link to my Confessions of a Stepford Wife blog. Feel free to check into my path as I find the silver lining from my journey through the Connecticut Court System. Whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger so I’m hoping that this will be a happy story of transformation and growth.

Sara Burns | June 28, 2013 8:00 PM

I have a significant background in Business Communications and PR and would like to contribute my files for case … amazing how many people can abuse the system for years with a documented list of offenses and still be able to misuse the system to their private advances.

Concerned Mother | August 23, 2013 9:41 PM

A person is guilty under 2011 Connecticut Code Title 53 Crimes Chapter 939
Sec. 53-21 (3) if they “permanently transfer the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration”… such person “shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court”. Has anyone asked the DA to issue a warrant for the arrest of some members of the custody business?

Ron | July 19, 2014 11:38 AM

Keith, This is information which is tragically in sync with what I’ve read from other researchers regarding pedophilia rings and subsequent cover-ups occurring WORLDWIDE. Have you read Dave McGowan’s work entitled “Pedophocracy”? It’s not surprising one bit to learn that the courts are involved in the corruption as are politicans—ETC. I am reminded also of the late Ted Gunderson, former FBI agent who became Aware, shall we say–are you aware of his investigations regarding child abuse? What is bad, evil in society is vigorously protected and encouraged by the System.

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

     Nothing contained in this post or on this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and and especially for my little Julian, could be (mis)construed as “legal advice” of any kind as author of this post is expressly NOT a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner.

  • CENSORSHIP and censorship shall be challenged strongly as censorship, being in breach of, among so many other unlawful acts and omissions, is a violation of sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment u.S Constitutional right to the free exercise of speech, and also to peaceably assemble herein and also to freely exercise whatever religion, if any, that said natural, American u.S “citizen,” “citizen” meaning fo the purposes of this post. conditionally as i, being natural (wo)man, individual, living and corporeal body,  exclusively reserve the right to revoke or rescind the offer at any and all times, inherently “sovereign” and “elect” in nature, spirit, and essence because imbued with the spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD. ;
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.;
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Federa, u.S. Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal,u.S Constitution and its  Bill of Rights, pursuant to the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.;
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.;
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and Author will be happy to follow the law and respect your wishes.
Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Remember Personal Info?
Comments:
Captcha:

Donate to this Project

Search

LORI HANDRAHAN AND MILA’S CASE IN MAINE


RE-POSTING FROM BLOG BELOW . . .

bECAUSE IT APPEARS THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MINUTE DETAILS THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS DID OR DID NOT MISS ON PURPOSE THAT BEAR A STRIKING RESEMBLANCE TO DETAILS TO/ AT ACTUALLY OCCURRING AND/OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AND “COACHING” CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, ALLEGED BY CHILD WHO IS NOW EIGHT YEARS OLD AND DENIED ALL CONTACT WITH LOVING MOTHER FOR THREE YEARS, THOUGH described as “Joni Saloom” did what all non-offending professionals demanded s/he do and believed he/r only child, private property sometimes described for profit by “state” absent (un)timely, sufficient notice, AS DID ALL OTHER PROFESSIONALS AS CONFESSED AND IN “OUTCOMES” BASE, . . . OF THEN (2012) FIVE YEAR OLD LITTLE BOY (MAY 2012) BY  CHERYL HARVICK, LESLY DAMIAN-MURRAY, KAREN COBLENTZ, OTHERS ON THEIR “TEAM” IN BRAZORIA COUNTY CPS FOR CHILD’S “FATHER,” MATTHEW JAMES WORRELL AND FAMILY IN HARRIS COUNTY, TOMBALL, TEXAS AND “PLAY THERAPIST,” KIMBERLY A. ABERNETHY (LICENSED BY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR “‘STATE’ OF TEXAS”/”DFPS,” CPS DIVISION), PEARLAND POLICE OFFICER PAUL ELTON, AND HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE/OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT/COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S COURT’S SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS APPOINTMENT AND (FORMER) SGT. WILLIAM LILLY, IN CONTRAVENTION OF US CONSTITUTIONAL, NATURAL LAW, AND INALIENABLE AND UNALIENABLE, GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND LIBERTIES OF MOTHER  AND CHILD, described as “Joni Saloom,” WHOSE SON HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED AND TRAFFICKED PURSUANT TO, AMONG OTHER CRIMES PERPETRATED PURSUANT TO “COLOR OF AUTHORITY OF LAW” INDIVIDUAL CO-COMPLICITS FALSELY ALLEGE “‘STATE’ OF TEXAS,”  ” GETTING HIT OVER THE HEAD” (peppered with the same old “domestic violence” at falsely alleged to have allegedly said to “tell ‘Daddy’ . . . “chop off head” “coached,” but actually, by complicits, being individuals, and each of them:  cps, police officer, father, and play therapist individuals, and other suborned, “commissioned” individuals, specialists, “experts,” guardian ad litem, amicus attorneys, a multitude of special interest service providers for the various “states,” BAR members, essentially, against sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy,” and  also  in the case of Lori Handrahan, and also for he/r little daughter, he/r only “child,” Lori’s private property not yet, but to be restoreth.

 May Lori’s, he/r daughter’s, “Julian’s Real Mummy’s,” Julian . . . ” of Genealogy Saloom’s, waking nightmares END.  MAY the nightmares End, for all of s real mommies FORCED TO ENDURE THE ABUSE OF ROGUE TERRORISTS PERMITTED TO OPERATE BY COMPLICIT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AGENTS, AND NOW, POLICE WILL BE CALLED “VENDORS” WITH CPS.  IN CASE THEY HAVEN’T REALIZED IT YET, THE “MENTAL HEALTH” TRICK IS A TRICK OLDER THAN TIME.  NOT BUYING IT!  IT IS CLEAR WHO THE DANGEROUS PSYCHOTICS REALLY ARE IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS AND AFFAIRS.  BUT THEN, WE ALWAYS KNEW THAT AS A SOCIETY, AND WE STILL DO, DIDN’T WE?

We DO Not, and we shalt not forget  crimes against our children, crimes against real mommies, real beings with real feelings, hearts, memories, and consciousness, natural (wo)man, individual, the vessel on whose waters berthed/birthed little natural man, being living, corporeal body imbued with the live holy Spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD, the “alpha and the omega” “the first and the last,” the “I AM.”

Yet, we are forced still here to endure it, and also in spite of the usual “suspected classes” and hacks(ers) contracted by . . . the usual “suspected classes” and defendants, and each of them, who, being subjected to Higher law and authority will always, naturally, loathe the undeniable pure and real truth that is the faith and the strength, the humble confidence that WINS the marathon.

Of the thousands of mothers who grieve for our children, “Julian’s Real Mummy,” described sometimes as “Joni Saloom” also prays that private property/”children and full and fair compensation available, but not “subjected” to semantic art) be restored also to:

sometimes described as,  ” Linda Marie Sacks (Ormond Beach, Florida;  Volusia County);  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki(Dakota County, Minnesota), Leah  Dannewitz (Carver County, Minnesota), Kimberly Sperling (Dakota County, Minnesota), Caroline Rice (Minnesota), “Emily Court” (Minnesota), Sharon and Bill Burns, the real parents of little Donnelly Keaton Burns who was wrongfully adopted without any cause, but for nothing more than the retaliation, the burning jealousy and pride of vindictive ex-wife  whose mother was a veteran, though retired social worker for corrupt Riverside County DPS for thirty years (Ontario, California; Riverside County; see active civil class complaint in the case of A.A. v. County of Riverside , 5:14-cv-2556, US Central District of California, Riverside division, filed 12/12/”2014″), Amy Charron (Houston, Texas; Harris County), Jennie Morton (Conroe, Athens, Dallas, Texas; Montgomery, Ellis, Dallas Counties, Texas–moves all forced after, but not before bizarre crimes by law enforcement and other ring members made the moves matter of survival for Jennie), apparently had a book published in 2013, Standing Strong, Trisha Schafer (Houston, Texas ; Harris County), reportedly the target of customary Texas style police and law enforcement judicial and worse interference, but way more than the usual, and interestingly lived right down the street from mine and my son’s former home, and also kidnapper’s current husband of his wife’s former husband, father of he/r three still get to live with their real mommy in the same home  with my real, natural son cps and guardian ad litem/court-appointed child’s attorney sinecure top campaign contributor every year as reported in the Texas Tribune and see Public Integrity Unit records,  Donna Everson conspired “stepparent adoption” so solicitously advertised and trending on all family law attorney sites, but supervised (un)”SAFE VICTIM’S ASSISTANCE CENTRE, INC.”/ (free stalking for fathers) unconstitutional rook jobs are not without guilt, lies, and, generally, criminal enterprise racketeering structure (Houston, Texas; Harris County),  Miriam Blank, earned a medical degree which Texas can never truly, or wrongfully and in customary retaliation so familiar to author of this post, take away from he/r like he/r five daughters, God-given gifts (Houston, Texas; Harris County and also Utah “suspected class” facility, on knowledge and belief), Robin Karr (Rockwall, Texas; Tyler, Texas; Dallas and Smith Counties, and also Kentucky State Police), more than sixteen years of “no contact with no reason), Andrea Lebow. another school teacher lost four year old little girl to registered sex offender father in Texas (Amarillo, Texas; Potter County), Michelle Murphy (Newnan, Georgia; Coweta County); Susan Skipp (a usual ideological “suspected class” “state”), Melissa Harris (a usual ideological “suspected class,” politically obsessed, or, perhaps, to give the benefit of the doubt, misguided (?) and i can’t figure out because so good at rehearsing neutral neutering for homogeneous “ambiguity” play, but Stands in truth and righteously battles (Ephesians 6:11, The Holy Bible, all verziones reales) intolerable acts like the Dickens (New Jersey), Brenda Battle Jordan, who i believe ran or said s/he was running for mayor at the time, and read about he/r help (now deceased) agent Gunderson’s and his partner’s research unveiled “The Damon 10,000 Screw,”The Fix is In” game in family court fraud (Detroit, Michigan), Dr. Cherie Safapou, another doctoral degreed mother to little son who begs to come home to his real mommy who the court, in spite of Dr. Safapou’s degree . . .in psychology, mislabeled it by proxy for wrongful, dishonest services profit, but not he/rs and certainly not little “I AM’s” (Marin County, California), mother, but with media coverage, Dr. Ruby Dillon, a dentist and real, natural mommy (Texas; California), Kathy Lee Scholpp (Massachusetts “State” Police; Rhode Island); Susan Farris, an investigative news writer(California), Connie Bedwell (Auburn, California; Placer County), Karen Anderson (Davis, California; Yolo County), as told directly to me by Deborah Connor (Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas; Tarrant County), another real mommy who, pursuant to the same scheme in the late 1990’s, had he/r three week only baby girl who she was still feeding in the natural way and her other child ripped away, career as flight attendant also sabotaged by children’s father, bankrupted, rendered homeless but climbed he/r way back where a district attorney somewhere eventually helped he/r get her children back, but not the same (Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas, Tarrant County; Salt Lake City, Utah; Billings, Montana, father lived in Honolulu, Hawaii), Rebecca McLaughlin, a Ph.D. earning mother(Rhode Island), Stacy Lynne, energy sector (Fort Collins, Colorado; Jefferson County), young mother who had the misfortune to get locked out of he/r home only to call the police for help who then called cps to kidnap called “remove” infant, Johneisha Kemper who did receive settlement by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for child “protection” via attorney Shawn McMillan (Los Angeles County, California) who also won jury award of $4.9 million dollars tolled to almost $10 million with lone star lodestar, taxes, and court costs due to stubborn cps refused to settle the case regarding real mommy, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick (Seal Beach California; County of San Diego), the same story as HERE, recently, the interestingly popular mother, Dr. Ruby Dillon, real mommy, natural mother (Tustin, California, Orange County),   Pamela Gaston (Portland, Oregon; Michigan), Angela/”Mad Angel” (Washington State), Theola Nealy (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), real,  being the natural mommy, who was raped, or, otherwise not “mentally disabled,” and also by he/r social worker, he, the same kidnapping cps father, . . . Nealy’s, mother’s, cps social worker, the judgment free father against whom the actual $1,000,000 judgment  plus rendered lies (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), Tammy Rief (California judge, though Tammy is from Georgia, but in Alabama), and we grieve for the loss of real mommies,’ Sandy Fonzo‘s (deceased) son, “victim” of former Judge Mark Ciavarella’s and Michael Conahan’s, and also others,’ scandalous, landmark case-making “Kids-for-Cash” court (Luzerne, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania), and also Karen Scott,  mother of Nathan Grieco, suicided by  “threat therapy, “jurisprudence,” at age sixteen (North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh; Westmoreland County; see also federal case decided in favor of parent’s rights against over zealous social services workers, Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Services, 103 F. 3d 1123 (3rd Cir., 1997), and also for the loss of real mommy, recent, 2015 suicide by social services and social workers stole Lacey Drier, mother of three children and step-child (Parma, Michigan), and i also grieve for real mommy who was forced to “suffer” the loss, the tragic social-worker inspired accidental death of little Logan Marr (Kennebac County, Maine).”

One who takes the time to read and have right to any opinion shall appropriately observe that the majority of all “similarly ‘deprived'” mothers have good educations and many also had good careers until lives destroyed and some even made homeless the direct result of such schemes and juvenile “games.

 Most Important Thank You and Hats Off to any and all Supporters (absent art, extortion, deception)of Real Mommys.  Your work is very important.  Thank you to author of the following article,  keith harmon snow, to Brett Redmayne Titley, who has followed-up on the Ruby Dillon case.  For your invaluable, thorough, and amazingly cogent and well-reasoned, thoughtful research, thank you also to the following individuals who have courageously acted and who Stand committed to doing their jobs the right way, the only way.  to the incredible and thorough research and sometimes costly experiences,  and writings of, among others forced to endure experiences that apparently produce desirable character, strength, and fortitude: Liz Richards of the Liz Library, Robin Sacks guest speaker, a lawyer, on Fox News affiliate in California, Gina Silva, investigative reporter of the same Fox affiliate in California, Kathleen Russell of Center for Judicial Excellence, Garland Waller, documentary filmmaker in Boston, Dr. Joyanna Silberg of the Leadership Council, Barry Goldstein, researcher, author, speaker, expert in family law matters who specializes in this “high conflict” niche, Dr. Judith Reisman, who has passionately shed light where dare not most all others within described sometimes as “Julian’s Real Mommy’s” present knowledge, and thank you also to the lone ranger gentlemen out there in Southern California and their new  colleague, superstar lawyers for families and children and their rights, and equally other non “suspect classes,” Shawn McMillan, Dean Browning-Webb a.k.a. “R.I.C.O. man,” Colbern Stuart, III (officially non-practicing, but nevertheless, like a lion), and right there with “Cole” at California Coalition for Families and Children (“CCFC”), a public benefit corporation, and Michelle’s baby in Minnesota, Family Innocence Project.  “What a long, strange trip it has been,” and we’re still on the ride, though, a few of us sadly far away from the tide, for, as former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer once spoke, . . .”some things are worth losing for.”  This real mommy adds, for all the right reasons.  For those who still have yet to be sufficiently humbled–educated “lowly wise”–or maybe for those were just not meant to get it, or yet . . . . right with ALMIGHTY GOD  and/or one another putting first orphans, widows, children, and those who cannot provide for themselves, the sick, the hungry, and the meek, the pure as a child at heart, this right way is the REAL definition to practice daily, “in good faith,” “for good cause shown,” “in furtherance of justice,” your u.S constitutional oath as officer of the honorable Federal US district,  “state,” county, civil, probate, and last, but first real “priority” on the calendar, family/dependency/juvenile, and especially ” (‘East Texas’) CPS cluster” courts.

Conscious Being Alliance

THREATS ON FACEBOOK TO RAPE WOMEN DEFENDING ABUSED MOTHERS


Posted on June 28, 2012 8:01 AM
Written by: keith harmon snow
Photography Credits: keith harmon snow
Article URL: http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/06/threats-on-facebook-to-rape-women-supporting-protective-mothers/


THREATS ON FACEBOOK TO RAPE WOMEN DEFENDING ABUSED MOTHERS
Social Media Increasingly Abets Harassment and Censors Truth

28 June 2012

keith harmon snow

After years of harassment and judicial abuse in the state of Maine, protective mother Lori Handrahan and her supporters face threats of rape and other verbal sexual abuse on social networking media.  Welcome to the new world disorder of social networking, where ethics are meaningless and anyone can get away with practically anything – unless it would seriously help make the world a better place, and then it can be flagged, reported or deleted (by invisible and unaccountable administrators) if it threatens someone’s violent or hateful interests or ‘offends’ the abusers.

Like other social networking media, Facebook appears to be unable to discriminate between abusive men and abusive men’s ‘rights’ organizations and those (mostly women) who are under attack by them. Instead of punishing the abusers and traffickers of children, the system appears more and more to sanction them and support trafficking of children, domestic violence and violence against women.  Want to file a serious compliant with Facebook? Good luck!

SIS Handrahan.jpg

Dr. Lori Handrahan

On May 22, 2012 the abusive and litigious Maine attorney Michael Waxman launched a Facebook post that by June 19th had evolved into a discussion where Jeff Pyle, a Colorado man who appears to love Michael Waxman, posted threats promising to rape and sodomize the several women engaged in a hostile exchange with Waxman for the defense of Lori Handrahan.

While Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and most other protective parents’ stories of judicial abuse and destruction remain disbelieved, unheard and unknown, Lori Handrahan’s efforts to Save Mila have resulted in a very high-profile case garnering national attention — thanks to the Internet and the outrage of thousands of people across the country.  Both mothers Lori Handrahan and Sunny Kelley have not seen their children for months.

Hell for Lori Handrahan came in the form of her daughter Mila being raped by her husband, a foreigner who has now apparently gained citizenship under questionable circumstances.  Like most mothers entrapped and abused by the family court system, Lori Handrahan never technically lost custody of her daughter Mila.  “In June 2009 my daughter Mila came home with a shredded vagina and Igor [husband] was substantiated with raping her,” says Lori Handrahan.  “The courts did nothing.  Mila was 2 years old at the time.”

“The state of Maine has trafficked my child Mila,” Lori Handrahan told me, in January 2012, right before the court forced a gag order upon her and shut down her web site.

Dr. Lori Handrahan is a professor at the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C.  Dr. Handrahan’s credentials are impeccable, with over 20 years of work in international development and human rights all over the world.  She was a guest on CNN and her op-eds about human rights and sex trafficking were often published in the New York Times. “Now that my child’s life is on the line I can’t get any news coverage at all.  Every single media outlet I’ve gotten interested has killed the story at the last minute.”

Lori and Mila’s case also involves corruption within the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including the illegal naturalization of Ukrainian and Russian nationals who have stolen Mila away from her loving mother.

While available to discuss her case in early January, Lori Handrahan was later served with a gag order, intimidated into silence out of fear for her daughter’s life, and possibly her own.  Sometime in late January or early February of this year, the web site created to help them — “Saving Mila” — went dead.

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/spurwink-report-of-milas-sex-abuse-report-3

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/milas-picture-of-the-rock-poppa-and-michael-sniff0001?related=1

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-moskowitz-jan-2011-hearing-1-11760752?related=4

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-judge-moskowitz-jan-2011-hearing-2-11760751?related=5

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/trevor-letter-about-waxman0001?related=2

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-disqual-waxman-part-3-11760749?related=3

CHILD TRAFFICKING IN MAINE

Maine attorney Michael Waxman quite literally gets away with anything he likes in Maine. In the course of her nightmare to recover her child Mila from the alleged abusive father, Igor Malenko, protective mother Lori Handrahan confronted all levels of the system in Maine and was repeatedly stifled by Maine officials.

