“There is something
bad happening to our children in family
courts today that is causing them
more harm than drugs, more harm than
crime and even more harm than child
molestation.”
Judge Watson L. White, Superior Court
Judge, Cobb County, Georgia
The mere possibility or risk of danger
does not constitute an emergency or
exigent circumstance that would justify
a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless
seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice,
(2nd Cir. 1991) A due-process violation
occurs when a state-required breakup
of a natural family is founded solely
on a “best interests” analysis that
is not supported by the requisite
proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin
v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, (1978)
If a court issues a warrant based
on an uncorroborated anonymous tip,
the warrant will not survive a judicial
challenge in the higher courts. Anonymous
tips are never probable cause. “[I]n
context of a seizure of a child by
the State during an abuse investigation
. . . a court order is the equivalent
of a warrant.” Tenenbaum v. Williams,
193 F.3d 581, 602 (2nd Cir. 1999).
F.K. v. Iowa district Court for Polk
County, Id.”
Consent to warrantless entry must
be voluntary and not the result of
duress or coercion. Lack of intelligence,
not understanding the right not to
consent, or trickery invalidate voluntary
consent. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,
412 US 218 (1973). One’s awareness
of his or her right to refuse consent
to warrantless entry is relevant to
the issue of voluntariness of alleged
content. Lion Boulos v. Wilson, 834
F. 2d 504 (9th Cir. 1987). “Consent”
that is the product of official intimidation
or harassment is not consent at all.
Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional
rights when they are coerced to comply
with a request that they would prefer
to refuse. Florida v. Bostick, 501
US 429 (1991). Coercive or intimidating
behavior supports a reasonable belief
that compliance is compelled. Cassady
v. Tackett, 938 F. 2d (6th Cir. 1991).
Coercion can be mental as well as
physical. Blackburn v. Alabama, 361
US (1960)
D) ATTORNEY STADLER ESQ.
Section. 9.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted
by the United States: And no Person
holding any Office of Profit or Trust
under them, shall, without the Consent
of the Congress, accept of any present,
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any
kind whatever, from any King, Prince,
or foreign State.
If your attorney is calling themselves
Esquire, it is a TITLE OF NOBILITY!
Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition)
has the following under the definition
of "Esquire" "In English
law, a title of dignity next above
gentleman, and below knight. Also
a title of office given to sheriffs,
sergeants [sic], and barristers at
law, justices of the peace, and others.
In United States, title commonly appended
after name of attorney: e.g., John
J. Jones, Esq."
CALIFORNIA FAMILY.CODE SECTION 3027.1.
(a) If a court determines,
based on the investigation
described in Section 3027 or other
evidence presented to it, that an
accusation of child abuse or neglect
made during a child custody proceeding
is false and the person making the
accusation knew it to be false at
the time the accusation was made,
the court may impose reasonable money
sanctions, not to exceed all costs
incurred by the party accused as a
direct result of defending the accusation,
and reasonable attorney's fees incurred
in recovering the sanctions, against
the person making the accusation.
For the purposes of this section,
"person" includes a witness,
a party, or a party's attorney.
Attorney Stadler Enquire stated she
would "MAKE MENCE MEAT OUT OF
ME."
CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE 12906.
Any member of the commission may be
removed by the Governor for inefficiency,
for neglect of duty, misconduct or
malfeasance in office, after being
given a written statement of the charges
and an opportunity to be heard thereon.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 43.
Besides the personal rights mentioned
or recognized in the Government Code,
every person has, subject to the qualifications
and restrictions provided by law,
the right of protection from bodily
restraint or harm, from personal insult,
from defamation, and from injury to
his personal relations.
Authority 6: TITLE 18--CRIMES AND
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy
Against Rights 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 Constitution or the laws of the
United States, (or because of his/her
having exercised the same).
CALIFORNIA CODES PENAL CODE
628. (2) "Hate crime"
means an act or attempted act against
the person or property of another
individual or institution which in
any way manifest evidence of hostility
toward the victim because of his or
her actual or perceived race, religion,
disability, gender, nationality, or
sexual orientation. This includes,
but is not limited to, threatening
telephone calls, hate mail, physical
assault, vandalism, cross burning,
destruction of religious symbols,
or fire bombings.
My rights where deprived under color
of law Attorney Stadler Esquire, did
know that based on Priema Facia evidence
that her client had indeed lied.
Rule 3-210. Advising the Violation
of Law A member shall not advise the
violation of any law, rule, or ruling
of a tribunal unless the member believes
in good faith that such law, rule,
or ruling is invalid. A member may
take appropriate steps in good faith
to test the validity of any law, rule,
or ruling of a tribunal.
Attorney Stadler Esquire did FORCE
a attempted mediation on me, where
she was already the attorney to one
of the parties making her unable and
bias.
California
Evidence Code § 1122. Disclosure by
agreement
1122. (a) A communication or a writing,
as defined in Section 250, that is
made or prepared for the purpose of,
or in the course of, or pursuant to,
a mediation or a mediation consultation,
is not made inadmissible, or protected
from disclosure, by provisions of
this chapter if either of the following
conditions is satisfied:
(1) All persons who conduct or otherwise
participate in the mediation expressly
agree in writing, or orally in accordance
with Section 1118, to disclosure of
the communication, document, or writing.
(2) The communication, document, or
writing was prepared by or on behalf
of fewer than all the mediation participants,
those participants expressly agree
in writing, or orally in accordance
with Section 1118, to its disclosure,
and the communication, document, or
writing does not disclose anything
said or done or any admission made
in the course of the mediation.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (a),
if the neutral person who conducts
a mediation expressly agrees to disclosure,
that agreement also binds any other
person described in subdivision (b)
of Section 1115.