“I believe that both Michael Waxman and Igor Malenko are both now and have been committing civil contempt of court since May of 2011,” expert investigator Stephen Pickering wrote to Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson on February 1, 2012, after Waxman turned the court into a circus of inappropriate verbal and physical aggression on January 31.  While there was no order restricting Handrahan’s visitation with Mila, Waxman and Malenko had blocked all visitation for some time.

According to investigator Stephen Pickering, Waxman stood up and pointed his finger at the judge and raised his voice to the point that “some would describe this as yelling at the judge. Pickering further concluded that both Waxman and Malenko “committed criminal contempt of court on January 31, 2012, by their willful disregard of the judge’s ordering his courtroom as the judge was affirming his order.”

On February 1, 2012, Waxman sent an email to Judy Potter, Lori Handrahan’s attorney, stating: “And the more I think of it, the less I am convinced that this court has any power over ME in any fashion.”

Judge Jeffrey Moskoitz also behaved inappropriately on January 31, 2012, but Moskowitz has a long history of alleged collusion and corruption with attorney Michael Waxman. At the January 31 kangaroo court, Waxman threatened a lawsuit against District Attorney Stephanie Anderson and he filed the lawsuit in early February.  Five witnesses who were present provided affidavits testifying to what occurred in Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz’s court on January 31, 2012.

“The hearing began with Michael Waxman leading the court into confusion over labeling the massive amounts of documents he introduced, of such proportions that it was clear no one had the time to ever read them,” wrote witness Carrie Rockwell.  “He then harangued his client, Igor Malenko, for over an hour, thrusting at him pictures of Igor’s daughters’ anus and vagina, and reading allowed an email Waxman himself wrote to a woman whom he met on Facebook revealing his thought’s about what could be done to Mila’s vagina with a Coke bottle.  All this was done to prove what ten people in the room knew and could prove with certainty was a lie.”

One witness suggested that attorney Michael Waxman appeared to commit perjury, suborning perjury, falsifying evidence, and a conspiracy to commit fraud upon the court.

Now Waxman has created a new Internet site to harass Lori Handrahan and her supporters.  The site, called S.T.E.A.M. — Stopping the Explopitation, Abuse and Murder of our Children — is aligned with an assortment or other organizations, causes and petitions, but is inherently a front for Waxman’s destructive “father’s rights” agenda and self-protection.

STEAM WAXMAN HANDRAHAN .jpg

The S.T.E.A.M. web site is very sloppy.  As early as December 20111, Waxman revealed in casual web posts that a new web site was under design to replace the Facebook page called FOR THE LOVE OF MILA — another page created as a front to present Waxman’s disinformation.  The new S.T.E.A.M. web site was apparently launched in May 2012.

While Lori Handrahan — white, professional and highly accomplished mother — is offered as the primary column for “Featured Abusers for June 2012” (see below) the other abusers of the month are two African-American couples who allegedly killed their children.  Thus the architects of the site have provided two additional examples of violence against children that both fit the societal stereotype of black people as criminals. Contrary to media representations and Hollywood stereotypes about people of color, there are also high rates of domestic violence, rape and murder in white communities.  However, by placing Lori Handrahan next to these two black couples the hidden message is that Lori Handrahan is a violent criminal.

The two African-American alleged murder couples appear with Lori Handrahan on the HOME page.  This is just window dressing.  The web pages were hastily designed to provide a false sense of depth behind the front designed primarily to harass Lori Handrahan, and there are errors and inconsistencies in the web design beyond the HOME page.

For example, the menu at the top of the HOME page and most other pages has four clickable links: HELP – CONTACT US – CASES – HOME.  Deeper inside the web site are numerous “cases” of child abuse that are accessed by clicking on the CASES link in the HOME page menu.  However, as of 29 June 2012 the links for some cases don’t work at all (for example: “CASES PAGE 3”).  More importantly, several of the CASES links lead to pages where the menu at the top of the new page has only three clickable links: HANDRAHAN – HELP – CONTACT US.  This shows the clear intent of the web site.

Naturally, the HANDRAHAN link takes you straight to an extensive posting of disinformation exclusively about Lori Handrahan and this is the heart of the web site. The HANDRAHAN page offers an extensive post — unlike all other sections of the site — packed detail after detail of lies and half-truths fabricated by attorney Michael Waxman and his supporters.

Several of Lori Handrahan’s women supporters are also mentioned on the HANDRAHAN page, and these are some of the same women threatened with rape on the May 2012 Facebook thread.

ScreeHANDRAHAN PAGE STEAM -06-29 at 10.22.54 PM.jpg

“For the second straight month,” S.T.E.A.M.’s HANDRAHAN slam begins, “Lori Handrahan has been unanimously selected as the Child Abuser of the Month. Why?”

The answer is that the web site was created solely as a platform to harass Lori Handrahan and her supporters, to further confuse the story and cover up the hard truth that Lori’s daughter Mila has allegedly been trafficked with the support of the state of Maine, the Department of Homeland Security and attorney Michael Waxman.

As reported on the Saving Mila Facebook page: Mila is being sexually abused, the abusive father received free lawyer services over several years and the girl is barred from leaving this dangerous situation. Waxman has said many times that his estimated cost for legal services for Mila’s father amounts to around $250,000. To cover up his trafficking of Mila, Waxman has escalated the slander against Lori and his threats to have her committed and jailed.

FACEBOOK RAPE THREATS

“How about this cause and other bitches, take care of your own business and shut the FUCK up!” Jeff Pyle posted on the Waxman post on June 19.  A 1982 graduate of Weston High School (MA) who lives in Colorado, Jeff Pyle then sexually berated the women engaged in the discussion (see below) and threatened to “come back there” to find, rape and sodomize them. The post has now been deleted.

PYLE RAPE Handrahan Screen Shot small.jpg

Alerted on June 20 by one of the protective mothers who has been increasingly harassed by Michael Waxman, I responded:
Ladies, it’s not recommended to spend your time communicating with these ugly men.  As you can see, they are mean and nasty and try to compensate for their weakness by threatening women with sexual and other physical violence. Mr. Pyle – look me up, I can offer several solutions to your problems.”

On June 28, I received a notice from Facebook administration notifying me that I am under investigation for my post (now also removed).  There was no way to respond to the pop-up warning message that appeared when I first logged in to Facebook, and disappeared after, and it is impossible to figure out how to communicate with Facebook to challenge the flagging of my post and inform Facebook about their need to investigate Michael Waxman and the Handrahan case.

Online sexism is rampant, but the problem is systemic and institutionalized sexism and support for domestic violence that arises due to online media’s attempts to be socially friendly and compatible to as many users as possible.  While censoring some people and interests, these social media often end up punishing the victims and supporting the abusers.

Major social networking media — Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google+ and others — have, one way or another, helped to censor Lori and Mila’s story.  The organization Change.org — reputed to be a socially conscious networking entity — still carries a petition created by Michael Waxman the father’s lawyer in Maine, intended to further censor and punish Lori Handrahan.

Facebook makes it impossible to issue a detailed compliant about the hate speech and physical violence threatened by Michael Waxman’s supporter Jeff Pyle.  While the most threatening post by Pyle was removed from the long back-and-forth, the post that I made was also flagged and removed.  Appropriate action by Facebook would include exploring Michael Waxman’s threatening history and behavior toward Lori Handrahan.

It is the same with Change.org.  It seems they will allow a petition by anyone, for anything, no matter that these petition might be created by violent individuals and have violent motives, including harassment.

Media personality Jay Smooth, the host of New York’s longest running hip-hop radio show, WBAI’s Underground Railroad, recently created a video criticizing online sexism and online threats against women.  Smooth was motivated by the recent surge of bullying, abuse and harassment attacks against Anita Sarkeesian whose Feminist Frequency project launched a Kickstarter campaign that came under attack.

“Many abusive men are active online,” comments a chapter organizer for the National Organization for Women (NOW), “and they often jump at the chance to try to intimidate women (especially protective mothers or their supporters) by making vicious and crazy threats, such saying they plan to rape the women, kill them, or otherwise cause them some kind of bodily harm.”

“It’s shocking and very frightening to realize just how many sexist men there are out there — bloggers and vloggers like Anita Sarkeesian often receive hundreds of these types of terrorist threats, almost daily.”

ENDNOTE:

Looking at one of the “human rights” petitions on Change.org that is listed by STEAM as an example of appropriate child abuse groups or movements — We demand changes to child abuse laws and sentencing, we find that the charges called for are suspicious at best and destructive to women at worst.  Most of the petition’s ten points otherwise appear to be reasonable and important suggestions for legislative changes or legislative protocols.  However, note items 6), 9) and 10) on this petition:

6) If a parent has left an abusive partner courts have no right sending a child for anything more then a supervised visit.

Really? What is this petition point actually saying? Courts have no right sending a child back to a protective mother (who has left her abusive partner) for more than a supervised visit? Sounds like the judicial abuse and alleged sexual abuse cases of both Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and Lori Handrahan from Maine, whose children at present are living out a life sentence.

Let’s look at this Change.org “human rights” petition point number 9)

9) In the event a child is claimed to be kidnapped or missing remove the other children in the home immediately place them in foster care.

Really? Does this make sense? Or is it an attempt to criminalize parents — probably the mother will suffer more — for reporting that their child has been kidnapped? Also, there is the question of how removing the other children from the home relates to the typically destructive and often highly profit-driven state foster care systems.  Does this give too much power to the state, an especially scary prospect given the state ‘social services’ and federally funded (Department of Health and Human Services) black holes serving the destructive father’s rights groups in states all over the USA?

The Change.org petition point number 10) is even clearer:

10) If the mother or father are living not wed to someone who is not the childs father or mother and has a known history of violence and the child is harmed or killed the mother should face equal charges for putting her child in danger.

Really? According to everything we have learned about domestic violence and child abuse, it is most often the case that women and children are trapped in abusive relationships and abusive households and fear for their personal safety and their children’s safety on a day-to-day and sometimes minute to minute basis. Women trapped in domestic violence situations by violent fathers are living in constant terror and escape is often considered impossible.  Such facts need to be taken into account and explored during investigations of domestic violence and child abuse/death.

But note that it is “the mother” singled out in this petition point who “should face equal charges” for living not wed to someone who has a known history of violence. This makes no sense, unless it is situated within the aggressive and violent framework of the destructive so-called “father’s rights” movement.

This “human rights” petition is nothing but a movement to give lawyer’s and judges more power to abuse women, especially protective mothers, and their children, by placing them in foster care. (The petition is also written in terrible English.)

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

     Nothing contained in this post or on this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and and especially for my little Julian, could be (mis)construed as “legal advice” of any kind as author of this post is expressly NOT a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner.

  • CENSORSHIP and censorship shall be challenged strongly as censorship, being in breach of, among so many other unlawful acts and omissions, is a violation of sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment u.S Constitutional right to the free exercise of speech, and also to peaceably assemble herein and also to freely exercise whatever religion, if any, that said natural, American u.S “citizen,” “citizen” meaning fo the purposes of this post. conditionally as i, being natural (wo)man, individual, living and corporeal body,  exclusively reserve the right to revoke or rescind the offer at any and all times, inherently “sovereign” and “elect” in nature, spirit, and essence because imbued with the spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD. ;
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.;
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Federa, u.S. Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal,u.S Constitution and its  Bill of Rights, pursuant to the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.;
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.;
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and Author will be happy to follow the law and respect your wishes.

GIVING PRAISE AND THANKS TO GOD FOR ANSWERING ONE REAL DADDY’S PRAYERS IN THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS!


GIVING PRAISE AND THANKS TO GOD FOR ANSWERING ONE REAL DADDY’S PRAYERS IN THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS!

jOHN'S BOY

WOW! LOOK AT THE SMILE ON THIS BEAUTIFUL LITTLE GIRL. THIS PICTURE TELLS THE STORY OF A HAPPY ENDING FOR MR. JOHN AND SHEMITRA HILL AND HIS TWO ADORABLE CHILDREN IN THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS AFTER ONE STRANGE DETOUR THROUGH DELIVERANCE IN HOUSTON, TEXAS (HARRIS COUNTY) FAMILY COURT IN THE 246TH WITH “THERAPIST” FELECIA POWELL-WILLIAMS AND A PLAYING/PAYING CREW, ON KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

THIS FAMILY IS CERTAINLY BLESSED.  PRAISE THE LORD!  HALLELUJAH!  GOD IS GOOD!

https://www.change.org/p/united-states-department-of-justice-change-the-laws-regarding-family-law-and-for-a-judge-lawyers-cps-and-police-officers-that-assist-with-covering-up-sexual-abuse-and-injury-to-a-child-in-the-state-of-texas

John Hill’s faith the the Lord and his willingness and actions that put His Word into his daily work (and even as a trusted worker for the United States Postal Service) have restored me not less than once over the last couple of interminable years without my son (pursuant to a  kidnapping or “wrongful, unreasonable ‘removal'” perpetrated for profit, prejudice, and retaliation by a band of rogue criminals working under the “color of the authority of law” for “state of Texas” in both Brazoria and Harris Counties, Texas.  John similarly endured, but he never, ever, ever wavered in his faith or his constant witnessing and testifying the Word of the Lord.  He never blamed God, but always insisted on more prayers, harder work, more faith, and fasting with the prayer.  John and his faithful new bride, and I may be misspelling he/r name, so please forgive me, but, Shemitra, testified and Stood by John and supported him in his darkest moments which he never let anyone else feel as dark.   John always wanted to praise and give glory to God and to not detract from that with the petty woes of this “valley of tears” the the Holy Bible in fact DOES promise us as opposed to the “rose garden”  to which so many feel “entitled,” especially in the current times.  I can remember John saying to me in dark hours in my struggle with the same forces working against families, children, and especially unwed mothers and young mothers with young, adoptable children, many of whom have vindictive ex-partners recruited by an all-too-willing profiteering/privateering joint public-private “non-for-profit” “state and local government,” or, “COG” (regional Council of Government), to be glad.  Why did he tell me to be glad?  “Because everything is happening just like it is supposed to and must happen.”  This is proof that His promises are real.  Thank you for your unwavering faith and encouragement, Mr. Hill.  God bless your beautiful family and children.  Your faithfulness and loyalty is of a rare breed indeed that is just not found in many corners of the earth.  I haven’t seen it yet in anyone who has not gone through what we have been refined through.

How did the Lord help John accomplish the Herculean task of enforcing his equal parental rights?  We give thanks that the Lord showed Mr. Hill a way in the form of a loan and an apparently highly effective Harris County, Houston, Texas (and surrounding areas to include North Houston) board-certified family law attorney, Gary Polland.

Now, we rejoice and continue to pray for over one hundred thousand mothers and children and a few fathers who missed the current or the custody-switching scam a la the Texas Office of the Attorner General for the Office of Title IV-D Child Support Enforcement and New Day Services “Responsible Fatherhood” for those with criminal records and “Healthy Marriage Initiative.”   That is certainly not to imply that these institutions are not -preferable or meritorious, but rather than blatant gender discrimination of an invidious animus, and also of the socio-economic and marital “color” are inflicting enormous harm and injury in the glorification and false worship of grants, “trauma-informed, levels based, outcomes” which encourage questionable court appointments and unholy alliances and conflicts of interests among service contractors and providers trusted by public servants who have been “trusted,” irresponsibly, with the highest and most noble of causes–our children.  These fiduciaries have breached their con tract with the parents and children of Texas to the degree they continue to so operate without disclosing fully and fairly and duly compensating the real private property owners gifted by GOD ALMIGHTY.

So happy for you, John!  The children look happier and healthier than anyone could ask for.  And they are even mowing the lawn and performing chores!  All Glory goes to God.  A win for one of us is a win for all of us!  “Today is a day in which the Lord hath made, therefore we shall rejoice and be glad in it (Psalms 117:24, The Holy Bible).”

Further, For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God Than dwell in the tents of wickedness. For the LORD God is a sun and shield; The LORD gives grace and glory; No good thing does He withhold from those who walk uprightly.…(Psalms 84:10, The Holy Bible).

Many believe firmly, and this real mommy agrees, that the Word of the Lord alone, and only the Holy Scripture, can and shall save us in the time of Evil.  It is time to do our homework and start memorizing.  This part is literal, in my opinion and based in real life observations.  For there can only be one master of “illusion.”  Cogito ergo sum.  I think, therefore “I AM.”  I believe.

The scourge and details below:

Petitioning Governor Rick Perry and 5 others

Change the laws regarding family law and for a judge, lawyers, CPS, and police officers that assist with covering up sexual abuse and injury to a child in the state of Texas

john hill the woodlands, TX

 

I have been fighting for full custody of my children in the 246th court in Houston, TX with Judge York presiding, due to my ex-wife, Dana Rochelle Edwards, allowing our children who are ages 7 and 6 now to be molested since 2009.

My children were out crying about being sexually abused in their mother and maternal grandmother’s home, majority of the weekends that I was able to pick them up they were always complaining about being sexually and physically abused, which as a father I didn’t know what to do or how to handle this, I took them to the hospital and called CPS, but CPS wouldn’t come out, they would wait until the children were back in the custody of my ex-wife and talk to the children or call my ex-wife and ask her did it happen and she would say that the children are lying and making things up or I was making up it because I didn’t want to pay child support, and CPS would close the case and do nothing. So SANE  (sexual assault nurse exam) cases were performed on the children, but not every time they went to the hospital.

Deadre Jones, my ex-wife’s mother, stated to CPS that I was the only person making these accusations about my children being abused, but it is clearly documented that my ex-wife and her knew about the abuse prior to me even knowing, as well as Jones going to the hospital with ex-wife for complaints of abuse. It is also documented in CPS reports that she was also taking my children to the “suspected person” as well.

Jones was in court and every CPS meeting with my ex-wife playing the innocent grandmother role, knowing all that time what was happening behind closed doors at her house as well as my ex-wife house, and didn’t come forward with the truth. Judge York appointed Bobbie Young as amicus attorney in December 2011 to see if she could help my ex-wife and I resolve our issues and do what was best for the children. Young is also a RN.

 

Young met with me at my home, she spoke to my fiancée, who is currently a RN concerning the sexual abuse, outcries and behavior of my children, Young admitted to her that she knew that the molestation was going on; she had recently visited the home of my ex-wife.

‘My mother, who is a retired school teacher, also spoke with Young concerning the sexual abuse, outcries, and behavior of my children; she admitted again that she was aware of the abuse. Young filed a motion for my ex-wife and I to have a psychological evaluation through Dr. Victoria Sloan, I did not trust Young because as soon as we went to court she was another person and siding with my ex-wife, so we verbally agreed with my prior attorney Bruce Buskirk that I could find my own person to perform the psychological evaluation. And I did, Young brings me back into court  as well as the psychotherapist, Dr, McDaniel, after speaking with him and he told her that nothing was wrong with me psychologically, she told Judge York that he wasn’t qualified to performpsychological evaluation, and it needed it to performed by a licensed psychologist, Judge York approved her request.

In January 2012, Judge York, Young, and Angelina Gooden, my ex-wife’s attorney who is also an amicus for the 246th court, heard medical testimony from Harris County police officer  (Sgt. William Lilly, appointed by Harris County Sheriff, Adrian Garcia, supervisor to Lilly, Ruben Diaz) who read the SANE (sexual assault nurse exam)  nurse report from Memorial Hermann in the Woodlands, Tx, stating that my son told the SANE nurse that “the person at his mother’s home put their penis in his mouth and urinated,” my daughter stated that “the person put their mouth, fingers, toys, and penis into her vagina.”

Judge York stated that he believed that this has been going on, but he didn’t order to remove the children from their mother’s home, he just stated that he wanted to hear more testimony from the medical staff at Memorial Hermann, which Memorial Hermann’s lawyer kept filing quash motions to prevent their staff from coming into court testifying about the statements that my children made concerning sexual abuse happening to them at their mother’s home, which Judge York approved, but he kept contradicting himself saying he wanted every medical personnel that the children made outcries to about  in his court to testify.