E) SOCIAL WORKER BERLANGA UNLICENSED
IMPERSONATING AN OFFICER OF THE COURT
Licensee Name:
BERLANGA PAMELA JEAN
License Type:
REGISTERED ASSOCIATE SOCIAL WORKER
License Number:
4206
License Status:
CANCELLED Definition
Expiration Date:
February 28, 1997
Issue Date:
February 03, 1993
County:
SONOMA
Actions:
No
Thursday, February 2, 2006
http://www.sen.ca.gov/leginfo/BILL-6-DEC-1998/CURRENT/AB/FROM1600/AB1677/SACBP.TXT
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER
33 > § 701
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 33--EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND
NAMES
Sec. 701. Official badges, identification
cards, other insignia
Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses
any badge, identification card, or
other insignia, of the design prescribed
by the head of any department or agency
of the United States for use by any
officer or employee thereof, or any
colorable imitation thereof, or photographs,
prints, or in any other manner makes
or executes any engraving, photograph,
print, or impression in the likeness
of any such badge, identification
card, or other insignia, or any colorable
imitation thereof, except as authorized
under regulations made pursuant to
law, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than six months,
or both.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER
33 > § 702
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 33--EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND
NAMES
Sec. 702. Uniform of armed forces
and Public Health Service
Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction
of the United States or in the Canal
Zone, without authority, wears the
uniform or a distinctive part thereof
or anything similar to a distinctive
part of the uniform of any of the
armed forces of the United States,
Public Health Service or any auxiliary
of such, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than
six months, or both.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER
43 > § 912
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 43--FALSE PERSONATION
Sec. 912. Officer or employee of the
United States
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends
to be an officer or employee acting
under the authority of the United
States or any department, agency or
officer thereof, and acts as such,
or in such pretended character demands
or obtains any money, paper, document,
or thing of value, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not
more than three years, or both.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER
47 > § 1001
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
Release date: 2005-08-03
(a) Except as otherwise provided in
this section, whoever, in any matter
within the jurisdiction of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of
the Government of the United States,
knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers
up by any trick, scheme, or device
a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious,
or fraudulent statement or representation;
or
(3) makes or uses any false writing
or document knowing the same to contain
any materially false, fictitious,
or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 5 years,
or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply
to a party to a judicial proceeding,
or that party’s counsel, for statements,
representations, writings or documents
submitted by such party or counsel
to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within
the jurisdiction of the legislative
branch, subsection (a) shall apply
only to—
(1) administrative matters, including
a claim for payment, a matter related
to the procurement of property or
services, personnel or employment
practices, or support services, or
a document required by law, rule,
or regulation to be submitted to the
Congress or any office or officer
within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted
pursuant to the authority of any committee,
subcommittee, commission or office
of the Congress, consistent with applicable
rules of the House or Senate.
(3) Emanate risk to Children and Families.
July 12, 1999 |Bill No:AB 1677|
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Bill No: AB 1677 Author: Assembly
Committee on Consumer Protection,
Governmental
Efficiency and Economic Development
As Amended: July 1, 1999 Fiscal: SUBJECT:
Professions and Vocations
SUMMARY: Committee bill that will
enact several non-controversial, minor
or technical
changes to various professional and
occupational licensing laws.
Existing law:
1) Provides for the licensing and
regulation of various professions
and occupations by various
regulatory boards, bureaus and programs
within the Department of Consumer
Affairs (DCA).
2) Establishes the Board of Behavioral
Sciences (BBS) to regulate the practice
of marriage,
family and child counselors (MFCC's)
and clinical social workers (CSW's),
and requires an
applicant for license as a clinical
social worker to have at least 3,200
hours of post-master's
experience, 1,000 of which may be
under the supervision of a licensed
mental health
professional.
3)Defines unprofessional conduct as
applied to licensees of the BBS.
4)Requires the BBS to {u register
u} a "marriage, family, and child
counseling corporation" and
a "licensed clinical social workers
corporation," and assure it has
a currently effective certificate
of registration from the Board pursuant
to the Moscone-Knox Professional Corporation
Act.
BOARD OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
F) HART ROBERT IRWIN, SOCIAL WORKER
7462 (FAILING TO REPORT ABUSE OF DISABLED
CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
CODE 15630. (a) Any person
who has assumed full or intermittent
responsibility for the care or custody
of an elder or dependent adult, whether
or not he or she receives compensation,
including
administrators, supervisors, and any
licensed staff of a public or private
facility that provides care or services
for elder or dependent adults, or
any elder or dependent adult care
custodian,
health practitioner, clergy member,
or employee of a county adult protective
services agency or a local law enforcement
agency, is a mandated reporter.
(b) (1) Any mandated reporter who,
in his or her professional capacity,
or within the scope of his or her
employment, has observed or has knowledge
of an incident that reasonably appears
to be physical abuse, as defined in
Section 15610.63 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, abandonment, abduction,
isolation, financial abuse, or neglect,
or is told by an elder or dependent
adult that he or she has experienced
behavior, including an act or omission,
constituting physical abuse, as defined
in Section 15610.63 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code, abandonment,
abduction, isolation, financial abuse,
or neglect, or reasonably suspects
that abuse, shall
report the known or suspected instance
of abuse by telephone immediately
or as soon as practicably possible,
and by written report sent within
two working days, as follows:
(h) Failure to report, or impeding
or inhibiting a report of, physical
abuse, as defined in Section 15610.63
of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
abandonment, abduction, isolation,
financial
abuse, or neglect of an elder or dependent
adult, in violation of this section,
is a misdemeanor, punishable by not
more than six months in the county
jail, by a fine of not more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both
that fine and imprisonment. Any mandated
reporter who willfully fails to report,
or impedes or inhibits a report of,
physical abuse, as defined in Section
CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
CODE 15610.63 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code, abandonment,
abduction, isolation, financial abuse,
or neglect of an elder or dependent
adult, in violation of this section,
where that abuse results in death
or great bodily injury, shall be punished
by not more than one year in a
county jail, by a fine of not more
than five thousand dollars ($5,000),
or by both that fine and imprisonment.
If a mandated reporter intentionally
conceals his or her failure to report
an
incident known by the mandated reporter
to be abuse or severe neglect under
this section, the failure to report
is a continuing offense until a law
enforcement agency specified in paragraph
(1) of subdivision (b) of Section
15630 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code discovers the offense.
(i) For purposes of this section,
"dependent adult" shall
have the same meaning as in Section
15610.23.
CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
CODE 15630.1. (a) As used in
this section, "mandated reporter
of suspected financial abuse of an
elder or dependent adult" means
all officers and employees of financial
institutions.
(f) Failure to report financial abuse
under this section shall be subject
to a civil penalty not exceeding one
thousand dollars ($1,000) or if the
failure to report is willful, a civil
penalty not
exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000),
which shall be paid by the financial
institution that is the employer of
the mandated reporter to the party
bringing the action. Subdivision (h)
of Section 15630 shall not apply to
violations of this section.
G) FAMILY, YOUTH & CHILDREN'S
SERVICES DIRECTOR BAUER,
CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
CODE 10553. The director shall:
(a) Be responsible for the management
of the department.
(b) Administer the laws pertaining
to the administration of public social
services, except health care services
and medical assistance.
(c) Observe and report to the Governor
on the conditions of public social
services, except health care services
and medical assistance, throughout
the state.