My ex-wife continued to violate court orders and Judge York wouldn’t even hold her in contempt, he would just say stop doing that. Young kept bringing me back into court for psychological evaluations which was done by a board certified psychologist that gives insight on the news in Houston, I gave her his information, signed a release form for her to talk to him, but she never contacted him, she kept saying I didn’t get to talk to him prior to Mr. Hill seeing him, which was never in her original order.

I filed a grievance on her because she wouldn’t stop, she is extremely biased, kept telling me she was going to make sure she takes my rights taken away, and kept defending my ex-wife, while saying that the molestation didn’t happen that it was all speculation, I provided Young with the medical documents showing my children describing to medical professionals about the sexual abuse that was happening to them in their mother’s home, Young also had access to CPS reports as well. I even told her that my fiancée and I was threatened by the CPS police that if we file another CPS report then something will happen to us. We filed a complaint with internal affairs against the police officer after contacting the Mayor of Houston, Parker.

In April 2012, I picked my children up and my daughter had burns going up her legs and my son had cigarette burns on his knee, which their mother nor maternal grandmother told me when I picked them on Friday evening, I didn’t find out until Saturday morning when I was putting them on their night clothes because they fell asleep on the way home, which is what they typically do when I do get them and sleep until 11am or 12 pm on Saturday, which my mother or fiancée is watching them while I am at work.

Well, my mom took my children to the hospital just to make sure that the burns on my daughter’s leg was not infected and needed to be treated, my daughter had a old burn on upper thigh which she wouldn’t tell anyone how she got that burn, but the lower leg burn happened because she fell on a barbeque pit top, my son also verbalized to the doctor, that their cousin Reggie (Reginald Moffett), who is a grown man, burned him with cigarettes on his leg and his mom just got mad but left them at his house anyway and went to work.

The doctor asked if there was a history of abuse and my mom and I told her as well as my daughter started showing her vagina, so she sent my daughter via ambulance to Texas Children Hospital  in the Medical Center, I verbalized to the doctor that I didn’t want a SANE case done because the 246th court, Young, and Gooden would try to take my rights away because they said that I was “emotionally abusing my children due to the SANE cases, ” the doctor said that the court can deal with her, and my daughter was going to Texas Children’s Hospital that night.

CPS was called, but they said they couldn’t come out until Sunday, which they never did, they called my ex-wife instead and she said that she wasn’t present but that she fell on a barbeque pit top and didn’t say anything about the older burn on her thigh.

My previous attorney Allecia Pottinger was notified and contacted Young to come to the hospital, Young spoke with the medical staff and I and they also verbalized that I didn’t want the SANE case, but there was suspicion of abuse so a SANE case would be done that night, Young agreed and stayed at the hospital until midnight. Young used the SANE (sexual assault nurse exam) case that she approved of and had my rights taken away, CPS was made managing conservator over my children, Pottinger told me that my children would be placed in a family member’s home until they can figure out what is going on, which I gave them my sister’s information who is also an attorney and her husband is a FBI agent, but that didn’t happen CPS placed the children right back into my ex-wife’s custody immediately after court and Reggie Moffett’s).

I was ordered to do another psychological evaluation as well as “psychiatric evaluation,” which they had no valid explanation for another evaluation, which would have been my 3rd and 4th evaluation in less than 6 months.

Young and Gooden were allowed to use my cancer medical records, which was obtained illegally through my ex-wife, she was never given any permission to obtain my medical records, while I was going through cancer in 2006, I was diagnosed with mild depression, I lost my home, I didn’t have insurance, my ex-wife couldn’t keep a job, and lack of family support, they were able to use that to say that I had an undiagnosed “mental disorder,” which was unbelievable. My ex-wife NEVER did her psychological evaluation that Young ordered for Dr. Sloan and Judge York approved, Gooden and Young verbalized that she had walked out of her evaluation and didn’t complete it.

So, then I was on supervised visitation for taking my children to the hospital for them out crying about being sexually abused, this is ridiculous. ‘

So, during that time I obtained CPS reports, my ex-wife’s story about the abuse kept changing with every CPS case worker, she knew about it, she didn’t know it, the children were lying, and I was molesting my children. My children actually out cried to CPS case workers about the abuse happening in their mother’s home and maternal grandmother’s home, CPS still didn’t do anything. CPS talked to the SANE nurse, she said there is “absolutely no way a child could make up a story as detailed as this.”

Young and Gooden would consistently bring me in and out court to take away rights of seeing my children, once Judge York approved of what they were doing; they walked out of court laughing. I was on supervised visitation through CPS at their office my ex-wife was still taking my daughter to the doctor for concerns of abuse, trying place the blame on me, my daughter was diagnosed with vaginitis while I was on supervised visitation.

In August 2012, my ex-wife, her two (2) cousins ( Margaret Moffett and Niosha Sampson), and her aunt (Sheryl Thomas Gainous )went to CPS making a report that they had walked into the room my son was performing play sex on his cousins (which are their children), now all of these children are less than 10, they asked them what they were doing, then they asked my children who taught them that, my children supposedly said that I taught them that, I would touch their private parts while they were taking a bath, they asked my children how did it feel when I touched them, my children supposedly said at first it felt tingly but then we liked it because we thought it was game, and we would have sex with each other in front of our dad and we would like it, Dana became shocked to hear this and blamed herself for the abuse, saying she could have asked more questions, I mean these are professional people, no one found it bizarre that all these people would come in on the same day while I was on supervised visitation, and make up a crazy story as this, I was questioned through CPS about this outrageous accusation and Young, Gooden, CPS, my ex-wife, and her family walked out of court laughing. Judge York didn’t do anything about this, he did order for us to see the same psychologist for anotherevaluation,” which we did, the psychologist said that I was angry and just needed to work with CPS and the court to get my children on the other hand she said that my ex-wife said she had an 11th grade education but she more than likely had the education of a 7th grader, she had psychological issues and needed to see a doctor to properly diagnose her as well as see a psychiatrist to placed on medication, and she needed repeated psychological evaluation for the next 2 years to see where she is at, Young never brought this into court, matter of fact Young and Gooden wouldn’t even release the information to my prior attorney Hilary Unger for months, discoveries kept being filed, but only portions of the discoveries were being followed.

Dana and my son during a therapy session with Powell-Williams, it is documented what really happened with the “play sex”. Per Powell-Williams, it is documented that my son stated that he was being bullied by his older cousin into playing sex.

Dana never stated the story her cousins and aunt made up about the whole “play sex” situation when she became shocked  while she was in therapy with my son. This was not brought to the attention of  the court, that Dana went in with her cousins and aunt to make those false accusations against me, which CPS was aware because they had Powell-Williams documentation. After showing HCSO and the DA documentation, they stated that they couldn’t charge them with making false CPS reports because CPS should have filed charges against them once they received documentation that Dana’s story had changed about the “play sex” three weeks later.

Dana also openly admits to CPS that she has to sleep in our daughter’s room at night to make sure our son doesn’t come in and bother her at night. Now, what kind of mother portrays her own son of doing this to his sister instead of taking accountability for her own actions, which something should have clicked in someone’s head to see that she is definitely hiding something. The suspects have never been properly investigated because they call Dana prior to coming to her home and she denies the suspects saying that is the name of my altered ego, which is ridiculous. 

(or, in Author of this blog’s  son’s case–what kind of a father alleges the same about himself to a five year old little boy?)-America, we have a problem!  Wake-up Houston!

Judge York ordered Dr. Felecia Powell-Williams, who is a psychotherapist that the children were seeing but not on the approved family plan through CPS that he signed off on to see me with my children so that I can get off of the supervised visitation because CPS wanted off the case after I sent them medical documentation showing my daughter was diagnosed with vaginitis while under their care and my ex-wife was still taking them to doctor for concerns of abuse while I was on supervised visitation, CPS also blocked me from getting the medical records so I had to file a complaint against ABC pediatric clinic with OCR, which is how I was able to obtain part of my children’s medical records and continue to see the bias and unfairness in this entire case.

Powell-Williams wouldn’t follow the court order, came into court because Young and Gooden filed a motion they wanted to increase my child support because my ex-wife doesn’t like to work and wanted to keep me on supervised visitation and give my ex-wife full custody and Young wanted to prevent me from testifying to anything she has said to me.

Because a few weeks earlier she admitted again to Hilary Unger, my previous attorney and myself that she was aware of the molestation going on in the mother’s home, but she couldn’t prove it through the SANE cases and she would get me off of supervised visitation, but she was consistently defending and covering my ex-wife at the same time.

Powell-Williams said that I was “delusional” because I called her and told her that she was basically doing like everyone else in the case covering for my ex-wife and she is just like CPS, and Judge York ordered her to see me with my children and if she wasn’t aware of the order than she needs to contact CPS to get the order so she can do it, then she says under oath she cannot make a decision concerning my psychological state after only seeing me 2 times for less than 30 minutes. Powell-Williams was also provided with all my children and my psychological evaluation, CPS notes, and medical records, so she can be fully aware of everything concerning this case.

Judge Hays, the associate judge in York’s 246th court in Harris County in Houston, ordered me to continue to be on supervised visitation and go to mediation and denied Young’s motion, the bias just continued and they were unable to provide me with a valid explanation for continuing to be on supervised visitation.

Powell-Williams was upset because I wasn’t going to personally pay her. I informed her I did not hire her and that therapy sessions that she is providing for my children is between CPS and herself, and she needs to contact them for payment arrangements.

Mellonie Baldwin, Achor Counseling, was the counselor that CPS ordered for my ex-wife and I to go to for individual and parental counseling. I had been going there for several weeks and Baldwin comes into my session and asks me for my ex-wife’s contact information because according to her my ex-wife had not come to any counseling sessions.

I informed her that she needs to contact CPS to get her contact information. I was told that I was finished with my counseling sessions and my ex-wife has not attended any sessions and they can’t make her come to the sessions.

So, my counselor signed off on my counseling sessionsThree (3)  months later Baldwin calls me the night before court and tells me that I have 6 more sessions, I told her no I do not my counselor signed off and said that I was done, I was already seeing a Christian psychologist for counseling prior to coming to Achor Counseling and I was presently seeing her. Achor Counseling was supposed to call her and make sure that they were not interfering with her therapy sessions with me, which they failed to do.

She became irate on the phone and I told her she needs to talk to my counselor, Mr. Smith and he signed- off on me, and she nor CPS can change the order at the last minute to accomodate whatever it is that they are trying to do, and I was not going to do any more sessions at Achor Counseling and that is  the end of that.

I also informed her that I had recorded my counseling sessions because I did not trust Achor Counseling because they were connected with CPS.

Baldwin hangs up the phone in my face, but calls back later saying that she found the missing sheet of paper, and she will call CPS to clear up this matter immediately.

February 2013, after CPS pulls off the case, I receive all of their files, in there is Achor Counseling records, my ex-wife had been seeing Baldwin the entire time that I was going there, and she e-mailed CPS and told them I was “rude to her and she didn’t want to see me anymore for counseling and that she is going to write on my final evaluation that I need to stop “lying on my ex-wife.”

They had all of the medical records and CPS records, so everything that I was saying about my ex-wife lying and covering- up the molestation of our children was in black and white. I was seeing Mr. Smith so I don’t know why she would even write anything on my final evaluation, which continued to show how people were openly and willing to cover up the molestation of my children.

Hilary set up a mediation meeting, even she said that mediation wouldn’t work, I told her I didn’t want to go to mediation that my ex-wife would continue to violate court orders and nothing would be done to her.

The mediation was basically in favor of my ex-wife on everything, I was going to be”subjected” to another psychological evaluation and continue to be supervised visitation through SAFE which  I would have to pay for, I told her I didn’t want to sign it, I called my fiancée and talk to her about it, Hilary gets on the phone and tells her the same thing she tells me, that even if I go to trial and the jury finds favor in me, Judge York stills has the last say, he is pro-women and he would never give me custody of my children, he would look at the SANE cases and base his decision solely on that, he would increase my child support to $1,800 dollars, so I need to go ahead and sign because he will order it anyway and I should be like every other man in Texas take my standard visitation and go on with my life, so I kept going back and forth not wanting to sign it and she kept saying I have no choice its only for a few weeks, I am still unable to see my children til this day as well as my ex-wife continues to violate the phone order, they cannot find a psychologist or counselor who even wants to touch this case, because after I send them paperwork proving what I am saying is true and the bias and the injustice that I have been going through in this court, they don’t want to touch it.

My sister who is an attorney contacted Hilary asking her why did she make me sign that mediation order, Hilary tried to say that I wanted to, but my sister said I talked to him right before he went into your office for the mediation meeting, he talked my mom, and his fiancée as well, he verbalized that this was waste of time and he didn’t want to sign it and needed to go back to work, she started saying I am the worst client she ever had because I don’t know how to control my emotions, which this court is unfair, biased, and continues to do everything that is wrong during this case, so I have every right to be upset this court is playing with my children’s lives as well as mine.

Houston attorney Hilary Unger was aware that court-appointed amicus attorney Bobbie Young was retaliating; she even called the ethics board with the State Bar of Texas on her and said that if she sides with my ex-wife during the trial then she would file on her, but we never went to trial because of this mediation.

And, of course. Judge York denies the appeal, said that this case makes him nauseous, he says he doesn’t make decisions its on the amicus, laughs and looks at me and say, “Mr. Hill sorry I couldn’t help you.”

But my children reside in a home where there was attempted murder on my ex-wife, by her family member, who shot into their home while she had the children.

CPS supervisors came to court and said that they are aware of the court violations but unaware that my ex-wife was taking my children to the doctor while in their custody, but I have e-mails showing that they knew about it, they even sent the e-mails to Hilary, but they were allowed to continue to lie in court.

There are also police reports showing that  my ex-wife tried to pull the children out of the car while I was driving off and chased me on the interstate and the police would be called out every time I would go to pick them up, but none of this matters to the 246th, Judge York believes children should be with their mother, no matter what.

I have hired 4 attorneys and spent almost $80,000 dollars (that was in 2013), lost memories of my children growing- up, and lost my home, I am worse off now than when I started this fight. After my attorneys talk with Young and Gooden, they pull off the case every time, they say this case is crazy.

Judge York ordered phone conversations while I was on supervised visitation on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7:30 pm, she violated the order over 40 times, Judge Jim York never did anything, my ex-wife, Dana,  continues to violate the court orders, I am still unable to talk to talk to my children on several Thursdays and haven’t seen them since July 2013.

I no longer can see my children through SAFE because they don’t want to be involved after sent them information pertaining to this case, ask them for documentation for every time my ex-wife violated the SAFE, and a receipt of payments to SAFE

SAFE manager got upset and said that I didn’t pay for the person supervising the visits one time out of the several times I did feed her. Judge York will never make CPS, Dana or Young and Gooden accountable for lying in court, because they have went beyond measures to keep the molestation of my children and my ex-wife knowing about it out of court.

Attorney Hilary Unger then pulled out of my case as soon as we get out of court and after my appeal was denied, and tells me find another attorney to appeal Judge York’s decision as well as the mediation, I contacted over 20 attorneys and all of them say wait until Judge York is off the bench in November 2013, but what about my children’s safety, does that not matter, what about the fact she continues to violate orders and her lawyers (Gooden and Young) cover her. \

They also told me that I didn’t have a chance because I was going up against two amicus attorneys (court-appointed) in Judge York’s court (246th, Harris County, TX) and he will rule for whatever they want every time, which is not right and highly biased.

My ex-wife was found guilty of assaulting me and took a plea deal, which shows she is a pathological liar and is unable to control her actions. She lied under oath several times about things pertaining to this case and it can be proven.

I had to see a Christian psychologist for several months to help me deal with anger issues concerning this case, she was NEVER pulled into court to combat all the people that Gooden and Young brought in.

She helped me to deal with this issue as God would have me to and that’s by continuing to pray and stand on His word, even though it is hard at times. I know that the God I serve is a God of justice and evil shall never prevail against good.

Nobody besides myself and the police officer who read the SANE nurse’s report was ever able to testify concerning the children’s outcries and witnessed inappropriate behavior and conversation with other children.

Attorney Hilary Unger, one of my attorneys, brought up the red bumps near my daughter’s vagina that she showed my mother and the case worker during a supervised visitation, the case worker comes in court and says that it looks like mosquito bites, it was January 2013, the weather was cold, so in order for my daughter to have mosquito bites near her vagina she would have to be in a bathing suit, standing near water, and her mother is watching her getting attacked by mosquitoes and why doesn’t my son have it as well, but that was allowed to go on in the 246th court.

 

I went to the DA for Harris County in order for them to pick-up of assault case against my ex-wife instead of keeping it in the JP courts, which video-taped at my children’s school and the principal was an eye witness.

I wanted Harris County DA to pick up the case because Elijah Gooden was my ex-wife’s attorney and used what was happening in family court against me and the JP DA was going to give her a slap on the wrist.

She previously pleaded not guilty to the assault and said that I hit her, and once the video was seen it showed that she assaulted me.

Prior JP DA was going to give her serious charges, but Gooden said that he wanted to reschedule because he wanted to bring a witness of the assault which was her cousin, Niosha, who has a criminal record of stealing and using Dana’s ID.

They had previously re-scheduled the assault case over 5 times prior to that.  I showed the Harris County DA evidence of my ex-wife allowing our two children to be molested since 2009, and the cops seem not to be investigating the situation thoroughly, she looked at the evidence and shook her head.

She stated I have a lot of evidence against my ex-wife, but Harris County seems to not be able to find the perpetrators. She didn’t say anything else about picking- up the case and trying to find the perpetrators.

I really need to help to overturn Judge York’s decision and every action of my previous of attorneys, Gooden, and Young. The 246th court, CPS, the attorneys, and Harris County Police Department, had a lot of evidence, and chose to cover it up as well making threatening phone calls to my fiancée and myself.

How many children lives will be allowed to be ruined because of the actions and decisions of these people, how many parents who are trying to protect their children, will be humiliated and persecuted because they are for what’s right.

When will the laws change and there be equality for both parents, just because you gave birth to a child does not make you a mother. I am for being with right the parent whether it is mother or father.

My children have a false pretense of what the law is about, they told me “dad we told them what happened and now we can’t come home, and this will never end, family laws in Texas” what does a parent do when you can’t protect your children because of the s and Texas doesn’t have any laws holding people accountable for covering sexual and physical abuse to a child/children.

I am thankful for what i have sown into my children, and that is they continue to trust and believe in God and they continue to pray and ask God to let them come home, which helps build my faith that God will put the right people in place to make sure that no one else has to go through what my family and I have been through.

I am just asking for people to take a stand for what is right and lets make a change, instill in our children morals and values, and protect our future generation from bias of the justice department.

Thank you for taking time to read my letter, I pray that this petition gets to the Supreme Court of Texas and the family law will be changed for the safety of children.

 

 

 

 

 

SANE (sexual assault nurse exam) cases:

PJ

MH – 1/8/2011- John

MH- 1/21/2012- John

TCH- 10/19/2009 – Dana

MH – 9/2010- Dana

 

A.J.H

MH – 1/8/2011 -John

MH – 6/19/2011-John

MH – 8/14/2011 – John

TCH- 10/19/2009 – Dana

MH – 9/2010 – Dana

TCH- 4/29/2012- I refused because I knew Young would retaliate the doctor at St. Luke’s in the Woodlands said that the courts can take of the fact that she ordered a SANE case with her

 

I have posted my story on the internet and multiple parents have contacted me because they are going through the same thing involving some of the same people that was involved in my case. I have completed my counseling session, and still these people find a way for me not be able to see my children.