(d) Perform the disability determination
function pursuant to Titles II and
XVI of the federal Social Security
Act.
(e) Formulate, adopt, amend or repeal
regulations and general policies affecting
the purposes, responsibilities, and
jurisdiction of the department and
which are consistent with law and
necessary for the administration of
public social services, except health
care services and medical assistance,
and the disability determination function
pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the
federal Social Security Act.
All regulations relating to public
social services, except health care
services and medical assistance, or
relating to the disability determination
function pursuant to Titles II and
XVI of the federal Social Security
Act, the licensing of community care
facilities, or any other function
vested in the department, heretofore
adopted by the State Department of
Health, the State Department of Benefit
Payments, or any predecessor department,
and in effect immediately
preceding the operative date of amendments
to this section enacted by the Legislature
during the 1977-78 Regular Session,
shall remain in effect and shall be
fully enforceable unless and until
readopted, amended or repealed by
the director.
(f) Perform such other duties as may
be prescribed by law, and such other
administrative and executive duties
as have by other provisions of law
been previously imposed.
CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
CODE 10557. No person while
holding the office of director shall
be a trustee, manager, director, or
other officer or employee of any agency
performing any function supervised
by the department or any institution
which is subject to examination, inspection,
or supervision by the department.
No member of the State Social Services
Advisory Board shall hold any office
or employment in the department.
H) CHARLES I. SILVERSTEIN, PH.D. PSYCHOLOGIST,
Not to be compelled to be a witness
against yourself, psychological evaluations,
is a fraud, and is not based on any
know fact of science. It is used solely
to trump up imagined unfitness where
there is a clear showing that I was
primary care giver, and that I did
provide care and control for my son,
an epileptic who never had a seizure
in my care.
By Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD
Neurologist, Child Neurologist
Fellow, American Academy of Neurology
July 8, 2005
A recent Harvard study (Kessler, et.
al., 2005) predicted that half of
all Americans (150 million) will have
a mental illness sometime in their
life. Today nine million schoolchildren
have been diagnosed “chemically imbalanced,”
and “treated” with “chemical balancers”—pills!
Could they be right? In the face of
this profit-driven, diagnosing, drugging
assault, Tom Cruise (Today Show, June
24, 2005) has courageously, correctly,
charged—"There is no such thing
as a
‘chemical imbalance’…"
There is nothing more despicable in
medicine than a physician knowingly,
purposely, telling normal, healthy
patients they are “abnormal”/ “diseased”
for monetary gain. And yet, today,
millions of normals of all ages and
are thus lied to, deceived, drugged
and made into lifetime psychiatric
patients. As despicable as it is to
lie to and make patients of normals,
this has become the standard of practice
in psychiatry and for many other types
of physicians as well, unable to resist
the lure of a never-ending “patient”
supply.
Psychiatrist Steven Sharfstein of
the American Psychiatric Association
(Today Show, June 27, 200) had no
comeback for the Cruise debunking
of “chemical imbalances,” it’s confirmation
by Dr. Glenmullen, or, most important
of all, for the lack of a single report
in the medical-scientific literature
confirming an abnormality in a single
psychiatric “disorder”/ “chemical
imbalance” making any one of them
an actual disease. Instead, just as
with all practitioners of “biological”
psychiatry, he went on talking of
“diseases”/“chemical imbalances” as
if they really exist, as if they really
need, require, and justify “chemical
balancers”--psychiatric drugs.
“Chemical imbalances” are totally
inconsistent with science, the ethical
practice of medicine, and with life
in a democracy. http://www.adhdfraud.org/
I) GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER,
Duties and Responsibilities of the
Governor
Office of the Governor
The Governor is vested under the California
Constitution with the supreme executive
power of the state and has the duty
to ensure that the laws of the state
are faithfully executed.
The Governor has wide latitude in
the planning, organization and direction
of the activities of a large number
of state departments and agencies.
The responsibilities of the office
call for a broad knowledge of many
subjects and an ability to deal with
the problems of all Californians with
patience, understanding and sympathy.
As California's senior statewide elected
official, the Governor endeavors to
set the direction of state government
policies and actions that will determine
the quality and pace of California's
progress.
The California Constitution defines
specific responsibilities for the
Governor which include the duty as
Commander in Chief of the state military
establishment, the powers of executive
and judicial appointments, and the
power to grant reprieves, commutations
of sentence and pardons to those convicted
in the courts of California. The Governor
is not empowered to grant reprieves,
commutations or pardons in the case
of impeachment and conviction by the
Legislature.
J) ATTORNEY GENERAL, Attorney General
Bill Lockyer
ARTICLE 5
EXECUTIVE
SEC. 13. Subject to the powers and
duties of the Governor, the Attorney
General shall be the chief law officer
of the State. It shall be the duty
of the Attorney General to see that
the laws of the State are uniformly
and adequately enforced. The Attorney
General shall have direct supervision
over every district attorney and sheriff
and over such other law enforcement
officers as may be designated by law,
in all matters pertaining to the duties
of their respective offices, and may
require any of said officers to make
reports concerning the investigation,
detection, prosecution, and punishment
of crime in their respective jurisdictions
as to the Attorney General may seem
advisable. Whenever in the opinion
of the Attorney General any law of
the State is not being adequately
enforced in any county, it shall be
the duty of the Attorney General to
prosecute any violations of law of
which the superior court shall have
jurisdiction, and in such cases the
Attorney General
shall have all the powers of a district
attorney. When required by the public
interest or directed by the Governor,
the Attorney General shall assist
any district attorney in the discharge
of the duties of that office.
TITLE 28 > PART II > CHAPTER
31 > § 526 § 526. Authority of
Attorney General to investigate United
States attorneys, marshals, trustees,
clerks of court, and others
Release date: 2005-09-29
(a) The Attorney General may investigate
the official acts, records, and accounts
of—
(1) the United States attorneys, marshals,
trustees, including trustees in cases
under title 11; and
(2) at the request and on behalf of
the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts,
the clerks of the United States courts
and of the district court of the Virgin
Islands, probation officers, United
States magistrate judges, and court
reporters;
for which purpose all the official
papers, records, dockets, and accounts
of these officers, without exception,
may be examined by agents of the Attorney
General at any time.
(b) Appropriations for the examination
of judicial officers are available
for carrying out this section.
K) RONALD
M. GEORGE CHIEF JUSTICE OF CALIFORNIA
TITLE 28 > PART II > CHAPTER
31 > § 528
§ 528. Disqualification of officers
and employees of the Department of
Justice
Release date: 2005-09-29
The Attorney General shall promulgate
rules and regulations which require
the disqualification of any officer
or employee of the Department of Justice,
including a United States attorney
or a member of such attorney’s staff,
from participation in a particular
investigation or prosecution if such
participation may result in a personal,
financial, or political conflict of
interest, or the appearance thereof.
Such rules and regulations may provide
that a willful violation of any provision
thereof shall result in removal from
office.
2006 California Rules of Court
Rule 75. Court of Appeal administrative
presiding justice
(a) Designation
(1) In a Court of Appeal with more
than one division, the Chief Justice
may designate a presiding justice
to act as administrative presiding
justice. The administrative presiding
justice serves at the pleasure of
the Chief Justice for the period specified
in the designation order.
(2) The administrative presiding justice
must designate another member of the
court to serve as acting administrative
presiding justice in the administrative
presiding justice's absence; if the
administrative presiding justice does
not make that designation, the Chief
Justice must do so.
(3) In a Court of Appeal with only
one division, the presiding justice
acts as the administrative presiding
justice.
(b) Responsibilities
The administrative presiding justice
is responsible for leading the court,
establishing policies, promoting access
to justice for all members of the
public, providing a forum for the
fair and expeditious resolution of
disputes, and maximizing the use of
judicial and other resources.
(c) Duties
The administrative presiding justice
must perform any duties delegated
by a majority of the justices in the
district with the Chief Justice's
concurrence. In addition, the administrative
presiding justice:
(1) Personnel: has general direction
and supervision of the clerk/administrator
and all court employees except those
assigned to a particular justice or
division;
(2) Unassigned matters: has the authority
of a presiding justice with respect
to any matter that has not been assigned
to a particular division;
(3) Judicial Council: cooperates with
the Chief Justice and any officer
authorized to act for the Chief Justice
in connection with the making of reports
and the assignment of judges or retired
judges under article VI, section 6
of the California Constitution;
(4) Transfer of cases: cooperates
with the Chief Justice in expediting
judicial business and equalizing the
work of judges by recommending, when
appropriate, the transfer of cases
by the Supreme Court under article
VI, section 12 of the California Constitution;
(5) Administration: supervises the
administration of the court's day-to-day
operations, including personnel matters,
but must secure the approval of a
majority of the justices in the district
before implementing any change in
court policies;
(6) Budget: has sole authority in
the district over the budget as allocated
by the Chair of the Judicial Council,
including but not limited to budget
transfers, execution of purchase orders,
obligation of funds, and approval
of payments; and
(7) Facilities: except as provided
in (d), has sole authority in the
district over the operation, maintenance,
renovation, expansion, and assignment
of all facilities used and occupied
by the district.
(d) Geographically separate divisions
Under the general oversight of the
administrative presiding justice,
the presiding justice of a geographically
separate division:
(1) generally directs and supervises
all of the division's court employees
not assigned to a particular justice;
(2) has authority to act on behalf
of the division regarding day-to-day
operations;
(3) administers the division budget
for day-to-day operations, including
expenses for maintenance of facilities
and equipment; and
(4) operates, maintains, and assigns
space in all facilities used and occupied
by the division.
Rule 75 repealed and adopted effective
January 1, 2005.
Advisory Committee Comment (2005)
Revised rule 75 combines former rules
75 and 76.
CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
68070.5.
(a) When a case is appealed, there
shall be no communication direct or
indirect between the judge or judicial
officer who heard the case and any
judge of the reviewing court concerning
the facts or merits of the case.
(b) When a petition for an original
writ names a court as a party, there
shall be no communication direct or
indirect between any judge hearing
the writ and the judge or judicial
officer of the court named as a party.
(c) The prohibitions of subdivisions
(a) and (b) shall not apply to a written
communication if at the time the communication
is transmitted all the parties are
sent a copy.
L) SENATOR FEINSTEIN, Passed the buck!
Cannot claim immunity and apathy!
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20
MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS
SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature,
and all public officers and employees,
executive, legislative, and judicial,
except such inferior officers and
employees as may be by law exempted,
shall, before they enter upon the
duties of their respective offices,
take and subscribe the following oath
or affirmation:
"I, ______, do solemnly swear
(or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the
State of California against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to
the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of the State
of California; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I
will well and faithfully discharge
the duties upon which I am about to
enter.
"And I do further swear (or affirm)
that I do not advocate, nor am I a
member of any party or organization,
political or other-wise, that now
advocates the overthrow of the Government
of the
United States or of the State of California
by force or violence or other unlawful
means; that within the five years
immediately preceding the taking of
this oath (or affirmation) I have
not
been a member of any party or organization,
political or other-wise, that advocated
the overthrow of the Government of
the United States or of the State
of California by force or violence
or other unlawful means except as
follows:
____________________________________
(If no affiliations, write in the
words "No Exceptions") and
that during such time as I hold the
office of ______________
________________________________ I
will not advocate nor become
(name of office)
a member of any party or organization,
political or otherwise, that advocates
the overthrow of the Government of
the United States or of the State
of California by force or violence
or other unlawful means."
And no other oath, declaration, or
test, shall be required as a qualification
for any public office or employment.
"Public officer and employee"
includes every officer and employee
of the State, including the University
of California, every county, city,
city and county, district, and authority,
including any department, division,
bureau, board, commission, agency,
or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
M) OFFICER WOLFE OF SANTA ROSA POLICE
DEPARTMENT IN COLLUSION WITH SOCIAL
WORKER DORIS SAMMIE,
Social Worker Sammie did declare IMMUNITY
from any action in direct violation
to Miller v. Gammie, 01-15491
When I attempted to retrieve my son’s
medical records at the office of Dr.
Sammie, she had a patient physically
assault me. When I presented the Welfare
and Institution’s Code Subpoena for
my son’s records to Officer Wolfe
he stated that unless he had the law
in his hands he would allow the abuse
of a disabled man, and would not assist
me in obtaining my son’s records.
CALABRETTA
v FLOYD
Good reversed a summary judgment in
the social worker's and police officer's
favor on qualified immunity, and held
that they were not entitled to qualified
immunity. Even though there was no
case in point, the Third Circuit held
that the general proposition was clearly
established that the government may
not "conduct a search of a home
or strip search of a person's body
in the absence of consent, a valid
search warrant, or exigent circumstances."[40]
Good cited a Seventh Circuit case
for the proposition that "It
does not require a constitutional
scholar to conclude that a nude search
of a thirteenyear-old child is an
invasion of constitutional rights
of some magnitude. More than that:
it is a violation of any known principle
of human dignity.Good holds that under
Anderson, "a public official
may not manufacture immunity by inventing
exceptions to well settled doctrines
for which the case law provides no
support.