 

 

God Bless,

 

John Hill

 

Letter to

Governor Rick Perry

NAACP

Supreme Court of Texas

and 3 others

United States Department of Justice

Representative Al Green

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

Change the laws regarding family law and for a judge, lawyers, CPS, and police officers that assist with covering up sexual abuse and injury to a child in the state of Texas

Updates

  1. 11 months ago
  2. 500 supporters
  3. 2 years ago
  4. john hill started this petition

Petition Closed

505 supporters

495 needed to reach 1,000

United States Department of Justice: Change the laws regarding family law and for…

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand,

Family Court Extortion – Sunny Kelley Story


Family Court Injustice

There are perhaps hundreds of parents like Sunny who have been bankrupted through the CT courts, essentially extorted out of a relationship with their children. Recently, journalist Keith Harmon Snow posted on his website a story listing over 70 cases involving mothers who were never found to be dangerous or unfit, but none the less lost custody after their children reported they were physically or sexually assaulted by their fathers. Mothers who continued to seek legal protection or medical treatment for the children’s injuries were ordered to pay supervised visitation centers to see their children. “

 Bethany, Connecticut: True story of how Sunny Kelley lost custody of her son, Max, after reporting physical and sexual abuse (with documentation, medical evidence and statements from Max to validate her claims). Family Court awarded sole custody to the abuser, and placed Sunny in supervised visitation. Sunny was bankrupted by the high cost of family court proceedings, and…

View original post 148 more words

Mother Confronts Convicted KIDS-FOR-CASH Judge, Mark Ciavarella


Mother Sandy Fonzo Confronting Convicted Kids-for-Cash Judge Mark Ciavarella in Luzerne County, Pennsylania after Son Committed Suicide after False Commitment to Juvenile Detention Center like 4,000 other Juveniles Wrongfully Ripped Away from Parents, Families, Friends, and Schools for a Corrupt Judge’s $1,000,000 Kickback–None of the “Players” in Court Spoke Up, but rather, they all “played along.”

Mother Confronts Convicted

KIDS-FOR-CASH Judge, Mark Ciavarella

Luzerne County, PA 

“My son was my life, that’s all I had, and now it’s gone. I don’t have that same life. I don’t exist right now,” Fonzo told CNN.– We hear you, Sandy, and our hearts go out to you and your loss, the world’s loss.  I am so sorry.  This MUST STOP!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wLahyYcu5BE

Uploaded on Feb 21, 2011    

Mother blames Pa. judge for her son’s death, yells at him as he exits court.For more, click here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id…

 ABC News

Sandy Fonzo’s Beloved Son, Now Deceased, Committed Suicide after being Sentenced by Kids-for-Cash Judge Mark Ciavarella to Juvenile Jail

 

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand,



Termination of Parental Rights Reversed in Murfreesboro, TN: In re Alysia S.


Herston on Tennessee Family Law

Knoxville family law attorneysFacts: in 2010, Mother sought assistance in caring for Child after Mother lost her job. She signed a power of attorney and authorization of temporary guardianship stating Child would reside with another couple for approximately six months. During that period, the couple filed a petition alleging Child was dependent and neglected and seeking temporary custody of Child.

The juvenile court found Child dependent and neglected and granted custody to the couple.

Mother appealed to the circuit court, which found no clear and convincing evidence of dependency and neglect and ordered the juvenile court to reunify Child with Mother.

The couple appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court.

Despite that procedural history, Child was never reunified with Mother because, in part, the trial court deferred to a psychologist who wanted to reunify Mother and Child over a period of two years. While this reunification process was occurring…

View original post 904 more words

$2.75 Million Dollar Settlement for Seven Foster Care Children in Nevada (Clark County)


The advocacy group’s attention has now shifted to whether recommendations for county child welfare reform and related court systems will be implemented.

“The track record for the county is not good,” said Bill Grimm, a senior attorney at the Oakland, Calif.,-based National Center for Youth Law, which filed the lawsuit and lobbies for the protection and care of foster children.

The settlement was approved by the Clark County Commission in mid-November, but it still needed final approval from the court. About $1.6 million will directly benefit the seven former foster children, while $500,000 will cover attorney fees and costs for plaintiffs’ counsel.

Clark County spent $1.4 million on attorney fees, which covered outside counsel, and other costs in defending the case.

The settlement follows a long legal battle over the county’s foster care system waged by the National Center for Youth Law and Morrison & Foerster LLP on behalf of their clients, the announcement said.

The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed in 2010 and claimed the county’s child welfare agency failed to provide adequate care and safety for foster children.

A federal judge threw out the case, but a federal appeals court reinstated the suit in 2012.

The suit cited concerns with numerous aspects of the county’s child welfare system, including the use of psychotropic medications on children, reported physical and sexual abuse in foster homes, and the adequacy of Child Protective Services investigations.

The settlement was approved on March 21 by federal Judge Robert C. Jones. The money for each plaintiff ranges from $100,000 to $350,000, which has been deposited into annuities and trusts, Grimm said.

Four of the former foster children are still minors and may need to go to court for particular disbursements.

Now that the legal battle is over, the advocacy group’s attention has turned to the recently released report from a Nevada Blue Ribbon committee that recommends reforms to the county’s child welfare and court systems, Grimm said. The committee was appointed last fall by Nevada Supreme Court Justice Nancy Saitta to examine system shortcomings.

“A report gets issued … and when it comes to implementing the changes, very little ends up being done,” Grimm said.

Contact Yesenia Amaro at yamaro@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0440. Find her on Twitter: @YeseniaAmaro

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand,

Fostering Profits: Abuse And Neglect At America’s Biggest For-Profit Foster Care Company – BuzzFeed News


How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our Children

via Fostering Profits: Abuse And Neglect At America’s Biggest For-Profit Foster Care Company – BuzzFeed News.

Fostering Profits

A BuzzFeed News investigation identified deaths, sex abuse, and blunders in screening, training, and overseeing foster parents at the nation’s largest for-profit foster care company.

posted on Feb. 20, 2015, at 10:52 a.m.In the summer of 2004, a 15-year-old boy, needy and eager for attention, was driven down a road that stretched through the endless flatlands of Maryland’s eastern shore. The boy, known in court records as R.R., arrived at a dirt driveway, where a sign on top of a wooden post announced Last Chance Farm.

Four separate couples lived at Last Chance Farm. All were related to one another and all earned money taking care of troubled children who had been placed in foster care, including R.R.

But R.R.’s new guardians weren’t directly supervised or paid by the government…

View original post 4,885 more words

“I’ve decided to continue speaking…”


Family Court in America

From theCongressional Testimony of Stacy Lynne to Bill Windsor ofLawless America:

“… This morning I spoke for two hours at a meeting in Jefferson County for the first time since my son was taken nearly a year ago and I have nothing left to lose. They’ve taken everything from me. And I’ve decided to continue speaking as I have done before to help people learn about how to protect their children and their families from the corruption in the United States of America…

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials…

View original post 140 more words

KIDS-FOR-CASH JUDGE LISA MILLARD | CORRUPT TX


KIDS-FOR-CASH JUDGE LISA MILLARD

Judge Lisa A. Millard, 310th Court, Harris County, Texas in Houston Famous Cases: Clifford Hall, the “egg case,” City of Houston Mayor Annise Parker’s same-sex benefits denial case, mother not allowed to speak Spanish to her daughter case, wrongfully institutionalize little Christoper Logan Parks case, little Brittany Corcoran and Mother Nikki Jones Case, Dawn Cooper Case where Again Sold 7-year old Girl to Dangerous Man she Didn’t Know, and of course, the case of my only child, now 8 years old, then only 5, Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy Saloom, three years missing, held hostage with “Responsible” “Healthy Marriage Initiated Father” for Bribery

HOW WAS THIS WOMAN, JUDGE LISA A. MILLARD, AND HER ASSOCIATE JUDGE, CONRAD MOREN, IN THE 310TH COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS IN HOUSTON EVER QUALIFIED ABSENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE “CPS CLUSTER COURT”/FAMILY “CIVIL” CASE AFTER CPS ALREADY KIDNAPPED MY ONLY PRIVATE PROPERTY SOMETIMES DECEPTIVELY CONNED “CHILD” BY “STATE OF TEXAS?”

Oh, and look how cozy, the 313th Associate Judge who tried to shake me down and contributed to my false imprisonment because I couldn’t afford him in 2007, the then-appointed by Millard’s 310th court Associate Judge Conrad Moren’s buddy, Stephen Newhouse is involved, too.  Hmmmm.  I think the jury has returned the real verdict on who the real “crazy,” but rich criminals are HERE.

HOW IS THIS NOT A KIDS-FOR-CASH SCAM THAT MIRRORS THAT OF LUZERNE COUNTY WHERE KIDS- FOR -CASH JUDGE MARK CIAVARELLA AND CONAHAN WENT TO A PRISON CELL OF THEIR OWN IN THE US THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IN PENNSYLVANIA?

http://www.hcjpd.org/mission.asp

http://www.cybertipline.com/en_US/archive/documents/risk_factors_parental_abduction.pdf

HELLO, DOWN HERE, BUT YOU’RE INVESTIGATING THE WRONG CORRUPT JUDGE AND PARENTS!


  Home
  Mission Statement
  Juvenile Board
  Juvenile Courts
  Services
  Careers/Internship
  Help for My Child
  Education Services
  Published Reports
  Public Information
  Report TJJD Abuse
  How to Reach US
  Links

 

 

Juvenile Board Members

 

Honorable Ed Emmett, Chairman
Judges:  (as in Judge’s Trials at the New Nuremberg?)
Honorable Bill Burke Honorable Michael Schneider
Honorable John Phillips   Honorable Don Coffey
Honorable Glenn Devlin  Honorable Lisa Millard
Honorable Denise Bradley
Staff:
Thomas D. Brooks, Executive Director
Juvenile Board Agenda – Approved Meeting Dates for 2015 

Burnett Bayland Rehabilitation Center – Cancelled
6500A Chimney Rock Rd
Houston, TX 77081
March 25, 2015 12:00PM

Juvenile Board Meeting 3-25-15Cancelled

Past Meeting Dates

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-25-15 Juvenile Board Meeting 1-28-15
Cancelled-Juvenile Board Meeting 12-17-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 11-19-14
Juvenile Board Meeting 10-22-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 9-24-14
Juvenile Board Meeting 8-27-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 7-23-14
Juvenile Board Meeting 6-25-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 5-28-14
 Juvenile Board Meeting 4-23-14  Juvenile Board Meeting 3-26-14
 Juvenile Board Meeting 1-22-14 Cancelled- Juvenile Board Meeting 12-11-13
 Juvenile Board Meeting 11-20-13  Juvenile Board Meeting 10-23-13
 Juvenile Board Meeting 9-25-13

 Juvenile Board Meeting 8-28-13

 Juvenile Board Meeting 7-24-13 Juvenile Board Meeting 6-26-13
Juvenile Board Meeting 5-22-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 4-24-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 3-27-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-27-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 1-23-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-12-12

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 11-14-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 10-24-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 9-26-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 8-22-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 7-25-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 6-27-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 5-23-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 4-18-12

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 3-28-12

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-22-12

Juvenile Board Meeting 1-25-12

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-14-11

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 11-16-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 10-26-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 9-28-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 8-24-11

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 7-27-11 Juvenile Board Meeting 6-22-11
Juvenile Board Meeting 6-1-11

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 5-25-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 4-27-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 3-23-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-16-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 1-26-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-15-10

Juvenile Board Meeting 11-17-10
No October 2010 Meeting Juvenile Board Meeting 09-22-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 08-25-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 07-28-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 06-15-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 06-02-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 05-26-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 05-20-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 04-28-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 03-24-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 02-24-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 01-27-10

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-16-09

Special Juvenile Board Meeting 11-24-09

 Juvenile Board Agenda 11-18-09

Juvenile Board Agenda 10-28-09
 Juvenile Board Agenda 09-23-09  Juvenile Board Agenda 08-26-09
Juvenile Board Agenda 07-22-09 Juvenile Board Agenda 06-24-09
Juvenile Board Agenda 05-27-09 Juvenile Board Agenda 04-06-09
Juvenile Board CANCELLED for 03-25-09 Juvenile Board Agenda 01-28-09
Juvenile Board Agenda 12-17-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 11-11-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 09-24-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 08-27-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 07-23-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 06-25-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 05-28-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 04-23-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 04-03-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 02-27-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 01-23-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 12-12-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 10-24-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 09-28-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 08-22-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 07-26-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 06-27-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 06-06-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 05-23-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 04-25-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 04-18-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 03-28-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 03-14-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 02-28-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 01-24-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 12-05-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 11-15-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 09-27-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 08-23-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 07-26-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 06-28-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 05-24-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 04-26-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 03-8-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 02-15-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 01-25-06


A Balanced Approach to Juvenile Justice

Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
1200 Congress
Houston, Texas 77002
Phone: 713-222-4100

http://texaschildrenscommission.gov/media/393/harriscountyreport.pdf

http://texaschildrenscommission.gov/our-work/training.aspx#PS

When the Narcissist Becomes Dangerous/Psych Central


Protective Mothers' Alliance International

bipolar-woman-mask-200

Recently at a dinner party, talk turned to the current news story about Bill Cosby. As the only psychologist at the table, everyone looked at me as one person asked with intense curiosity, “How could anyone victimize women all those years, and still live with himself? How could you sleep at night?”

Since I don’t know Bill Cosby, I can’t speak for him; nor do I know if he is guilty of the accusations against him or not. But generally, in an actual situation like this, there is an answer to the question. The answer is one word: narcissism.

In many ways, it seems like it would be fun to be narcissistic. Wouldn’t it be great to go through life feeling superior to other people, and with unwavering self-confidence? Yes!

But as we all know, there is a dark side to narcissism. That unwavering self-confidence…

View original post 590 more words

BEWARE SAN ANTONIO: CORRUPT JUDGE SOL CASSEB III IS AT IT AGAIN, SAYS “BATTERED MOTHERS” BLOG


JUDGE SOL CASSEB, III, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS (BEXAR COUNTY) SON OF A JUDGE IN THE SAME COUNTY, SAME NAME, SECOND GENERATION, BUT THEN AGAIN ISN’T THAT THE CASE WITH EVERY JUDGE IN TEXAS YOU EVER KNEW? YA’ KNOW HOW THE SONG PLAYS, FOLKS, “BECAUSE IT’S JUST A FAMILY TRADITION!”

I find that, beyond clear and convincing evidence, the FBI’s most wanted posters with big red X’s splattered as if in blood across the faces of loving mothers who did everything they could to protect the only “possession” that mattered to them, private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive and unnoticed “state” purposes, and worse, with the words “Captured” and dates and locations violently confessing their own sins who marketed this scheme and NCMEC/Silver Care/Amber Alerts–I am told by one in family court that these are nothing more than a way for the govt. to keep track of certain. . . contraband to leverage where someone didn’t get paid, by the way, that no men grace the same posters yet, without a doubt, based on individual observation and experience, threaten to and do actually parentally kidnap their little hostages and flee the country and “state” without every being reported, though the mother was most likely falsely imprisoned and the reports rejected as a “false allegation” from a certain stereotype, pernicious and damning–you know the one–the “hysterical,” “borderline,” “schizophrenic,” or “bi-polar” fit parent who obeyed the law and the court orders to begin with, all to he/r virtue, and downfall.

Battered Mothers - A Human Rights Issue

RightsForMothers

FILED IN: BAD JUDGES, BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, CHILD ABUSE, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, COERCIVE CONTROL, CORRUPT JUDGES, CORRUPT BASTARDS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, FATHERS RIGHTS, GETTING SCREWED BY THE FAMILY COURTS, JEAN PAUL LACOMBE DIAZ,JUDGE SOL CASSEB, LAZY JUDGES, LEGAL ABUSE, NONCUSTODIAL MOTHERS, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

Remember little Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz? You may not, because there is not a lot of Congressmen or other government officials running around screaming to get this child back. Like they so willing do for fathers. Refresh your memory:

Eight months later, Jean Paul is still missing, thanks to Judge Sol Casseb III and his father-loving/mother-hating rulings.

Another dear mother now is facing the wrath of Judge Casseb today. Here are the details:

1. Judge Sol Casseb III, 288 District…

View original post 890 more words

TEXAS JUDGES ON THE TAKE GIVE AWAY|CORRUPT TX


http://www.ppcforchange.com/conspiracy-360th-district-court/

Vaughn Bailey copy

 

Vaughn Bailey, Tarrant County, Texas Attorney near Fort Worth

 

360th-offers-victim-a-deal

http://www.ppcforchange.com/conspiracy-360th-district-court/

Vaughn Bailey copy

Vaughn Bailey, Tarrant County, Texas Attorney near Fort Worth

 

360th-offers-victim-a-deal

For another tragic survival story that began in a Texas family court and a clique of collaborative pseudo-scienters . . . minues the qualifications, , click on the link below to read:

http://www.ppcforchange.com/mothers-quest-lost-infant/

For another tragic survival story that began in a Texas family court and a clique of collaborative pseudo-scienters . . . minues the qualifications, , click on the link below to read:

http://www.ppcforchange.com/mothers-quest-lost-infant/

WHAT’S in a NAME . . . the LONG and SHORT of it: FRAUD Upon the COURT


FRAUD UPON THE COURT

BIRTH CERTIFICATE

The Long and Short of it….

by kate of gaia

It has been a long road to get here. It has been hard to come to terms with many of the lies and fictional realities we have been so carefully trained to believe in. The biggest hurdle of all was in the realising of the need to let everything go and to unpack the camel that it may pass through the eye of the needle of the Emerald City’s walls. A physical reality is a tough one for most to step aside from and seek the inner workings of self and all but it is a necessary step lest one remain in the circular traps so perfectly set for all of us. We live in a world of commerce, a world I call the whore of Babylon both from the physical and spiritual perspectives. In order to be owned, one must give up mind, body and soul and I am most unwilling to do so.
It is a world of make believe fictional characters created for each and every one of us where a few have seen the means to take hold of all the strings of this puppet world where those of the masses unwittingly, yet willingly, perform for these most cunning of “puppet masters”. We have all been deceived where so few, now becoming the many, are awakened from this long lasting sleep having eaten so hungrily of the apple the witch of Babylon has offered.

Oh so many have been duped and beguiled of this mistress of deception where we have fed upon each other to the glee of those pulling your strings. And while we can talk of blame and injustice, it is we who must face the mirror and come to terms with the fact that we, not they, are the true problem. The issue at hand is one of ignorance of self, the unwillingness to see into our own lives and face the mirrors of the darkest reflections. We will fight and we will cling to all that we think of as right and just whilst we, at the same time, are the cause of all our own woes. For me, it was not a matter of how to lay bare the dishonour of so many that was already obvious, it was more a matter of how it was me that was allowing it by being more in dishonour of the truth. Ignorance of the law is not a defence of or from the law, that being the universal, natural kind, not the manmade fictional law that works to mimic it. It is difficult to play any game with an adversary that will change the rules inasmuch as we give them the power to do so. We are as children in this regard. When one grows up, one decides the game unworthy of even taking it out of the box it deserves to remain in, such is the way of Pandora.
So, where to begin explaining this game from its physical and spiritual mirror perspective? I like to begin by reminding myself that the physical realm that surrounds us is the illusion where only cause and effect clues reside. There are no answers in it, none whatsoever. It is merely the game board of consciousness where some have mastered it and use that knowledge for malfeasant purposes, flying in the face of creation while embracing creation at the same time. Some may shout ” Dichotomy!” but the simple truth is, all opposites are the same and only differ in degree of the observers willingness to see it. Yes, the mess you’re in, is your fault if you have the courage to face that. As for the examples of that, one need look no further than the religion of the legal system and, indeed, nowhere else.

The truth of the matter remains that all things legal are all things religion inasmuch as the legal system was borne of it. The earliest courts/churches were and still are the basis of the same systems today where there is no separation of church and state, period. They are one and the same and their purpose has been unwavering in its control of the masses for countless eons. That reign of terror, however, is finally over. Only when one begins to see the connection between church feigning spiritual and state acting as physical can one begin to see the true divide and conquer. What is most profound is that most within positions of assumed power are owned more completely than any slave of the common realms ever could be. A slave understands freedom where one who thinks they are free is the most trapped of all. Even the reference to their religious garb and political robes are called the trappings of office. Nonetheless, the finely programmed egos of these beings keep the clearest of truths just out of range of their most narrow vision. My search was one of a very simple nature in that I had to find the one thing that every human on earth had in common, would take them from cradle to grave in that commonality and, something they would defend to the death for assuring a permanent state of fraud on their part, and no one else’s.

The biggest clue was found at the end of their lives and it can be found on the tombstones of the many that never lived in the eyes of the system. It perfectly matched the only document ever offered freely by any church, state or government. The design of the trap was so perfect in its efficacy, it made us make slaves of ourselves and any attempt to fight for freedom would always result in our own fraud, our own contempt of court and inevitably, our belligerence and circular vengeance. The slavery had to be freely given on our parts and in our ignorance. It had to be something that fed the ego of the belligerents and the coffers of the clergy and all the while, they retained their full honour in universal law standing. While the masses fight for what they think is right, they feed their own fires of hate, discord and division. The more injust the system would get, the harder they would fight empowering the very system that is feeding off of them. The litmus test for this is quite easy to see and it will be the ones fighting this concept that proves the worthiness of the trap rendering it inescapable for the majority. This is the Chinese finger trap in full bloom where the harder you pull to extricate yourself from it, the more it holds on until one tires enough, relaxes their grip and voila, your fingers escape easily. There is a reason why the fangs of a serpent are pointing inward in that the more the prey struggles to free itself, the deeper the fangs sink in and why it is best to avoid the snake in the first place non? So, what could be so simple as to permeate this most perfect Chinese finger trap on humanity?
For the astute and for those that have listened to me speak or read my writings, you already know where I’m going but for those less aware of what I speak of, the answers, was and always will be, the NAME. I will share a few perspectives on this to aid in the observations of the trap where many of you may scoff. Always keep in mind, I care not what you believe and neither does the truth, that’s a simple fact. I have my experiences where this has all been laid bare for me and I have shared this truth for years now, albeit getting easier to share with people seeing this or themselves. You can spend all the time you want in their courtrooms but there is only one certainty you can ever expect and that is the fact that the courts are their game, rigged to their rules and they want everyone to play because it is guaranteed that they will win every time and “lose” a few just to keep the lottery illusion alive that on occasion, someone wins a case or two. This is the same philosophy a carnival gamer uses. They love to let people win their useless junk because the profits far exceed the expenses. Same things with the courts so who is the carnival clown then? There will be many that still won’t get it after they read this but it is my hope and intention that they can swallow enough pride and ego to find the keys that will set them free. The chains that you think are binding you are the very ones that you keep firmly in your grip where all you have to do is let go….but many of you won’t and to your own peril and so be it.

Where the true power of the NAME comes into play is the sudden realisation that everything you’ve worked for, everything you own and everything you will ever own up until you let go, was gotten via fraudulent means using a name that does not belong to you. This is a very tough pill to swallow and many of you are already choking, will spit it up and go on doing what the puppet masters want you to do. You will continue to commit fraud, day after day and you will be happy to do so as long as you keep getting your trinkets and scraps using a stolen identity and fraudulent, worthless pieces of debt paper. The system had to get us to aid and bet in our own fraud to retain the upper hand of honour where we were always coming forward with “unclean hands”. It had to be “sold” to us in such a way as to we would see the benefits and miss the tricks and dive headlong into our own fraud and fight to the death to maintain it. Ah, it is so easy to control a child with treats and they don’t have to be big ones either, just treats is enough most days.
To bring this into perspective, let me share a few fundamental definitions of words for you without going into the deep etymological sources, suffice it to say, been there, done that and cracked the code to the very letters. Let’s take a look at the word “register” for example and what its real meaning is. There are two very clear words there for me, the first being “regis” which is Latin for “to rule” and “ster” which means “creative, divine, feminine essence” and is akin to “star” where you can at once see the relevance of “starr contracts” from Black’s Law 9th edition.

So, the word means quite literally “to rule the divine feminine” or creation herself. Many of you who may be versed somewhat in “legalese” will recognise the term “pro se” which means to speak for yourself in a court setting. That translates into “for himself/herself/itself” and if you don’t believe it, look it up for yourself. The word “prosecute” translates into “do not pursue” in legal realms where its mirror in mainstream think is one of going after someone in court, to prosecute. The truth is, they don’t have to pursue anything because the mere fact that you are in a courtroom and don’t know who you are, is sufficient to convict your sorry ass for contempt and id-entity theft of intellectual property that was freely given to them. I’m sure much of this is not sitting well with you but then it’s the warring nature of the ego to want to fight, flee or freeze since it is ruled by the reptilian brainstem. Only when we decide to raise our level of thinking into the higher brains can we begin to set ourselves free. Allow me to share a few facts as experienced by myself. On that document, the only one ever given to my parents regarding their deal with the devil called the Birth Certificate, it states quite clearly:
“WARNING: A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY yet go and try to get any state ID without one. If it’s not meant to be used for identity, then what the hell is it for? It also says “CAUTION: THERE ARE OFFENCES RELATING TO FALSIFYING OR ALTERING A CERTIFICATE AND USING OR POSSESSING A FALSE CERTIFICATE. © CROWN COPYRIGHT It can be easily seen that if one were to use this document for such a thing as identification, one would be creating a false certificate and then possessing it. I can get into all measure of what it’s used for such as bonds creation, money creation, allowing for signature hypothecations etc. and on and on but I’m interested only in its fundamental purpose of tying the living spirit to the dead fictional realms. The birth Certificate is actually a Death Certificate.

We can also go on and on discussing all manner of legal attributes as per the hopes of those that designed the game to keep you looking everywhere but within so I won’t even bother and if that’s where you want to go, you’re missing the point yet again. I’ve been where you are, I’ve made the legal arguments ad nauseum and I assure you, that is exactly what the system wants you to do because in doing so, they keep you fighting in their courts, their system and ultimately in their religion of Ba’al worship with the whore of Babylon owning your sorry asses every time. You can talk to me all day about this document and that procedure, this tactic and that remedy illusion but for me, the fact remains; how are you going to do this WITHOUT using their NAME? The fact is, you can’t and it was designed that way. There is but one thing left to do and one question left to ask any court: “Who owns the NAME?” I already know the answer and so do they. The trick is getting you to BE the NAME and DO things in their image of you THEY created.

We can go into the Roman Maxims for things like “silence equates acquiescence” or Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32. where there is also silence upon the deceiver and thus their own acquiescence to committing it knowingly or unknowingly.
Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270. and Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78. I prefer to use simple analogies in that the one doing the stabbing with a knife also turns the knife upon themselves as per the golden rule. In a nutshell, it works like this. Mum and Dad, not knowing any better and trusting in others to not harm or defraud them have been told that it is customary to register their children with the state and/or church, called baptism. Regardless, there is no division of church and state in that they are one and the same as previously stated. The clergy of old were the courts of old and thus the judges and lawyers which became the BAR society and, of course, the governments and lawmakers as a result. In essence, the foxes are guarding all the henhouses. The parents, having done what they thought was right and being trusting never assumed that anyone could be so evil and devious as to spiritually kidnap their children from them and had no real questions to ask and no truths of what was really going on was given.
Shortly thereafter a document called the Long form birth certificate is created which is the original fraud and then a Short form was also created which creates the fictional corporation or dead thing/person/strawman or whatever you want to call it. Bottom line, the Short form is the proof of the fraud. Mum and Dad, being none the wiser as to their actions, keep using the NAME they gave up for adoption to the STATE by addressing their child with it, convincing the child that the NAME is theirs when, in fact, it is not. Mum and Dad are guilty of aiding and abetting their child into fraud absolving the STATE of dishonour UNTIL this disclosure is asked for. Indeed, who owns the NAME now? It certainly isn’t you and the sooner you get that concept, the sooner you’ll stop aiding and abetting in your own frauds and being possessed by your possessions. Did you never wonder why they refer to belongings as possessions or repossessing things?

The original fraud goes back even further with Mum and Dad getting married in a church or through a government office. Did you get married in a church and sign a marriage license? Then, if you did, the church AND the STATE owns your marriage and everything done within the confines of that contract and it IS a contract of a most spiritual nature, have no doubts on that. Now, to get a little deeper into the spiritual traps here, one must ask oneself as to why the system goes after the feminine creation aspect and here’s where I’m going to lose a lot of ego driven uber-programmed churchianity types that can’t let go of the most insidious program of all regarding the patriarchal control of their minds. Dare to read on if you can and see if you can get past all the dogmas and indoctrinations that have been slammed into you since birth.
When one understands the true nature of creation, one will quickly see that it is the feminine that brings forth creation, not the masculine. It’s even spelled out in Black’s Law 9th for you if you can read it. I am adding it here for your perusal with an explanation of its more ethereal and spiritual bindings. * ward of admiralty, A seaman – so called because of the legal view that a seaman, in contractual matters, should be treated as a beneficiary and the other contracting party as a fiduciary because of the perceived inequitability of their bargaining positions. [Cases: Seamen (;::J 1.] I am the stock of my Mother/Father, self-evident in the blood/aether in my lineage/veins, mitochondrial DNA “delta 9 Lucifer delta 10 mdna” from my Mother which is prima facie evidence of my bloodline (rhA+) where my Father is the beneficiary of any/all ascendants borne to him. The Father (semen*) of any/all borne to him render him the beneficiary only, whereas the Mother is fiduciary.

This where one needs eyes to see AND ears to hear….Seaman/Semen is merely the word trickery the courts and the masters of deception revel in. If anyone asks for me “give me your name” I have but one simple answer and that is “no, but I will let you hear my customary calling if you need a sound to reference my physical body by”. Here’s why I will never GIVE anyone anything without my intention to do so willingly because here, as below is also contract, as above. It was said to me once by one of the lawyers from the CITY OF LONDON, STATE BAR MEMBER that “here, it is ALL about contract”. The use of the NAME, without explicit permission from its rightful owners, The CROWN, is engaging in fraud and the use of stolen intellectual property as confirmed, in voice and in face to face conversations with an embassy official of the BRITISH HIGH CONSULATE, OTTAWA, CANADA that it is, IN FACT, fraud to do so and why I was able to procure an emergency passport as a result.
I have been lied to by more so called officials, legal types, judges and politicians than I’d care to count and the one thing that they all have in common is that they know they’re doing it and where I revert to “Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78.” rendering all frauds, null and void, nunc pro tunc upon its revelation. What I did learn over time was how to ask the right questions to corner them by getting them to be doing me harm otherwise. Questions like “Is it your wish that I commit fraud?” or “Is it your intention to aid and abet me into committing fraud by using a NAME that clearly does not belong to me?”
These are the mirrors they cannot stomach because they know what they are doing, many of them and especially the ones that claim to be “just doing my job”. There is much joy to be found in their frauds however, once they are mirrored back because there is no limitations placed on a fraud regardless of how long it takes to expose it. That is the joy of “nunc pro tunc” or “now for then” which eliminates the time aspect bringing all crimes into the now for all to see. For those that still can’t see the truth in how it is WE who are aiding and abetting in our own fraud, let me clarify it for you further.
Here are a few questions that you need to ask yourself honestly, the truth cannot be denied within no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. If you cannot face up to these realities, then you are not awake or mature enough to be considered enlightened, sorry to inform you. My mirror informed me nicely and no, I wasn’t happy either. Here they are…..Do you have any government ID whatsoever such as a driver’s license, a passport, or anything of that nature? Do you have a bank account or credit/debit card?
Do you have any loans or mortgages with contracts in the system? Do you feel the incessant need to fight in courts? Do you sign things like checks, applications or any manner of paperwork? In short, do you use the NAME on the birth certificate every day in all your transactions and communications?
If you answered yes to any of these questions then you are committing fraud, are in contempt of court and are seen as a belligerent. People ask how the cops get away with beating people on the street and I say it’s easy; they’re beating up a criminal who insists on committing fraud by virtue of the IDENTIFICATION they carry and how they procured it of their own free will choice to go into a fraudulent contract using a NAME that doesn’t belong to them. Unless of course, you think that writing checks on someone else’s account is a good and lawful thing that is. Anything and everything ever created in your universe using the NAME on the BC DOES NOT belong to you….PERIOD and like Bill Hicks says, “I can hear your inner dialogue, you’re wrong, get over it”……Until you can face up to the fact that you’ve been duped grand scale, you will continue to fight a losing battle with the whores of Babylon because of your “mark of the beast” and they know it. They have you right where they want you; in permanent dishonour until the question of “Who owns the NAME?” is the first question asked if you must go into court. For further understandings of how the courts work and get their power beyond this most basic truth.
In order for the dark principalities to control this place and our lives and minds, they must take our creative spiritual energy to give them the energy these vampires require to continue. No, this is not just a physical game and truth be known, the physical is the smallest percentage of it where the real power lays hidden to the blind. I know many of you may finally start to see the gravity of this situation and are asking yourself what to do as far as getting back into honour.
The first thing that needs to happen is to wake up to this reality and shift your intention. It is too easy to become overwhelmed with all the situations and entanglements you have in this life but have some peace knowing that you have a new perspective as to your slavery and how you’re being made to serve it. Changing ones intention requires the baby steps doctrine and only doing the things you need to do and can do easily, step by step. for some of you, calling up your bank to have a chat with a bank manager regarding who owns the name/account etc. You may wish to ask some CRA or IRS branches some of the tougher questions all the while making sure you commit them into aiding and abetting the frauds. It’s really quite simple that without the NAME’s being used and more importantly, SIGNATURES being given period, this system and its vampires starve literally overnight. For the more spiritually awake and astute, you will already understand that the signature comes AFTER the intent/spiritual contract and not before it. Actions always come after I am going to add another article at the bottom of this essay that is what I sent to various government offices etc. to get my intent out there because I know the power of intent where the cause and effect is already rippling through the universe. Always remember, ye are gods and you’ve been duped out of it for a very long time and have suffered immensely over many lifetimes. Time to wake up once and for all…..the truth is, lose the NAME, end the game so we can all get back to being the incredible creators we are and not the mindless slaves we became. Much love and light, kate of gaia…….
p.s Why it is important to understand what a gift really is: GIFT: a voluntary transfer of property made without consideration, that is, for which no value is received in return. The essential components of a valid completed gift of personal property are: competency of the donor to understand the nature of his act; voluntary intent on the part of the donor to make a gift (called DONATIVE INTENT);

DELIVERY either actual or symbolic;

ACCEPTANCE, actual or imputed; complete divestment of all control by the donor; and a lack of consideration for the gift. A transfer that constitutes a gift may be of significance in several TAX contexts. For example, RECEIPT of a gift is excluded from the GROSS INCOME of the recipient, but the transferor may be subject to the unified estate and gift tax.

DONATIVE INTENT (Black’s 8th): the intent to surrender DOMINION and control over the GIFT that is being made. DOMINION: having BOTH title to AND possession of property; having CONTROL of both ownership and use.
1. Given NAME……incompetently given by parents due to non-disclosure….voluntary only on a deceptive, non-disclosed basis and f

The Long and Short of it….by kate of gaia
It has been a long road to get here. It has been hard to come to terms with many of the lies and fictional realities we have been so carefully trained to believe in. The biggest hurdle of all was in the realising of the need to let everything go and to unpack the camel that it may pass through the eye of the needle of the Emerald City’s walls. A physical reality is a tough one for most to step aside from and seek the inner workings of self and all but it is a necessary step lest one remain in the circular traps so perfectly set for all of us. We live in a world of commerce, a world I call the whore of Babylon both from the physical and spiritual perspectives. In order to be owned, one must give up mind, body and soul and I am most unwilling to do so.
It is a world of make believe fictional characters created for each and every one of us where a few have seen the means to take hold of all the strings of this puppet world where those of the masses unwittingly, yet willingly, perform for these most cunning of “puppet masters”. We have all been deceived where so few, now becoming the many, are awakened from this long lasting sleep having eaten so hungrily of the apple the witch of Babylon has offered. Oh so many have been duped and beguiled of this mistress of deception where we have fed upon each other to the glee of those pulling your strings. And while we can talk of blame and injustice, it is we who must face the mirror and come to terms with the fact that we, not they, are the true problem. The issue at hand is one of ignorance of self, the unwillingness to see into our own lives and face the mirrors of the darkest reflections. We will fight and we will cling to all that we think of as right and just whilst we, at the same time, are the cause of all our own woes.
For me, it was not a matter of how to lay bare the dishonour of so many that was already obvious, it was more a matter of how it was me that was allowing it by being more in dishonour of the truth. Ignorance of the law is not a defence of or from the law, that being the universal, natural kind, not the man-made fictional law that works to mimic it. It is difficult to play any game with an adversary that will change the rules inasmuch as we give them the power to do so. We are as children in this regard. When one grows up, one decides the game unworthy of even taking it out of the box it deserves to remain in, such is the way of Pandora.
So, where to begin explaining this game from its physical and spiritual mirror perspective? I like to begin by reminding myself that the physical realm that surrounds us is the illusion where only cause and effect clues reside. There are no answers in it, none whatsoever. It is merely the game board of consciousness where some have mastered it and use that knowledge for malfeasant purposes, flying in the face of creation while embracing creation at the same time.