AB 2749
California. AB 2749 was signed into
law by Governor Schwarzenegger. AB
2749 provides two important protections
for all parents who are investigated
by Child Protective Services for child
abuse or neglect.
1) AB 2749 requires that "a representative
of a child protective services agency
performing an investigation ... of
suspected child abuse or neglect ...,
shall advise the individual of the
complaints or allegations against
him or her...."
2) AB 2749 specifically requires child
protective services social worker
to be trained concerning their duties
"to protect the legal rights...
of children and families..."
they are investigating. In accordance
with the 4th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which protects your
privacy and the privacy of your home
and property, social workers should
now be trained that they can only
enter your home under one of three
conditions:
Burt v. County of Orange (2004) ,
Cal.App.4th
N) NORTHBAY
REGIONAL CENTER,
I reported the abuse I was facing,
at the hands of STEFANIE AMARAL (ECK)
to North Bay Regional Center. Because
of Gender Bias they refused to file
a mandated report. I am a dependent
adult, I am unable to drive and work.
I care for my daily needs and that
of my child’s.
CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
CODE 15630. (a) Any person
who has assumed full or intermittent
responsibility for the care or custody
of an elder or dependent adult, whether
or not he or she receives compensation,
including administrators, supervisors,
and any licensed staff of a public
or private facility that provides
care or services for elder or dependent
adults, or any elder or dependent
adult care custodian, health practitioner,
clergy member, or employee of a county
adult protective services agency or
a local law enforcement agency, is
a mandated reporter.
(b) (1) Any mandated reporter who,
in his or her professional capacity,
or within the scope of his or her
employment, has observed or has knowledge
of an incident that reasonably appears
to be physical abuse, as defined in
Section 15610.63 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, abandonment, abduction,
isolation, financial abuse, or neglect,
or is told by an elder or dependent
adult that he or she has experienced
behavior, including an act or omission,
constituting physical abuse, as defined
in Section 15610.63 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code, abandonment,
abduction, isolation, financial abuse,
or neglect, or reasonably suspects
that abuse, shall
report the known or suspected instance
of abuse by telephone immediately
or as soon as practicably possible,
and by written report sent within
two working days, as follows:
(h) Failure to report, or impeding
or inhibiting a report of, physical
abuse, as defined in Section 15610.63
of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
abandonment, abduction, isolation,
financial
abuse, or neglect of an elder or dependent
adult, in violation of this section,
is a misdemeanor, punishable by not
more than six months in the county
jail, by a fine of not more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both
that fine and imprisonment. Any mandated
reporter who willfully fails to report,
or impedes or inhibits a report of,
physical abuse, as defined in Section
O) SANTA ROSA POLICE DEPARTMENT FAILURE
TO ENFORCE A COURT ORDER 2003-2004.
Santa Rosa Police report 03-21361
Dated 11-13-2003
Santa Rosa Police report 03-19318
Dated 10-12-2003
Santa Rosa Police report 03-16064
Dated 8-28-31 2003
Santa Rosa Police report 03-14543
Dated 8-19-2003
YWCA Abusive Parent report
Since I have a fundamental right to
my son, and the repeated abductions
where ignored when the court order.
In their very own words, it is NOT
OUR POLICY TO UPHOLD A COURT ORDER,
GO BACK TO COURT AND TELL THEM THE
COURT WHICH I DID!
“In each and every state there are
long-standing statutes that, by their
terms, seem to preclude non-enforcement
by the police… . However, for a number
of reasons, including their legislative
history, insufficient resources, and
sheer physical impossibility, it has
been recognized that such statutes
cannot be interpreted literally… .
[T]hey clearly do not mean that a
police officer may not lawfully decline
to make an arrest. As to third parties
in these states, the full-enforcement
statutes simply have no effect, and
their significance is further diminished.”
1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice
1—4.5, commentary, pp. 1—124 to 1—125
(2d ed. 1980) (footnotes omitted).
The deep-rooted nature of law-enforcement
discretion, even in the presence of
seemingly mandatory legislative commands,
is illustrated by Chicago v. Morales,
527 U.S. 41 (1999)
P) ROHNERT PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
FAILURE TO ENFORCE A COURT ORDER 2004.
"When an extraordinary writ proceeding
is the only avenue of appellate review,
a reviewing court' s discretion is
quite restricted. ' " Its issuance
is not necessarily a matter of right,
but lies rather in the discretion
of the court, but where one has a
substantial right to protect or enforce,
and this may be accomplished by such
a writ, and there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, he [or she]
is entitled as a matter of right to
the writ, or perhaps more correctly,
in other words, it would be an abuse
of discretion to refuse it."
' (Dowell v. Superior Court (1956)
47 Cal.2d 483, 486-487, quoting Potomac
Oil Co. v. Dye (1909) 10 Cal.App.
534, 537; accord, May v. Board of
Directors (1949) 34 Cal.2d 125, 133-134.)"
(Powers v. City of Richmond (1995)
10 Cal.4th 85, 113-114.)
Q) COTATI POLICE REPORT FAILURE TO
STOP KIDNAPPING & FAILURE TO ENFORCE
A COURT ORDER.
Cotati Police report 03-1792 Dated
11-13-2003
Cotati Police report 03-1522 Dated
7-24-27-2003
Stating that "[a]n equal protection
violation occurs when the government
treats someone differently [from]
another who is similarly situated")
Brian W. York being a male and disabled
(citing Cleburne v. Cleburne Living
Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985)).
The alleged constitutional deprivation
in this matter was the alleged denial
of equal police protection to Mr.
York
A plaintiff may prove a violation
of S 1983 without demonstrating that
the deprivation of his or her constitutional
rights caused any actual harm. See
George v. City of Long Beach , 973
F.2d 706, 708 (9th Cir. 1992). "In
this Circuit, nominal damages must
be awarded if a plaintiff proves a
violation of his[or her] constitutional
rights." Id. The trier of fact
must award nominal damages to the
plaintiff "as a symbolic vindication
of her constitutional right."
Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1403
(9th Cir. 1991). Thus, the Appellants
may prevail on their claim and receive
at least nominal damages if they can
prove that the Appellees violated
Mr. York’s right to equal protection,
irrespective of whether the Appellees'
conduct caused kidnapping.
R) SONOMA COUTNTY SHERIFF”S DEPARTMENT
Failure to charge mother for double
attempted murder, false arrest, refusing
to listen to me because I was “disfavored.”