Some may shout ” Dichotomy!” but the simple truth is, all opposites are the same and only differ in degree of the observers willingness to see it. Yes, the mess you’re in, is your fault if you have the courage to face that. As for the examples of that, one need look no further than the religion of the legal system and, indeed, nowhere else. The truth of the matter remains that all things legal are all things religion inasmuch as the legal system was borne of it. The earliest courts/churches were and still are the basis of the same systems today where there is no separation of church and state, period. They are one and the same and their purpose has been unwavering in its control of the masses for countless eons. That reign of terror, however, is finally over. Only when one begins to see the connection between church feigning spiritual and state acting as physical can one begin to see the true divide and conquer.
What is most profound is that most within positions of assumed power are owned more completely than any slave of the common realms ever could be. A slave understands freedom where one who thinks they are free is the most trapped of all. Even the reference to their religious garb and political robes are called the trappings of office. Nonetheless, the finely programmed egos of these beings keep the clearest of truths just out of range of their most narrow vision. My search was one of a very simple nature in that I had to find the one thing that every human on earth had in common, would take them from cradle to grave in that commonality and, something they would defend to the death for assuring a permanent state of fraud on their part, and no one else’s. The biggest clue was found at the end of their lives and it can be found on the tombstones of the many that never lived in the eyes of the system. It perfectly matched the only document ever offered freely by any church, state or government. The design of the trap was so perfect in its efficacy, it made us make slaves of ourselves and any attempt to fight for freedom would always result in our own fraud, our own contempt of court and inevitably, our belligerence and circular vengeance. The slavery had to be freely given on our parts and in our ignorance. It had to be something that fed the ego of the belligerents and the coffers of the clergy and all the while, they retained their full honour in universal law standing. While the masses fight for what they think is right, they feed their own fires of hate, discord and division. The more injust the system would get, the harder they would fight empowering the very system that is feeding off of them. The litmus test for this is quite easy to see and it will be the ones fighting this concept that proves the worthiness of the trap rendering it inescapable for the majority. This is the Chinese finger trap in full bloom where the harder you pull to extricate yourself from it, the more it holds on until one tires enough, relaxes their grip and voila, your fingers escape easily. There is a reason why the fangs of a serpent are pointing inward in that the more the prey struggles to free itself, the deeper the fangs sink in and why it is best to avoid the snake in the first place non?
So, what could be so simple as to permeate this most perfect Chinese finger trap on humanity? For the astute and for those that have listened to me speak or read my writings, you already know where I’m going but for those less aware of what I speak of, the answers, was and always will be, the NAME. I will share a few perspectives on this to aid in the observations of the trap where many of you may scoff. Always keep in mind, I care not what you believe and neither does the truth, that’s a simple fact. I have my experiences where this has all been laid bare for me and I have shared this truth for years now, albeit getting easier to share with people seeing this or themselves. You can spend all the time you want in their courtrooms but there is only one certainty you can ever expect and that is the fact that the courts are their game, rigged to their rules and they want everyone to play because it is guaranteed that they will win every time and “lose” a few just to keep the lottery illusion alive that on occasion, someone wins a case or two. This is the same philosophy a carnival gamer uses. They love to let people win their useless junk because the profits far exceed the expenses. Same things with the courts so who is the carnival clown then?
There will be many that still won’t get it after they read this but it is my hope and intention that they can swallow enough pride and ego to find the keys that will set them free. The chains that you think are binding you are the very ones that you keep firmly in your grip where all you have to do is let go….but many of you won’t and to your own peril and so be it. Where the true power of the NAME comes into play is the sudden realisation that everything you’ve worked for, everything you own and everything you will ever own up until you let go, was gotten via fraudulent means using a name that does not belong to you. This is a very tough pill to swallow and many of you are already choking, will spit it up and go on doing what the puppet masters want you to do. You will continue to commit fraud, day after day and you will be happy to do so as long as you keep getting your trinkets and scraps using a stolen identity and fraudulent, worthless pieces of debt paper.
The system had to get us to aid and bet in our own fraud to retain the upper hand of honour where we were always coming forward with “unclean hands”. It had to be “sold” to us in such a way as to we would see the benefits and miss the tricks and dive headlong into our own fraud and fight to the death to maintain it. Ah, it is so easy to control a child with treats and they don’t have to be big ones either, just treats is enough most days. To bring this into perspective, let me share a few fundamental definitions of words for you without going into the deep etymological sources, suffice it to say, been there, done that and cracked the code to the very letters.
Let’s take a look at the word “register” for example and what its real meaning is. There are two very clear words there for me, the first being “regis” which is Latin for “to rule” and “ster” which means “creative, divine, feminine essence” and is akin to “star” where you can at once see the relevance of “starr contracts” from Black’s Law 9th edition. So, the word means quite literally “to rule the divine feminine” or creation herself. Many of you who may be versed somewhat in “legalese” will recognise the term “pro se” which means to speak for yourself in a court setting. That translates into “for himself/herself/itself” and if you don’t believe it, look it up for yourself. The word “prosecute” translates into “do not pursue” in legal realms where its mirror in mainstream think is one of going after someone in court, to prosecute. The truth is, they don’t have to pursue anything because the mere fact that you are in a courtroom and don’t know who you are, is sufficient to convict your sorry ass for contempt and id-entity theft of intellectual property that was freely given to them. I’m sure much of this is not sitting well with you but then it’s the warring nature of the ego to want to fight, flee or freeze since it is ruled by the reptilian brainstem. Only when we decide to raise our level of thinking into the higher brains can we begin to set ourselves free. Allow me to share a few facts as experienced by myself. On that document, the only one ever given to my parents regarding their deal with the devil called the Birth Certificate, it states quite clearly:
“WARNING: A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY yet go and try to get any state ID without one. If it’s not meant to be used for identity, then what the hell is it for? It also says “CAUTION: THERE ARE OFFENCES RELATING TO FALSIFYING OR ALTERING A CERTIFICATE AND USING OR POSSESSING A FALSE CERTIFICATE. © CROWN COPYRIGHT
It can be easily seen that if one were to use this document for such a thing as identification, one would be creating a false certificate and then possessing it. I can get into all measure of what it’s used for such as bonds creation, money creation, allowing for signature hypothecations etc. and on and on but I’m interested only in its fundamental purpose of tying the living spirit to the dead fictional realms. The birth Certificate is actually a Death Certificate. We can also go on and on discussing all manner of legal attributes as per the hopes of those that designed the game to keep you looking everywhere but within so I won’t even bother and if that’s where you want to go, you’re missing the point yet again. I’ve been where you are, I’ve made the legal arguments ad nauseum and I assure you, that is exactly what the system wants you to do because in doing so, they keep you fighting in their courts, their system and ultimately in their religion of Ba’al worship with the whore of Babylon owning your sorry asses every time. You can talk to me all day about this document and that procedure, this tactic and that remedy illusion but for me, the fact remains; how are you going to do this WITHOUT using their NAME? The fact is, you can’t and it was designed that way.
There is but one thing left to do and one question left to ask any court: “Who owns the NAME?” I already know the answer and so do they.The trick is getting you to BE the NAME and DO things in their image of you THEY created. We can go into the Roman Maxims for things like “silence equates acquiescence” or Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32. where there is also silence upon the deceiver and thus their own acquiescence to committing it knowingly or unknowingly. Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270. and Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78. I prefer to use simple analogies in that the one doing the stabbing with a knife also turns the knife upon themselves as per the golden rule. In a nutshell, it works like this. Mum and Dad, not knowing any better and trusting in others to not harm or defraud them have been told that it is customary to register their children with the state and/or church, called baptism. Regardless, there is no division of church and state in that they are one and the same as previously stated. The clergy of old were the courts of old and thus the judges and lawyers which became the BAR society and, of course, the governments and lawmakers as a result. In essence, the foxes are guarding all the henhouses. The parents, having done what they thought was right and being trusting never assumed that anyone could be so evil and devious as to spiritually kidnap their children from them and had no real questions to ask and no truths of what was really going on was given.
Shortly thereafter a document called the Long form birth certificate is created which is the original fraud and then a Short form was also created which creates the fictional corporation or dead thing/person/strawman or whatever you want to call it. Bottom line, the Short form is the proof of the fraud. Mum and Dad, being none the wiser as to their actions, keep using the NAME they gave up for adoption to the STATE by addressing their child with it, convincing the child that the NAME is theirs when, in fact, it is not. Mum and Dad are guilty of aiding and abetting their child into fraud absolving the STATE of dishonour UNTIL this disclosure is asked for. Indeed, who owns the NAME now? It certainly isn’t you and the sooner you get that concept, the sooner you’ll stop aiding and abetting in your own frauds and being possessed by your possessions.
Did you never wonder why they refer to belongings as possessions or repossessing things? The original fraud goes back even further with Mum and Dad getting married in a church or through a government office. Did you get married in a church and sign a marriage license? Then, if you did, the church AND the STATE owns your marriage and everything done within the confines of that contract and it IS a contract of a most spiritual nature, have no doubts on that. Now, to get a little deeper into the spiritual traps here, one must ask oneself as to why the system goes after the feminine creation aspect and here’s where I’m going to lose a lot of ego driven uber-programmed churchianity types that can’t let go of the most insidious program of all regarding the patriarchal control of their minds. Dare to read on if you can and see if you can get past all the dogmas and indoctrinations that have been slammed into you since birth.

When one understands the true nature of creation, one will quickly see that it is the feminine that brings forth creation, not the masculine. It’s even spelled out in Black’s Law 9th for you if you can read it. I am adding it here for your perusal with an explanation of its more ethereal and spiritual bindings. * ward of admiralty, A seaman – so called because of the legal view that a seaman, in contractual matters, should be treated as a beneficiary and the other contracting party as a fiduciary because of the perceived inequitability of their bargaining positions. [Cases: Seamen (;::J 1.] I am the stock of my Mother/Father, self-evident in the blood/aether in my lineage/veins, mitochondrial DNA “delta 9 Lucifer delta 10 mdna” from my Mother which is prima facie evidence of my bloodline (rhA+) where my Father is the beneficiary of any/all ascendants borne to him. The Father (semen*) of any/all borne to him render him the beneficiary only, whereas the Mother is fiduciary. This where one needs eyes to see AND ears to hear….Seaman/Semen is merely the word trickery the courts and the masters of deception revel in.
If anyone asks for me “give me your name” I have but one simple answer and that is “no, but I will let you hear my customary calling if you need a sound to reference my physical body by”. Here’s why I will never GIVE anyone anything without my intention to do so willingly because here, as below is also contract, as above. It was said to me once by one of the lawyers from the CITY OF LONDON, STATE BAR MEMBER that “here, it is ALL about contract”. The use of the NAME, without explicit permission from its rightful owners, The CROWN, is engaging in fraud and the use of stolen intellectual property as confirmed, in voice and in face to face conversations with an embassy official of the BRITISH HIGH CONSULATE, OTTAWA, CANADA that it is, IN FACT, fraud to do so and why I was able to procure an emergency passport as a result.
I have been lied to by more so called officials, legal types, judges and politicians than I’d care to count and the one thing that they all have in common is that they know they’re doing it and where I revert to “Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78.” rendering all frauds, null and void, nunc pro tunc upon its revelation. What I did learn over time was how to ask the right questions to corner them by getting them to be doing me harm otherwise. Questions like “Is it your wish that I commit fraud?” or “Is it your intention to aid and abet me into committing fraud by using a NAME that clearly does not belong to me?” These are the mirrors they cannot stomach because they know what they are doing, many of them and especially the ones that claim to be “just doing my job”. There is much joy to be found in their frauds however, once they are mirrored back because there is no limitations placed on a fraud regardless of how long it takes to expose it. That is the joy of “nunc pro tunc” or “now for then” which eliminates the time aspect bringing all crimes into the now for all to see. For those that still can’t see the truth in how it is WE who are aiding and abetting in our own fraud, let me clarify it for you further.
Here are a few questions that you need to ask yourself honestly, the truth cannot be denied within no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. If you cannot face up to these realities, then you are not awake or mature enough to be considered enlightened, sorry to inform you. My mirror informed me nicely and no, I wasn’t happy either. Here they are…..Do you have any government ID whatsoever such as a driver’s license, a passport, or anything of that nature? Do you have a bank account or credit/debit card? Do you have any loans or mortgages with contracts in the system? Do you feel the incessant need to fight in courts? Do you sign things like checks, applications or any manner of paperwork? In short, do you use the NAME on the birth certificate every day in all your transactions and communications? If you answered yes to any of these questions then you are committing fraud, are in contempt of court and are seen as a belligerent. People ask how the cops get away with beating people on the street and I say it’s easy; they’re beating up a criminal who insists on committing fraud by virtue of the IDENTIFICATION they carry and how they procured it of their own free will choice to go into a fraudulent contract using a NAME that doesn’t belong to them. Unless of course, you think that writing checks on someone else’s account is a good and lawful thing that is. Anything and everything ever created in your universe using the NAME on the BC DOES NOT belong to you….PERIOD and like Bill Hicks says, “I can hear your inner dialogue, you’re wrong, get over it”……Until you can face up to the fact that you’ve been duped grand scale, you will continue to fight a losing battle with the whores of Babylon because of your “mark of the beast” and they know it. They have you right where they want you; in permanent dishonour until the question of “Who owns the NAME?” is the first question asked if you must go into court.
For further understandings of how the courts work and get their power beyond this most basic truth. In order for the dark principalities to control this place and our lives and minds, they must take our creative spiritual energy to give them the energy these vampires require to continue. No, this is not just a physical game and truth be known, the physical is the smallest percentage of it where the real power lays hidden to the blind. I know many of you may finally start to see the gravity of this situation and are asking yourself what to do as far as getting back into honour. The first thing that needs to happen is to wake up to this reality and shift your intention. It is too easy to become overwhelmed with all the situations and entanglements you have in this life but have some peace knowing that you have a new perspective as to your slavery and how you’re being made to serve it. Changing ones intention requires the baby steps doctrine and only doing the things you need to do and can do easily, step by step.
for some of you, calling up your bank to have a chat with a bank manager regarding who owns the name/account etc. You may wish to ask some CRA or IRS branches some of the tougher questions all the while making sure you commit them into aiding and abetting the frauds. It’s really quite simple that without the NAME’s being used and more importantly, SIGNATURES being given period, this system and its vampires starve literally overnight. For the more spiritually awake and astute, you will already understand that the signature comes AFTER the intent/spiritual contract and not before it. Actions always come after thoughts.

If you intend it; it is CONTRACT without another thing being physically done. I am going to add another article at the bottom of this essay that is what I sent to various government offices etc. to get my intent out there because I know the power of intent where the cause and effect is already rippling through the universe. Always remember, ye are gods and you’ve been duped out of it for a very long time and have suffered immensely over many lifetimes. Time to wake up once and for all…..the truth is, lose the NAME, end the game so we can all get back to being the incredible creators we are and not the mindless slaves we became. Much love and light, kate of gaia…….
p.s Why it is important to understand what a gift really is:
GIFT: a voluntary transfer of property made without consideration, that is, for which no value is received in return. The essential components of a valid completed gift of personal property are:
1. competency of the donor to understand the nature of his act; voluntary intent on the part of the donor to make a gift (called DONATIVE INTENT);
2. DELIVERY either actual or symbolic; ACCEPTANCE, actual or imputed; complete divestment of all control by the donor; and a lack of consideration for the gift. A transfer that constitutes a gift may be of significance in several TAX contexts. For example, RECEIPT of a gift is excluded from the GROSS INCOME of the recipient, but the transferor may be subject to the unified estate and gift tax.;
3. DONATIVE INTENT (Black’s 8th): the intent to surrender DOMINION and control over the GIFT that is being made. DOMINION: having BOTH title to AND possession of property; having CONTROL of both ownership and use.
Given NAME……incompetently given by parents due to non-disclosure….voluntary only on a deceptive, non-disclosed basis and fraudulent intent by the deceivers nullifying intent on the “donors”…..nuff said with domini
(as in “A.D.,” “anno domini,”—Christian calendar beginning at the time of Jesus Christ’s, or, “Jeshua’s,” birth, and “M.D.,” “mundial domini”—Gregorian calendar)

Forced Adoption: Cameron, It’s Time To Say Sorry


 

 

Hopefully, US follows suit to inquire, conduct due diligence, and return children, . . . but not “to take” more or ask for more money other than to compensate the survivors.

 

Researching Reform

Stemming from a former Australian Prime Minister’s heartfelt apology to Australian women who lost their children in the 50’s and 60’s to forced adoption (all for the crime of being unmarried), a movement in the UK to see our government does the same is now underway.

After hearing Julian Gillard’s now famous apology to the nation for taking babies away from mothers in Australia solely because they were single, Veronica Smith, a retired nurse who also lost her child to forced adoption in the 60’s in Britain decided to set up the MAA, or Movement for an Adoption Apology. There is a movement already in Australia, called the National Apology for Forced Adoptions (which celebrated its two-year anniversary last week), but none at present for women who lost their children at the hands of British forced adoption policy during that period.

For the 500,000 women in Britain who lost their…

View original post 76 more words

RESEARCH SURVEY COLLECTION|California Protective Parent Association


 

 

RESEARCH SURVEY COLLECTION

California Protective Parent Association and Our Future Charitable Foundation are conducting an ongoing collection of data for a national research project. The project involves cases of children placed by family law courts into the custody of, or unsupervised visitation with their identified abusing parent.
The collection and compilation of this data is a very important step in promoting awareness, providing actual statistics, increasing funding possibilities, and bringing about family court reform and legislative change. Your input is greatly appreciated.
You can see the results of our preliminary survey after 22 participants on our Research Data page, and an updated May 2003 statistical report after 67 participants by visiting the California Protective Parents site by clicking here.

PROTECTIVE PARENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Re: Custody Outcomes of Children Reporting Incest/Battery

NOTE: If you are concerned about secure confidentiality, we suggest you PRINT this survey (from pdf format) and mail it to us by US mail at our CPPA/OCOF address. If you prefer and are not concerned with confidentiality, you may send it online, but be aware it is not on a secured server at this time.
Identifying information is for contact information purposes only, and will not be included in our data.

CONTACT INFORMATION
 Your Name:
 Mailing Address:
 City:
 State:

Please answer all questions appropriate to your case.You may use the space below for comments or questions: Thank you for contributing to this survey.
Please print and mail this survey to: CPPA/OCOF 1731 Howe Ave. #168, Sacramento, CA 95825-9785
Or fax it to: (530) 758-9785 (phone: 800 441-7886)
Or submit it electronically by clicking the “send Request” button below. (Confidentiality respected, but not guaranteed, due to Internet security.)