It was their policy to believe a woman
was a VICTIM of domestic Violence,
depriving me of liberty and falsely
arresting me. The woman and mother
of the child said if you want him
you can have him and she shoved him
into oncoming traffic where I almost
was killed rescuing him. She tried
to kill my child and me.
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 Pattern
and Practice
This civil statute was a provision
within the Crime Control Act of 1994
and makes it unlawful for any governmental
authority, or agent thereof, or any
person acting on behalf of a governmental
authority, to engage in a pattern
or practice of conduct by law enforcement
officers or by officials or employees
of any governmental agency with responsibility
for the administration of juvenile
justice or the incarceration of juveniles
that deprives persons of rights, privileges,
or immunities secured or protected
by the Constitution or laws of the
United States.
Whenever the Attorney General has
reasonable cause to believe that a
violation has occurred, the Attorney
General, for or in the name of the
United States, may in a civil action
obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory
relief to eliminate the pattern or
practice.
Types of misconduct covered include,
among other things:
1. Excessive Force
2. Discriminatory Harassment.
3. False Arrest
4. Coercive Sexual Conduct
5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests
S) JUDGE TANSIL VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS
1,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, AND 14. ALSO
VIOLATION OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE, APPEARANCE
OF BIAS (GENDER, DISABILITY BIAS.)
“The courts will now table the charges
against the mother, because it is
not our policy to charge a mother.”
TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART I--ORGANIZATION OF COURTS
CHAPTER 21--GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE
TO COURTS AND JUDGES
Sec. 453. Oaths of justices and judges
Each justice or judge of the United
States shall take the following oath
or affirmation before performing the
duties of his office: ``I, ___ ___,
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will administer justice without
respect to persons, and do equal right
to the poor and to the rich, and that
I will faithfully and impartially
discharge and perform all the duties
incumbent upon me as ___ under the
Constitution and laws of the United
States. So help me God.''
Government officials enjoy qualified
immunity from civil damages unless
their conduct violates "clearly
established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person
would have known." Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982);
see also Behrens, 516 U.S. at 306
(describing Harlow's standard as one
of "objective legal reasonableness").
"A public official is not entitled
to qualified immunity when the contours
of the allegedly violated right were
sufficiently clear that a reasonable
official would understand that what
he [was] doing violate[d] that right."
Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 936
(9th Cir. 1996) (alterations in original)
(citation and internal quotations
omitted). Determining whether a public
official is entitled to qualified
immunity "requires a two-part
inquiry:
(A) Was the law governing the state
official's conduct clearly established?
(B) Under that law could a reasonable
state official have believed his conduct
was lawful?"
Browning v. Vernon, 44 F.3d 818, 822
(9th Cir. 1995) (citing Portland v.
Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871-72 (9th
Cir. 1993)).This standard " `gives
ample room for mistaken judgments'
by protecting `all but the plainly
incompetent or those who knowingly
violate the law.' " Hunter v.
Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229 (1991) (per
curiam) (quoting Malley v. Briggs,
475 U.S. 335, 343 (1986)).
While a Judge may issue orders to
control his court, he has no lawful
authority to issue any order which
violates the Supreme Law of the Land.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
states that all entities have the
mandatory right of an adequate, complete,
effective, fair, full meaningful and
timely access to the court.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Judicial notice is given:
My rights were violated by Judge Mark
Tansil; and his violated my CLEARLY
ESTABISHED
CONSTITUTIONAL rights. Judge Tansil
is not able to set in this case without
prior clear and wanton showing of
bias against me. I was discriminated
against, because of my, disability
and gender, or because he perceived
me as having one or more of these
characteristics. This is a notice
of Disqualification, an already void
order, and a possible impeachment
of Judge Tansil. Judge Tansil has
deprived me of CLEARLY established
Constitutional rights. All prior orders
by Judge Tansil are void, and because
of VIOLATION of CLEARLY ESTABLISHED
CONSTUTIONAL RIGHT it deprives Judge
Tansil of every setting in Judgment
in this case. Wanton Negligence of
my rights, and the already violated
rights, Judge Tansil may not preside
over any case with my name on it.
COMES NOW THE PETITIONER, Brian W.
York in this matter, TO EXERCISE HIS
RIGHT, to Disqualification of a Judge
pursuant to C.C.P. 170.1 (a)(6)(c)
and TITLE 28 PART I CHAPTER 21 Sec.
453. Due to the violation of rights,
and by violation
the Constitution of the United States
of America by which Judge Tansil,
swore to uphold. 170.3 will be filed
with the court clerk.
T) Judge ROSENFIELD VIOLATIONS OF
RIGHTS
“The court Feels” is not grounds for
castrating my constitutional right
to my family.
1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, AND 14. ALLOWING
UNCLEAN HANDS, AND DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST A DISABLED, FATHER.
TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART I--ORGANIZATION OF COURTS
CHAPTER 21--GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE
TO COURTS AND JUDGES
Sec. 453. Oaths of justices and judges
Each justice or judge of the United
States shall take the following oath
or affirmation before performing the
duties of his office: ``I, ___ ___,
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will administer justice without
respect to persons, and do equal right
to the poor and to the rich, and that
I will faithfully and impartially
discharge and perform all the duties
incumbent upon me as ___ under the
Constitution and laws of the United
States. So help me God.''
Government officials enjoy qualified
immunity from civil damages unless
their conduct violates "clearly
established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person
would have known." Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982);
see also Behrens, 516 U.S. at 306
(describing Harlow's standard as one
of "objective legal reasonableness").
"A public official is not entitled
to qualified immunity when the contours
of the allegedly violated right were
sufficiently clear that a reasonable
official would understand that what
he [was] doing violate[d] that right."
Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 936
(9th Cir. 1996) (alterations in original)
(citation and internal quotations
omitted). Determining whether a public
official is entitled to qualified
immunity "requires a two-part
inquiry:
(A) Was the law governing the state
official's conduct clearly established?
(B) Under that law could a reasonable
state official have believed his conduct
was lawful?"
Browning v. Vernon, 44 F.3d 818, 822
(9th Cir. 1995) (citing Portland v.
Bagley, 988 F.2d 868, 871-72 (9th
Cir. 1993)).This standard " `gives
ample room for mistaken judgments'
by protecting `all but the plainly
incompetent or those who knowingly
violate the law.' " Hunter v.
Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 229 (1991) (per
curiam) (quoting Malley v. Briggs,
475 U.S. 335, 343 (1986)).
While a Judge may issue orders to
control his court, he has no lawful
authority to issue any order which
violates the Supreme Law of the Land.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
states that all entities have the
mandatory right of an adequate, complete,
effective, fair, full meaningful and
timely access to the court.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Judicial notice is given:
My rights were violated Judge Arnold
Rosenfield; and his violated my CLEARLY
ESTABISHED CONSTITUTIONAL rights.