 Zip Code:
 Phone Number:
 Alternate Phone:
 E-mail Address:
CASE INFORMATION
     Case Name:
1.) Jurisdiction State:
2.) Jurisdiction County:
3.) Case Number:
4.) Year documents 1st filed:
5.) Case still in progress? Yes No
FINANCIAL COST
6.) Approximate sum of money paid related to case?
      (Include attorney fees, court filings, mediation, evaluations, supervised       visitation, court ordered classes, therapy, etc.)
7.) Have you ever had to file bankruptcy as a result of litigation costs?       Yes No
ATTORNEY HISTORY
8.) Have you ever been represented by an attorney in this case?       Yes No
9.) If so, how many attorneys represented you in this case?
10.) Has your ex-spouse/partner ever had legal representation when        you did not? Yes No
CHILDREN
11.) What were the ages of the child(ren) of this relationship at the time        of the separation?        Girl’s ages:      Boy’s ages:
12.) What is the approximate percentage of time each caretaker spent        caring for the child(ren) before the separation?         Mother:   %         Father:    %         Relative:      %         Other:          %
13.) At the time of separation, did the primary caretaker maintain primary        physical custody? Yes No
PRIMARY ISSUES
14.) Over which of the following issues were there disputes in your court        case? (mark all that apply)         Property settlement         Spousal support         Child support         Move away         Child custody/visitation         Alcoholism         Drug abuse/type of drugs:         Other:
15.) Who initiated the litigation?         Mother         Father
16.) Were you the victim of domestic violence perpetrated upon you by        the other parent? Yes No
17.) If so, did your children witness the violence?        Yes No
18.) Did the violence begin or escalate after separation?        Yes No
19.) Did your ex-spouse/partner ever threaten to take the child(ren) if        you left the relationship? Yes No
20.) Were there allegations of child abuse made during your family        court litigation? Yes No
ABUSE ALLEGATIONS
Complete the information below regarding allegations made during litigation, including who is the identified perpetrator and who first made the allegation (mark all that apply):
21.) Physical abuse allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
22.) Sexual abuse allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
23.) Verbal/emotional abuse allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
24.) Neglect allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
25.) Other allegation? Yes No        Identified as perpetrator:FatherMotherOther:        First allegated by:ChildFatherMotherOther:
26.) What was the age and gender of the first child at the onset of        his/her abuse?   Boy Girl
27.) What was the age and gender of the second child at the onset of        his/her abuse?   Boy Girl
28.) Did the child positively identify the other parent as the perpetrator?        Yes No
29.) Was there medical/physical evidence of the abuse?        Yes No
30.) Was there other corroborative evidence of the abuse?        Yes No
31.) What were the child(ren)’s symptoms? (check all that apply)         Sexual acting out         Depression         Stomach/head/other pain         Dissociation         Overwhelming anger/rage         Nightmares/insomnia/sleep disorders         Fears/phobias:         Eating disorders         Regression (bedwetting/leak feces/thumb sucking)         Constipation/diarrhea         Learning disability         Attention deficit         Suicide attempt         Other:
32.) Did the child(ren) receive Victim of Crime funding for therapy       related to the crime? Yes No
EX-SPOUSE/PARTNER HISTORY
33.) Prior to the separation, did your ex-spouse/partner receive any of the         following labels by mental health professionals? (mark all that apply)         Schizophrenia         Bi-polar disorder         Borderline personality         Depression         Anxiety         Post Traumatic Stress Disorder         Other:
34.) Does s/he have a history of alcohol and/or drug use?         Yes No
35.) If so, is s/he clean and sober?        Yes No     36.) Length of time clean and sober:
37.) Does s/he have a criminal history?        Yes No
38.) If so, what was s/he…        Arrested for?: 39.) Convicted of?:        Description:
PROTECTIVE PARENT HISTORY
40.) Prior to the separation, did you receive any of the         following labels by mental health professionals? (mark all that apply)         Schizophrenia         Bi-polar disorder         Borderline personality         Depression         Anxiety         Post Traumatic Stress Disorder         Other:
41.) Do you have a history of alcohol and/or drug use?         Yes No
42.) If so, are you clean and sober?        Yes No     43.) Length of time clean and sober:
44.) Do you have a criminal history?        Yes No
45.) If so, what were you…        Arrested for? 46.) Convicted of?        Description:
ADVISE
47.) Did anyone ever advise or insist that you not mention domestic         violence or child abuse in family law court?        Yes No
48.) If so, who advised you?         Attorney         Mediator         Advocate         Court personnel         Other:
49.) Did your attorney ever tell you that pursuing court action against        your ex-spouse/partner could negatively affect your case?        Yes No
CHILD CUSTODY
50.) Was custody changed to the other parent over your objection, by        an emergency court order, or without your court presence?        Yes No
51.) Was unsupervised contact given to the identified offender despite        evidence of violence or abuse?        Yes No
52.) Was unsupervised contact given to the identified alcoholic/drug         abuser without drug testing?        Yes No N/A
53.) Was custody changed after you raised any of the following issues?        (Mark all that apply)         Violence         Child abuse         Substance abuse         Criminal conduct         Violations of court order         Move-away         Spousal support         Child support
54.) Were judicial findings made stating that you were a danger to your        child(ren) or that you were an unfit parent?        Yes No
55.) Were you ever placed on supervised visitation?        Yes No     56.) If so, length of time:
57.) Were you restricted from having any contact with your child(ren)?        Yes No     58.) If so, length of time:
59.) Do you believe the other parent attempted to gain increased custody        to avoid paying child support?        Yes No
60.) Was financial discovery conducted in your case?        Yes No
61.) Did you give up assets to keep custody?        Yes No
COURT MEDIATION
62.) Did you participate in court-connected mediation regarding custody?        Yes No
63.) If so, was mediation:         Voluntary         Court ordered         Coerced by threats
64.) Were you required to meet face-to-face with an ex-spouse/partner        who perpetrated violence and/or threats of harm?        Yes No
65.) Did you lose any custody rights or contact with your children as a        result of recommendations by a mediator?        Yes No
EVALUATIONS
66.) Did you participate in court connected evaluations regarding        custody?        Yes No
67.) If so, who was evaluated?:         Mother         Father         Child(ren)         Others:
68.) Who selected the evaluator?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:
69.) Who paid for the evaluator?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:         
70.) Total amount paid for custody evaluation:
71.) Did you lose any custody rights or contact with your children as a         result of recommendations by the evaluator?        Yes No
CHILD’S ATTORNEY
72.) Did your child(ren) have an attorney/guardian?        Yes No
73.) If so, was he/she court appointed?:        Yes No
74.) Who selected the child(ren)’s attorney?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:
75.) Who paid for the child(ren)’s attorney?:         Mother         Father         Court         Others:
76.) Total amount paid for child attorney:
77.) Did this attorney aggressively advocate for the safety of your         child(ren)?        Yes No
SYSTEM SUPPORT
78.) Was the other parent ever Arrested and/or Prosecuted        for spousal or child abuse?        Yes No
79.) Was Child Protective Services ever contacted to intervene in your        case?        Yes No
80.) If so, did they protect your child?        Yes No
EVIDENCE
81.) Did any court related professional ignore, minimize, or refute        evidence of abuse in your case?        Yes No
82.) If so, who?         Mediator         Evaluator         Attorney for minor         Judge         Other:
83.) Did any court related professional label you with any of the        following?         Parent Alienation Syndrome         Alienator         Folie a duex         Munchhausen’s Syndrome by Proxy         Delusional         Schizophrenia         Bi-polar disorder         Borderline personality         Depression         Anxiety         Post traumatic stress disorder         Other rare/unscientific label:
84.) In your case, was Richard Gardener, MD.:         An expert witness         A consultant         Quoted         Other:
PROCESS
85.) Do you believe you were discriminated against for your        attempts to protect yourself and/or your child(ren)?        Yes No
86.) If so, do you believe this occurred due to:         Unethics among court-related professionals         Unethics between ex-spouse/partner & court-related professionals         Financial/social status of your ex-spouse/partner         Gender bias         Other:
87.) Were evaluator or mediator recommendations ever provided to the        court less than 10 days before a hearing?        Yes No
88.) Were you prevented from seeing evaluations or reports that resulted        in custody decisions?:        Yes No
89.) Were you ever denied the ability to adequately present your case        (unable to present/examine witnesses, etc.)?:        Yes No
90.) Were hearings resulting in custody decisions held without your        knowledge or ability to be present (ex parte)?:        Yes No
91.) Were hearings regarding custody and visitation ever conducted        without a court reporter present?:        Yes No
92.) Were you ever threatened that talking publicly could result in        damage to your case?:        Yes No
93.) Were court transcripts complete and accurate?:        Yes No
94.) Were court transcripts denied or delayed?        Yes No
95.) If so, how long were the transcripts denied?
96.) Have you ever been incarcerated in a jail or mental health        facility due to the family law case?:        Yes No
CURRENT CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT
97.) What best describes your children’s current custody         arrangement? (mark all that apply)         Primary with protective parent, supervised with perpetrator         Primary with protective parent, UNsupervised with perpetrator         Joint custody         Full custody with perpetrator parent         Supervised visitation with protective parent         No contact with protective parent         Other:
98.) Are you able to protect your child(ren)?         Yes No
99.) Do you believe your child(ren) are still being abused?         Yes No
100.) Did your child(ren) continue to report abuse after custody was        changed to the identified abuser?:        Yes No
101.) Did you stop reporting suspected child abuse for fear your contact        with your child(ren) will be terminated?:        Yes No
Do you give us permission to contact you for further information?        Yes No
Original web site & graphic design by: (Please visit web designer’s site by clicking text above)
Home | Welcome | Mission | Intro | Warning | Advice | Info | Research Data | Overview | Stories History | Events | Conference | Protests | Donations | Membership | Messages | Links | Survey | Contact

NOTICE|VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW, CONSPIRACY AGAINST US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW


NOTICE AND FAIR WARNING:

NOTICE.COLOR OF LAW

Pursuant to the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, Re-Codified as The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ;

1.     Federal Statutes 42 USC, Section 1983, Violation/ Deprivation of Federal, US Constitutional Rights Perpetrated Under the Color of the Authority of Law Against Natural American, US “Citizen,” “Sovereign” and “elect” in nature, spirit, and essence divine;

2.    42 USC, Section 1985, Conspiracy Against Federal, US Constitutionally Secure  Rights Perpetrated Under the Color of Authority of Law Against Natural American “Citizen(s),” “Sovereign” and “Elect” in nature, spirit, and essence divine; and

3.      42 USC, Section 1986, “Neglect to Protect” as applies.

Click on the link to the pdf below to access a template that you may customize depending on whether or not you are in a criminal proceeding that a Federal Prosecutor or Agent would most likely have to file as one would not have a “private right of action” (in which case 18 USC, Sections 241 and 242 are the analogues that one might substitute in such a scenario for Federal analogue statutes in a non- or “quasi-criminal” proceeding, for example, against individual social worker and/or police officer defendants and a municipality, county, or city in a traditional Monell (or, in the alternative, Bivens claim for damages being monetary and/or injunctive, declaratory, or nominal with or without treble or lodestar multiplier for attorney’s fees. Be sure to do do your homework if you and your board-certified, specialized attorney, lawyer, or trial advocate, or, in the alternative, court-appointed attorney you may choose to require if you are indigent in the eyes of the court, but caveat emptor, “buyer beware.”  They know who pays their paycheck (citing Monell v. Department of Social Services for the City of New York, 436 US 658, 694 (1978)); (Bivens v. Six  Unknown, Named Agents, 403 US 388 (1971)).  A Bivens action is a suit against the federal government versus the “state” “color of law.” 

One will need to give fair and full notice within six months or less of learning about the alleged violation/deprivation of US Constitutional rights and/or conspiracy against those rights, thus, the following template.  Be aware of the statute of limitations in your particular case.

 

CPS violates these in every case (child protective services violations)

 

CPS violates these EVERY CASE


Print one of these up and keep it handy it for future useViolation_Warning-Denial_Rights_under_Color_Law.pdf

 


THE RIGHTS-
The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

 

 42 USC, Section 1983

 Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 1983

Sec. 1983. – Civil action for deprivation of rights perpetrated under the color of law of authority

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia

Title 42 USC Section 1983 Information

 

42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(1) Preventing officer from performing duties

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
 (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
""

42 U.S. Code § 1986 – Action for neglect to prevent

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

 

 


The Statutes-
42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) Reasonable Efforts

 

42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(19) Relative Placement


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

 Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 241

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the US Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.


 Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

 

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 242

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

http://www.abuselaws.com/abuse-laws/cps-violates-these-in-every-case-child-protective-services-violations.html


NOTICE.COLOR OF LAW

Legal Disclaimer and Fair Use (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

(1)  CENSORSHIP IS A CRIME AND WILL BE ENFORCED PURSUANT TO AUTHOR’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT AS A NATURAL AMERICAN US “CITIZEN,” “SOVEREIGN” AND “ELECT” IN nature, spirit, and essence divine.;

(2)   This post is made in good faith.;

(3)  Author of this post and blog is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, so none of the information contained in this post could possibly be construed as “legal advice.” ;

(4)     The information contained in this post is solely intended for academic research/general knowledge, and/or entertainment purposes pursuant to Federal statute 17 USC, Section 107 (“Fair Use”).  It is expressly not intended for commercial use.  One would certainly use at one’s peril and possible contempt of court.

Original Source: Family Right at http://familyrights.us/bin/FORMS/Violation_Warning-Denial_Rights_under_Color_Law.pdf

Corrupt Multnomah County Judge Paula J. Kurshner


Corrupt Multnomah County Judge Paula J. Kurshner

Judge Paula J. Kurshner

Judge Paula J. Kurshner, Multnomah County Family Court in Oregon

 

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Corruption in the Courtroom

I am going to tell you a story of arrogance, bullying, bias and self-serving agendas. And for a change it is not about big business, banks or political candidates.   It is far worse than any of those things. And the saddest part is that it involves people charged with protecting the best interests of children. I am talking about judges and custody evaluators in the family court system. Now many people tell a story “changing names to protect the innocent”. Well there is no innocence in this story. That is except for the belief in justice and its ability to prevail in spite of socio economic status.

 

Maybe I am naïve but I want to believe in the idea that in our self-proclaimed “greatest country in the world” we wouldn’t have to worry about the “haves” getting the benefit of the doubt and the “have-nots” being bullied into submission in our court system. Unfortunately that is exactly what is going on in Multnomah County and I will not protect the names of anyone who believes that they have the right to destroy families based on a personal whim, vendetta or personality conflict with the people involved.

 

This isn’t the Wild West and it surely isn’t some third world country with an evil dictator, yet no one is held accountable anymore. Have we become so complacent that we believe that we do not have the right or duty to hold people accountable for the decisions they make, especially those that are in “public service”? Interesting that as an educator no one seems to hesitate to tell me what I need to do better. Last time I checked the duty of the judicial system is to remain impartial and avoid becoming self-serving. Someone needs to let Multnomah County Judge Paula J. Kurshner and custody evaluator Lori A. Bonnevier know that they are not above accountability. The way these two conduct themselves is a travesty.

 

Why are we so quick as a society to reach out to places around the globe in need and yet turn a blind eye to the injustice right here in our own backyards? In a country that preaches about rights for all, those who question these two are met with hostility and threats. Bonnevier is blatant about choosing sides before completing an evaluation and from my understanding that is usually whichever side is paying her fee. Little hint Ms. Bonnevier- usually the person who needs to enlist you and pay you doesn’t have custody for a reason. This isn’t the “good ole boy’s club” and yet scratching each other’s back seems common place for these people.

 

That fact that I personally know two people who have had negative experiences with Bonnevier and neither of which have any knowledge of each other is a red flag. When both have told me independently that she has accused them of being angry and difficult to work with (among more appalling things) and both happen to be strong mothers who will not cower to pressure, I have to wonder what self inadequacies are haunting her.

 

In a recent case that was tried by Kurshner, one side was allowed to introduce evidence based on hearsay of a five year old. Yet when the mother intended to call the twelve year-old brother of the child to refute accusations Judge Kurshner told her that if she insisted on putting her child on the stand that it would reflect negatively on her. Yet Kurshner who was opposed to putting a child in the witness chair would not talk to the child in chambers one on one. What is her agenda? How is it just to allow one child’s words to be used and another’s not even to be heard? I am appalled that this woman would even be allowed to rule on a traffic ticket, let alone decide the fate of a family. She shouldn’t be judging a chili competition and she is appointed to sit in family court. I wish that was the worst thing she had done and sadly it might not make the top five idiocies of this story.

 

The custody evaluator on this case was none other than Lori Bonnevier. When the mother asked for a new evaluator to be assigned the judge refused. After the mother filed a complaint with board for bias on her part Bonnevier actually recused herself for in her own words a “conflict of interest” and somehow still managed to testify in the trial. Bonnevier was even so arrogant as to state that mother had a mental illness. A statement which had no foundation and for which she had about as much authority to make as I have to perform a heart surgery. When questioned about the credential of Bonnevier to make such a statement, Kurshner replied that she was quite aware of Bonnevier’s credentials and allowed her to continue. She went on to say that the mother lived in a home of chaotic disorganization. Which by the way she had never set foot in. The arrogance of both these women to not even try to hide their inability to remain impartial is one of the most sickening things I have ever seen.

 

In the end a good person and great mother had her kids removed from her custody without one shred of evidence that the children were in danger from anything. As I watched a ten-year old boy and his twelve-year old brother forced in tears to leave with a father they didn’t want to be with, searching for answers to the question “why”, I couldn’t help but wonder where was Judge Kurshner? Why wasn’t she required to watch the result of her decision? Why wasn’t she being held accountable?

 

As I search for my own answers to these questions I can’t help but wonder what Kurshner’s agenda is. Is she out to prove that she will not rule in favor of mothers? Does she just hate them? I can’t help but think of the children who are left in situations they shouldn’t be in for lack of evidence, yet this Judge based on no substantial evidence of any kind removes children from the care of a loving and compassionate mother who puts nothing before the welfare of her children.

 

Webster’s defines corruption as…

  1. impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle
  2. a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct

 

Take your pick of either, but both describe Judge Paula J. Kurshner and custody evaluator Lori A. Bonnevier. It is time to take a stand against abuse of power by those we trust with protecting us.

Posted by Justice for our children at 8:47 PM

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

12 comments:

    1. b06b5234-dd5f-11e2-990a-000bcdcb2996June 24, 2013 at 11:23 PMReply
    2. I’ve had a similar experience, can you please e-mail me at kcampbell12k@excite.com and we can talk further
    3. Kim MosesJuly 24, 2013 at 1:37 AMReply
    4. Oh my she was the judge that gave my children over to there father that was abusive to me in front of my children and while I was pregnant they have been gone since October 31st my five and 8 year old . She said the father had to repair my children from damage that I have caused them . Mind you I have never been to jail nore been on drugs hold a job and a home .I see my children once a week and every other weekend and 4 weeks out of the summer no phone calls and my children plead to me to that they want to come home . He has no job has not worked in 6 years almost lives in his moms basement criminal background and so much more he was acquitted for domestic violence please email me kimmietyrrell@gmail.com I can tell u my story . Something has got to be done
    5. VikingGailMarch 8, 2014 at 2:22 PMReply
    6. Most of the judges are bullies and so are the lawyers and evaluators. They always rule against the good guys. They use the guardianship program to steal property from the elderly and won’t let their families visit. Funny she said that about mental illness-she’s talking about herself. See bullyonline. You might be able to get her removed for that.
    7. angkillamMarch 8, 2014 at 5:59 PMReply
    8. I know exactly what you are talking about, my life was destroyed by Judge Kurshner. I cant even began to express the pain, heart ache and loss she put my family and I through. She took all faith I once had in our family court system away from me. She denied me of my constitutional right among plenty of other things

Replies

  • HeatherRSeptember 4, 2014 at 1:13 PM
  • Did you use any resources to bring this to light? I have a similar story and am desperate to shed light on her and expose the corruption and unjust rulings she imposes on innocent people

Reply

    1. angkillamMarch 8, 2014 at 6:02 PMReply
    2. http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14225
    3. Mothers Against Biased Custody EvaluatorsMarch 25, 2014 at 2:32 PMReply
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.
    5. YouknowbetterApril 13, 2014 at 12:09 PMReply
    6. I have been in Kurshner’s courtroom. All she wants are quick, easy dockets. She doesn’t care if the kid is going to a home where there is no violence or abuse. She wants to slam the gavel down and compliment both parties for not fighting in court. My grandchild was given to the wrong parent, and suffered horrible abuse. Janice Garceau, head of the custody evaluators, is a huge mistake. She doesn’t care about the safety of children. The system is broken. My grandchild suffered abuse after abuse with a drug addict parent until finally set free. But it took years, and none of us know if the counseling will ever be fully freeing from the pain inflicted. Kurshner, the attorney’s who care more about billable hours than a child’s safety, it’s a joke. I used to believe the truth would set a person free…..but not in front of Kurshner, not in front of Janice Garceau, and certainly not in Multnomah County court system.

Replies

  • HeatherRSeptember 4, 2014 at 1:11 PM
  • I understand exactly what your saying. She just made an unfair judgement against me yesterday it which appeared she was having a bad day and didn’t even care that there’s an open investigation on abuse allegations against my ex husband from my son she sent him back to live with him. I’m desperate I need help. My son is in danger and I’m stuck with this judge. Do have any insight for me?

Reply

    1. Mikee BridgesMay 5, 2014 at 12:42 PMReply
    2. I also have had Kurshner. Absolutely awful experience. I am a full custody father of two but that was only because I figured out how to do it out of court. Kurshner was horrible. Didnt listen, cut me off, etc, etc etc. Just a nightmare.

Replies

 

FRAUD UPON THE COURT: PSYCHOLOGY WHISTLEBLOWER (SHORT VIDEO)


FRAUD UPON THE COURT: PSYCHOLOGY WHISTLEBLOWER (SHORT VIDEO)

Click on the link below to watch a short, but incredibly elucidating video testimonial by former CPS caseworker from Washington State who claims to have invented the modern CPS risk assessment for levels and indicators Title IV-D Social Security funding fraud to traffic children.  Jan Smith asks that we forward a copy of this to every Legislator, judge, court-appointed specialist, parent, and everyone we know to warn them that their children and grandchildren could  be  next, as were Smith’s  in her retirement from child protective services.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2c_UOIsLMQ&feature=player_detailpage

THE PARENT THAT ABUSES THE OTHER PARENT WITH CHILD


AS IF PHILOSOPHY


     

“AS IF” “PHILOSOPHY” 

OF CROOKS AND BANDITS, AND ESPECIALLY KIDNAPPING CPS

 
 
   THINK “BEST INTERESTS” . . . OF THE STATE TREASURY IN YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY “CHILD”
Main Page
Contents
Alphabetical Index
Hints for prints

Impressum
 
 
Philosophy of “as if”  
George Kelly (1964/1969) advocated adopting an “as if” position towards knowledge. That is, he encouraged people to try out different constructions of events in order to see what might happen when they act “as if” these constructions are so. This “as if” position nicely complements Kelly’s seminal notion of constructive alternativism, which holds that there are an infinite number of ways to construe the world. In order to gain a fresh and potentially transforming perspective, all people need to do is loosen their constructions of something, entertain novel possibilities for construing it another way, and then test out these new possibilities by acting “as if” these new constructions are true. If the constructions adopted fail to prove useful (or even if they do and one wishes to simply experiment with even more alternatives just to see what might result), one can simply formulate further alternative constructions of the same events and act “as if” these apply instead. By encouraging this kind of playful exploration, behavior becomes an experiment that people use in testing their personally constructed hypotheses.   