Judge Rosenfield is disqualified for
his policy clearly violating Constitution.
Whereas Judge Rosenfield, has been
of bad behavior, and disqualifies
him from ever hearing any case, and
because of his policy violating his
Oath to uphold the Constitution, he
is showing either contempt for the
constitution or is mentally disabled
and can no longer uphold his job do
to his bad behavior. Judge Rosenfield
has shown prior clear and wanton showing
of bias against me. I was discriminated
against, because of my, disability
and gender, or because he perceived
me as having one or more of these
characteristics. This is a notice
of Disqualification, an already void
order, and a possible impeachment
of Judge Rosenfield. Judge Rosenfield
has deprived me of CLEARLY established
Constitutional rights. All prior orders
by Judge Rosenfield are void, and
because of VIOLATION of CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED CONSTUTIONAL RIGHT it
deprives Judge Rosenfield of every
setting in Judgment in this case.
COMES NOW THE PETITIONER, Brian W.
York in this matter, TO EXERCISE HIS
RIGHT, to Disqualification of a Judge
pursuant to C.C.P. 170.1 (a)(6)(c)
and TITLE 28 PART I CHAPTER 21 Sec.
451 & 453. A clear violation of
Estate of Macias v. Lopez, 42 F. Supp.2d
957, 962 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Due to
the violation of rights, and by violation
the Constitution of the United States
of America by which Judge Rosenfield,
swore to uphold. This will be filed
with the court clerk. Governor, Sen.
Specter, U.S. Chamber Institute for
Legal Reform, Counsel Office of Professional
Responsibility, Attorney General Alberto
R. Gonzales, State Commission on Judicial
Performance, Senate President Pro
Tempore Presiding Judge, State Attorney
General's Office, Federal Judicial
Center, and Court of Appeals for the
Circuit.
I ) INTRODUCTION
1) The Constitution of the United
States:
Article. I. Section. 3. 7. Judgment
in Cases of Impeachment shall not
extend further than to removal from
Office, and disqualification to hold
and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust
or Profit under the United States:
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless
be liable and subject to Indictment,
Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according
to Law.
U) CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES OF SONOMA
COUNTY FAILURE TO ENSURE MY RIGHTS
AND THE RIGHTS OF MY SON
Cases under the Young procedure may
be brought in two basic formats. First,
suits for prospective relief may be
brought directly under a federal statute
which creates a private cause of action,
The Cone Corporation v. Florida Dept.
Transportation, 921 F. 2d 1190, 1201
(11th Cir.), cert. den. 500 U.S. 942(1991).
Second, suits for prospective relief
are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
which creates a federal cause of action
for violation of "rights"
secured by the federal laws and Constitution.
Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397 (1970);
see R. Capistrano, Enforcing Federal
Rights: The Law of Section 1983, 33
Clearinghouse Rev. 217 (1999).
In the case barring recovery of damages
against states under Title I of the
ADA, the Court expressly approves
use of Young in enforcing Title I
for injunctive relief against states
engaging in employment discrimination.
Our holding here that Congress did
not validly abrogate the State's sovereign
immunity from suit by private individuals
for money damages under Title I does
not mean that persons with disabilities
have no federal recourse against discrimination.
Title I of the ADA still prescribes
standards applicable to the States.
Those standards can be enforced by
the United States in actions for money
damages, as well as by private individuals
in actions for injunctive relief under
Ex parte Young . . ." Board of
Trustees of the University of Alabama
v. Garrett. 121 S,.Ct. 955, 968, n.
9 (2001).
V) CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES OF SONOMA
COUNTY FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER.
It was ordered by the courts that
I would continue to receive services
by Child Protective Services, who
in open court refused to provide “any
more services.”
My rights as a parents where violated:
The right of a parent to raise his
children has long been recognized
as a fundamental constitutional right,
"far more precious than property
rights." Stanley v. Illinois,
405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972), quoting
May v. Anderson, 345, U.S. 528, 533
(1953); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S.
535, 541, (1942); Meyer v Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), See, e.q.
Castigno v Wholean, 239 Conn. 336
(1996); In re Alexander V., 223 Conn.
557 (1992). In Re: May V Anderson
(1953) 345 US 528, 533, 73 S. Ct.
840, 843 97 L. Ed. 1221, 1226.
W) Sonoma County Legal Services Foundation,
Inc. Interfering with right to parent.
Ignorance of the law in no excuse
for not upholding it.
"Failure to answer is silence.
Silence can only be equated with fraud
where there is legal and moral duty
to speak, or when inquiry left unanswered
would be intentionally misleading.
US v Tweel (1977) 550 F 2d 297.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer
for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or
in the Militia, when in actual service
in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the
same offence to be twice put in jeopardy
of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in
any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
4) Respondents acted under color of
law
"Careful adherence to the `state
action' requirement preserves an area
of individual freedom by limiting
the reach of federal law" and
avoids the imposition of responsibility
on a State for conduct it could not
control. Lugar, 457 U.S., at 936 -937.
When Congress enacted 1983 as the
statutory remedy for violations of
the Constitution, it specified that
the conduct at issue must have occurred
"under color of" state law;
thus, liability attaches only to those
wrongdoers "who carry a badge
of authority of a State and represent
it in some capacity, whether they
act in accordance with their authority
or misuse it." Monroe v. Pape,
365 U.S. 167, 172 (1961). As we stated
in United States v. Classic, 313 U.S.
299, 326 (1941):
The Supreme Court has had to interpret
the United States Constitution to
construct law regulating the actions
of those in the law enforcement community.
Enforcement of these provisions does
not require that any racial, religious,
or other discriminatory motive existed.
Most of the FBI's color of law investigations
would fall into five broad areas:
(A) excessive force;
(B) sexual assaults;
(C) false arrest/fabrication of evidence;
(D) deprivation of property; and
(E) failure to keep from harm.
The Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution guarantees the
right against unreasonable searches
or seizures. A law enforcement official
using his authority provided under
the "color of law" is allowed
to stop individuals and even if necessary
to search them and retain their property
under certain circumstances. It is
in the abuse of that discretionary
power that a violation of a person's
civil rights might occur. An unlawful
detention or an illegal confiscation
of property would be examples of such
an abuse of power.