Kelly’s work has commonalities with the “as if” philosophy of the German philosopher Hans Vaihinger (Mahoney, 1988; Warren, 1998) – especially Kelly’s ideas about approaching language using an invitational mood. Interestingly, Vaihinger’s (1924) work influenced the individual psychology of Alfred Adler, which it has recently been argued shares commonalities with constructivism (Watts & Phillips, in press).Like Kelly, Vaihinger did not believe that human knowledge necessarily reflected objective reality. Vaihinger stated:  “…the object of the world of ideas as a whole is not the portrayal of reality – this would be an utterly impossible task – but rather to provide us with an instrument for finding our way about more easily in the world.” (p. 15) Vaihinger defined thought as “a purposive organic function” that aids in adapting to different situations and the psyche as “an organic formative force” which can change what is presently known in order to assimilate new information. He observed, “the mind is not merely appropriative, it is also assimilative and constructive” (p. 2). This clearly influenced personal construct theory, in which the construct system is the ongoing creation of an active person who, ideally, uses the system to anticipate events and, in light of those events, continually revises the system to ensure its utility in everyday life.

Kelly, himself, credited Vaihinger with influencing his theory, especially the idea that our constructions are better viewed as useful hypotheses rather than representations of objective reality. His own words encapsulate the influence Vaihinger’s ‘as if’ philosophy had in the development of personal construct psychology. Kelly wrote: …Vaihinger began to develop a system of philosophy he called the “philosophy of ‘as if’ “. In it he offered a system of thought in which God and reality might best be represented as paradigms. This was not to say that either God or reality was any less certain than anything else in the realm of man’s awareness, but only that all matters confronting man might best be regarded in hypothetical ways.” (p. 149)

In other words, we should feel free to act “as if” our constructions are true, all the while realizing that they are merely tentative hypotheses that can be revised or discarded at any time. Thus, Vaihinger’s philosophy of ‘as if’ can be viewed as one of the central premises upon which personal construct psychology is based.

 

The philosophy of “as if” is especially pertinent for constructivist psychotherapy. Rather than seeing people’s personalities as hard-wired in some kind of essential way, personal construct therapists employing fixed-role therapy encourage an “as if” approach. For example, a client who identifies as “shy” might be asked to act out the role of a “gregarious” person for a few weeks; that is, the client lives “as if” he or she was more outgoing in order to see what ensues. By acting “as if” he or she is more outgoing, the client experiments with new ways of behaving and anticipating life, which often leads to positive therapeutic change. While the logic of ‘as if’ has been mostly applied in the realm of psychotherapy, it can easily be generalized to just about any area of human inquiry, making it a key concept in personal construct psychology specifically and constructivism more generally.
References
  • Kelly, G. A. (1969). The language of hypothesis: Man’s psychological instrument. In B. Maher (Ed.), Clinical psychology and personality: The selected papers of George Kelly (pp. 147-162). New York: John Wiley. (Original work published 1964)
  • Mahoney, M.J. (1988). Constructive metatheory: Basic features and historical foundations. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, (1), 1-35.
  • Vaihinger, H. (1952). The philosophy of “as if” (C. K. Ogden, Trans.). London: Routledge. (Original English work published 1924)
  • Warren, B. (1998). Philosophical dimensions of personal construct psychology. London: Routledge.
  • Watts, R. E., & Phillips, K. A. (in press). Adlerian psychology and psychotherapy: A relational constructivist approach. In J. D. Raskin & S. K. Bridges (Eds.), Studies in meaning 2: Bridging the personal and social in constructivist psychology. New York: Pace University Press.
Jonathan D. Raskin & Laurie Ann Morano

Motherless Child Project


Battered Mothers - A Human Rights Issue

Fathers? Rights Movement successful using the courts custody issues exact revenge on mothers not only depriving children of their mother but using them as a weapon against her

Source: americanmotherspoliticalparty.org

View original post

Please Help Save Kendall (Short Video)


donnellyjustice

When you are finished watching this video, please visit: www.savekendall.com

View original post

CALIFORNIA COALITION EXPANDS FAMILY COURT ATTACK TO EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS


California Coalition Expands Family Court Attack to Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Briefing Filed Today

by ccfceditor

March 6, 2015–San Diego, CA and St. Paul, MN–California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC today announces strategic legal partnership with  attorney Michelle MacDonald, MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, www.FamilyCourt.com, www.Facebook.com\FamilyCourt to strengthen the family law reform movement within federal courts in the Eighth Circuit and Minnesota family courts.  In a brief filed today with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Ms. MacDonald—co-founder of Family Innocence, a nonprofit dedicated to keeping families out of court: resolving conflicts and injustices peacefully  (www.FamilyInnocence.com)—advances groundbreaking arguments with assistance of California Coalition.

“We’re honored to stand with Ms. MacDonald and FamilyCourt.com to engage the beast of Family Courts, and look forward to collaborating further in advancing the Grazzini-Rucki case through the federal courts” says Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/257912195/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true

The Grazzini-Rucki brief expands on the approach taken by California Coalition in its ongoing appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Excerpts from the brief prepared jointly by MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, Michelle MacDonald, California Coalition, and Colbern Stuart:

 

INTRODUCTION

If aura there be, it is hardly protected by exonerating from
liability such lawless conduct as took place here
[1]
Nineteenth and twentieth century American judges have overstepped constitutional restriction to usurp powers reserved to the legislature and written for themselves an immunity far greater even than that of an English judge, or even a King, at common law.[2]  No court has ever denied that absolute immunity inflicts a “monstrous” injustice on wronged litigants, and taxes the credibility and integrity of judicial institutions.  Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (2nd Cir. 1949); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 521 (1978).  It has been justified as a necessary evil to protect the “ardor” of judges and prosecutors.  Id.  While one might reasonably have concluded that our efforts to assure “justice is done”[3] would have been better-directed toward inculcating ardor through discipline and integrity than by “expanding” immunity, the issue is moot.
Unlike the 1871 era of federal procedure in which a judge could be forced to stand trial on mere “ascription” of culpable intent to an accused act,[4] the reasonable concern is today resolved at the pleading stage.  Modernly, like all litigants a judge is protected by procedural barriers provided in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) and Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) which protect against a mere “ascription” of malice.  These are bolstered by the plausibility test provided in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 thereafter.  The purposes of immunity—to protect efficient process—is today accomplished at the pleading stage.
A Judge’s invocation of the doctrine of judicial immunity to preserve judicial efficiency has effectively denied citizens remedy—a fundamentalright—for judicial injury.
Fundamental  rights such as of familial association are destroyed by the nod of a head. In error, Pierson and Sparkman have deprived scores of Americans remedy for criminalwrongdoingPierson and Sparkman’s despotism must end today.

 

The Outrages Committed Against the Grazzini-Rucki Family and Their Attorney

Ms. MacDonald represents Ms. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and her children, who have been devastated by Minnesota family courts.  The lawsuit describes the outrages committed by Minnesota Family Court Judge David Knutson against the Grazzini-Rucki family and their attorney Ms. MacDonald.  Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s encounters with family courts began in 2011 when she sought and obtained a divorce, seeking orders of protection for her and her children.  Over the ensuing years, successive abusive rulings by the Minnesota Family Court rendered Grazzini-Rucki and her family homeless and bankrupt.

Judge Knutson’s illegal rulings included kicking the entire family out of their own home and separating the children from both parents, with no contact orders.  Last September, after a “listening session” conducted by Judge Knutson involving the Grazzini-Rucki children, two of Grazzini-Rucki’s children became so distressed that they fled from the homes into which they had been placed.  Teenagers Gianna and Samantha Rucki  have been missing since April 19, 2013. www.Missingkids.com.   In what can only be described as a bizarre absurdity, Judge Knutson insisted on conducting a “child custody “ trial after the children went missing.

Even more outrageous, after Ms. MacDonald advised Judge Knutson that the trial was improper, Judge Knutson caused Ms. MacDonald to be placed  in handcuffs shackled to a belt around her waist, sat in a wheel chair, and forced to finish trial to finish the “custody” trial without eyeglasses, pen, paper, or files.  While Ms. MacDonald was being arrested, courtroom bailiffs told Ms. Grazzini-Rucki that MacDonald would be retained in custody and would not be returning to the courtroom.  Ms. Grazzini-Rucki therefore left the courthouse.  When MacDonald was returned to the courtroom in shackles, Grazzini-Rucki had already left—yet Judge Knutson insisted on completing the trial without Ms. Grazzini-Rucki.  The events were captures on security video.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson sought, and the district court granted, dismissal of all claims as barred by absolute judicial immunity, finding every act accused in the Amended Complaint to be a judicial act within Judge Knutson’s jurisdiction.  Order at 21.  The many non-judicial acts of which Judge Knutson was accused in the Amended Complaint—but not analyzed in the district court’s sweeping immunity holding—include:
  • Searching and seizing person and property of Grazzini-Rucki and her children without probable cause or a warrant, including that she abandon her children;
  • Circumventing the Minnesota Court Information system regarding various Dakota County matters involving the litigants;
  • Causing state court administrators to assign “all future hearings” in various matters involving Grazzini-Rucki to Judge Knutson;
  • Illegally usurping jurisdiction over several existing matters involving Grazzini-Rucki, including the State of Minnesota against David Rucki, and third parties, and making rulings in those matters without notice to Grazzini-Rucki;
  • Illegally ordering Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s children into “therapy”;
  • Illegally intercepting and sealing a recorded transcript Ms. Grazzini-Rucki was entitled to receive and view;
  • Ordering both parents to have no contact with their own children whatsoever;
  • Ordering Grazzini-Rucki to refrain from participation in her own family’s association activities;
  • Ordering Grazzini-Rucki to be separated from her children and have no contact with them at their schools, or through third parties;
  • Conducting a “listening” psychotherapy session between Judge Knutson, Dr. Gilbertson, and the Grazzini-Rucki’s children at which Judge Knutson was alleged to have coerced, intimidated, and threatened the Grazzini-Rucki children, contributing the children’s decision to run away from their home just days later;
  • Insisting that Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel try Grazzini-Rucki’s case while in handcuffs shackled to a waist belt, unable to rise from a wheelchair, without Grazzini-Rucki present, without Ms. MacDonald’s files, and without glasses, pen, or papers, seized by courtroom deputies;
  • Retaliating against Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel by the foregoing after Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel informed Judge Knutson that this action was pending against him, and ignoring the glaring conflict of interest.
Though this brief focuses primarily on the administrative assignment and “listening” therapy session, Appellant does not waive her assertion that none of the above functions, and those listed in the Amended Complaint warrant immunity.  The district court’s analysis of these many claims was skeletal yet sweeping, finding Judge Knutson immune for “actions taken in his capacity as a state court judge”, relying primarily on Stump v. Sparkman and Pierson v. Ray.  Order p. 32.  In response to Appellee Knutson’s Brief, and analyzed below, this broad “judicial capacity” scope and sweeping “analysis” was error.

 

 

Judges Bear the Burden of Proof on Immunity

Grazzini-Rucki asserted many of the challenges to judicial immunity as did California Coalition in its briefing before the Ninth Circuit.  California Coalition was pleased to join Grazzin-Rucki family in asserting those challenges in the Eight Circuit.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson Bears the Burden of Proving Immunity
Judge Knutson repeatedly asserts that Grazzini-Rucki “failed to raise” immunity issues in the district court.  See, e.g., Knutson Brf. p. 31, 34.  This is an improper attempt to shift onto plaintiff-appellant the burden of proving the affirmative defense of immunity, which rests solely with the party asserting it.  Fed.R. Civ.P. 8(c)(1);  Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 498 (1991) (“An official seeking such immunity, however, must at the outset show that a “counterpart to the privilege he asserts” was recognized at common law in 1871, for “[w]here we have found that a tradition of absolute immunity did not exist as of 1871, we have refused to grant such immunity under § 1983.”).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that an official claiming an affirmative defense of immunity bears the burden to prove that 1871 common law immunized the function of each act accused in the complaint.  See, e.g., Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 339-340 (1986) (“Our initial inquiry is whether an official claiming immunity under § 1983 can point to a common-law counterpart to the privilege he asserts.”); The Court “has for that reason been quite sparing in recognizing absolute immunity for state actors.”  Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 (1993).
 The “function” analysis considers only historical fact.  Malley at 342 (“We emphasize that our role is to interpret the intent of Congress in enacting § 1983, not to make a freewheeling policy choice, and that we are guided in interpreting Congress’ intent by the common-law tradition.”); Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920 (1984) (“Section 1983 immunities are ‘predicated upon a considered inquiry into the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and the interests behind it.’”).
Courts investigating the intent of the 1871 42nd Congress have examined accounts of 1871 social and legal systems from Nineteenth Century case law, legal treatises, and the congressional record.  The Supreme Court undertook this historical analysis most recently in Rehberg v. Paulk,, 132 S.Ct. 1497 (2012), examining nineteenth century cases to determine that the function accused—testimony of a grand jury witness—enjoyed immunity at common law.  Id. at 1503-07.[5]
An officer’s failure to prove up a common law analog is dispositive of the issue regardless of countervailing policy considerations. Rehberg at 1502-03 (“We do not simply make our own judgment about the need for immunity. We have made it clear that it is not our role ‘to make a freewheeling policy choice,’ and that we do not have a license to create immunities based solely on our view of sound policy.”).  Granting an immunity absent this historical analysis is error.  Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 249-50 (1974) (“These cases, in their present posture, present no occasion for a definitive exploration of the scope of immunity available to state executive officials.”). 
Neither the District Court Nor Judge Knutson Have Analyzed Historical Foundations for an Immunity of Accused Function
Judge Knutson proffered, and the district court undertook, no historical analysis of whether any of the two dozen functions accused in the Amended Complaint were functions that enjoyed judicial immunity at common law in 1871.  The district court’s sweeping Order proclaimed that Judge Knutson’s “case management, his signing of orders, the substance of his orders, and the trial proceeding” were all taken in a “judicial capacity.”  Order p 33.  The district court reached this conclusion finding only that (1) “Judge Knutson has not interacted with Plaintiff outside of his courtroom or his judicial chambers” and (2) “the underlying family law case was within [his] jurisdictional authority.  Order p. 33.  On these purported findings, the district court found Judge Knutson acted in a “judicial capacity” and was thus immune.  Id.
Analyzed below, this broad-brush “judicial capacity” scope and summary analysis fails to “affirmatively state” the defense, which was exclusively Judge Knutson’s burden.  Fed.R. Civ.P. 8(c); Rehberg, supra.
The District Court Extended Immunity Based On Factors Not Relevant to Judicial Immunity
The district judge applied a “judicial capacity” scope of immunity that was far broader than that provided in controlling Supreme Court authority.  Immunity does not depend on the act or actor, but on the nature of the accused act.  Sparkman at 362.  Immunity may exist only if the accused act is both (1) “judicial in nature” and (2) within statutory subject matter jurisdiction.  Id.  The first “Judicial in nature” factor in turn depends on (a) “the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge,” and (b) “the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.”  Id.  Not all official or authorized acts of a judge are “judicial acts”—judges also perform administrative, ministerial, or other types of acts that are not entitled to judicial immunity.  See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988) (firing court employees could be performed by administrator and thus not “judicial”).
The test to distinguish between “judicial” and other types of acts is to analyze whether the act can only be performed by a judge.  See Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 340 (1879) (selection of jurors could be performed by administrator, thus not “judicial”); Forrester, supra; Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435 (1993) (court reporters “part of judicial function” yet not absolutely immune).  Absolute immunity is justified because judicial acts—and only judicial acts—are subject to standardized, scrutinized proceedings, restrained by principles of law, and are subject to appellate review.  Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 516 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 564 n. 4 (1967).  Because judicial acts are subject to such safeguards, the Supreme Court has justified relieving the actors from liability for civil money damages.  Id.

 

Administrative Behaviors of a Judge in Assigning Cases Are Not Immune

Judge Knutson also asserted that his administrative or ministerial behaviors in Family Court case assignments was an immune “judicial act” simply because he was a judge.  Grazzini-Rucki and California Coalition analyzed abundant law demonstrating that even though an administrative act is authorized or performed by a judge, the administrative act is not converted into a judicial act.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson’s Administrative Behavior in Assigning Himself to Certain Cases is Not Immune

The district court’s high-level “analysis” that Judge Knutson’s “case management” and “trial proceedings” extended immunity far beyond Sparkman’s scope of immunity to include behaviors which are clearly not judicial acts.  As one example, Judge Knutson’s “case management” behaviors in assigning all Grazzini-Rucki cases, including all future cases with third parties, and those with the State of Minnesota,  to himself is clearly an administrative act because it cannot be reviewed on appeal, is not subject to law, is conducted in private before parties are even aware of a judge, and may be performed by administrators as well as judges.
     The cases cited by Judge Knutson support Appellant’s conclusion.  Martinez v. Winner, 800 F.2d 230, 231 (10th Cir. 1986)[6] relied on Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 297, 305 (5th Cir. 1980) (extending absolute immunity for “jurisdictional authority to appoint and supervise court reporters.”).  In both cases the “jurisdictional authority” was a statutory grant of administrative authority—not jurisdiction.[7]  Parent v. New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516, 532 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) also drew authority from Matinez’s (moot) holding.  “The assignment of cases and issuance of consolidation orders are judicial functions normally performed by, and statutorily reserved to, Judge Lippman. See [statute] giving Chief Judge and Chief Administrator the authority to assign judges to judicial terms and parts. . . .”  Parent at 532 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Parent’s holding is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s judicial act jurisprudence.  The fact that the “Chief Administrator” function happened to be performed by a judge does not convert the “administrator” function to a judicial one—nothing in the New York statute prohibits a non-judge from undertaking the role of “chief administrator”, meaning that, like juror selection, it is an act that may be performed by a non-judge, and thus not a judicial act.  See Ex Parte Virginia, supra.  A “Chief Administrator’s” assignment process is ministerial—the only “function” is to follow the assignment procedure.  Failure to abide the ministerial process is not an appealable event.  A judge or administrator is not applying law to facts.  The process is not highly scrutinized.  As such, Parent reached its holding on analysis inconstant with controlling Supreme Court authority, and is error.
Similarly, in Zahl v. Kosovsky, No. 08 CIV. 8308 LTS THK, 2011 WL 779784 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011) the district court considered a claim for immunity of a judge who allegedly “manipulated the assignment system to take control of Plaintiff’s case . . . .”   According to the district court in Zahl, the plaintiff “cite[ed] no relevant authority in support of his conclusory assertions that such actions vitiated Justice Diamond’s jurisdiction to handle his case, and the Court has found none.”  Id. at *9.  The Zahl plaintiff apparently failed to identify any of the abundant relevant authorities including Ex Parte Virginia, Forrester, and Antoine, supra, which provide means to distinguish non-appealable acts of administrators from appealable acts only judges may perform.  Moreover, like the district court and Judge Knutson, the Zahl court improperly placed the burden of proving immunity on the Plaintiff rather than th