An official would violate the color
of law statute by fabricating evidence
against or conducting a false arrest
of an individual. That person's rights
of due process and unreasonable seizure
have been violated. In the case of
deprivation of property, the official
would violate the color of saw statute
by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining
the property of another. In that case,
the official has overstepped or misapplied
his authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the
right to due process and the Eighth
Amendment also prohibits the use of
cruel and unusual punishment. In an
arrest or detention context, these
rights would prohibit the use of force
amounting to punishment (summary judgment).
The idea being that a person accused
of a crime is to be allowed the opportunity
to have a trial and not be subjected
to punishment without having been
afforded the opportunity of the legal
process.
The public entrusts its law enforcement
officials with protecting the community.
If it is shown that an official willfully
failed to keep an individual from
harm that official could be in violation
of the color of law statute.
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141, makes
it unlawful for state or local law
enforcement agencies to allow officers
to engage in a pattern or practice
of conduct that deprives persons of
rights protected by the Constitution
or laws of the United States. This
law is commonly referred to as the
Police Misconduct Statute. This law
gives DOJ the authority to seek civil
remedies in cases where it is determined
that law enforcement agencies have
policies or practices which foster
a pattern of misconduct by employees.
This action is directed against an
agency, not against individual officers.
The types of issues which may initiate
a Pattern and Practice investigation
include:
Lack of supervision/monitoring of
officers' actions.
Officers not providing justification
or reporting incidents involving the
use of force.
Lack of, or improper training of officers.
A department having a citizen complaint
process which treats complainants
as adversaries.
5) Respondents caused the deprivation
of Constitution.
American Due Process is-
1) Freedom of Speech, Freedom OF RELIGION.
The District court as well as the
Circuit court stated there was no
chilling effect by the fact that CPS
and the office of the Attorney General
maintain a list of accepted religions.
There is absolutely a chilling effect
when CPS maintains a list of accepted
religions even though there was no
due process of the parent. This flies
directly into the 1st Amendment of
freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of association as well as
the free exercise clause.
2) and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.
Where perceived right of expert witness,
is often used to silence a parents
cry for a readdress to this grieves
abuse of power. This is a criminal
proceeding lacking constitutional
constraint, due process and equal
protection.
3) The right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Where it is right and correct to defend
self or to defend the state, shall
not be impaired. Therefore the mandatory
relinquish of arms in any restraining
order is void. Where you are innocent
until proven guilty by a jury shall
not be infringed.
4) Against unreasonable Search and
Seizure of persons (children) or property
WITHOUT A WARRANT Termination of ones
parental rights is also a termination
of ones constitutional rights. Like
incarceration or the death penalty,
termination of ones parental rights
is one of the highest punishments
that a government can levy against
an American/parent and as such is
entitled to the full protection of
the Constitution. What the states
are doing along with child protection
is nothing less than a legal lynching
when they strip parents of their constitutional
rights in order to prosecute them.
They also feel with great arrogance
that all government officials are
not bound to the constitutional prohibitions
that the law places on government
officials.
5) Not to be compelled to be a witness
against yourself (psych evals?) ,
be deprived of liberty or property
taken for public use. Where our children
are stolen to finance the Government!
Most all individuals and judges along
with legislators do not realize that
the “Central Registry” is a collection
of parents and caregivers names which
misleads the public, police and the
courts into thinking that those who
are on it are guilty of some type
of abuse and/or neglect. The fact
of the matter is 99% of the individuals
on it have never been adjudicated
by a judge or jury of abuse or neglect.
CPS even admits it in their own policy
that these individuals are only “alleged”
to abuse or neglected a child.
Parents are put on the Central Registry
by unlicensed social workers who first
lack the jurisdiction and authority
to determine ones innocent or guilt
because that is up to a judge or jury.
Neither parents nor their attorney
can attend this meeting nor can they
present any evidence to show their
innocent.
6) To Know the Evidence against you
and Confront You’re Accuser...
No state can deprive any person of
life, liberty or property without
due process of law nor deny any person
the equal protection of the laws)"
Kelson v Springfield, 767 F2d651;US
Ct App 9th Cir, (1985)
"State Judges, as well as federal,
have the responsibility to respect
and protect persons from violations
of federal constitutional rights."
Gross V State of Illinois, 312 F 2d
257, (1963) The Constitution also
protects "the individual interest
in avoiding disclosure of personal
matters." Federal Courts (and
State Courts) under Griswold can protect,
under the "life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness" phrase
of the Declaration of Independence,
the right of a man to enjoy the mutual
care, company, love and affection
of his children, and this cannot be
taken away from him without due process
of law. There is a family right to
privacy which the state cannot invade
or it becomes actionable for civil
rights damages. Griswold v Connecticut,
381 US 479, (l965)
7) Speedy and public trial (a hearing
is NOT a Trial)
TIME LIMITS
The Judge must order the permanent
plan to be accomplished within a specified
period of time. The time periods are
short. If the Judge determines that
the plan should be termination of
parental rights or permanent guardianship,
then the Judge must order that a motion
to start a severance proceeding must
be filed within 10 days and the first
hearing on that motion scheduled within
30 days.
Statutory Grounds
The severance and permanent guardianship
statutes require separate JURY TRIAL
at which the grounds must be proven
by clear and convincing evidence.
8) By an impartial jury (where impeachment
is the only charge that is not to
be heard before a jury)
The trial of all crimes, except in
cases of impeachment, shall be by
jury; and such trial shall be held
in the state where the said crimes
shall have been committed; but when
not committed within any state, the
trial shall be at such place or places
as the Congress may by law have directed.
9) To be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation.
Closed to the public, confidential,
behind closed doors, secret--all of
these terms have been used, at one
time or another, to describe the way
that dependency cases are handled
at Juvenile Court or family law.
The judge may close a hearing, partially
or in its entirety, at any time, stating
the reasons for the closure. This
is likely to occur when substance
abuse or therapeutic information is
shared to ensure compliance with federal
law. (WHOLLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
10) To be confronted with the witnesses
against him;
Crawford v. Washington
Eliminates a loophole policy, which
violated the constitutional protections
of the accused. Generally, Crawford
bars the admission of testimonial
hearsay statements against an accused
unless the declarant is unavailable
to appear at trial and the defendant
had a prior opportunity to cross-examine
the witness.
11) To have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor
In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, the Court
indicated that requests to compel
the government to reveal the identity
of witnesses or produce exculpatory
evidence should be evaluated under
due process rather than compulsory
process analysis, adding that ''compulsory
process provides no greater protections
in this area than due process.''
12) To have the Assistance of Counsel
for his defense
Despite this broad dicta, the question
still remained what state courts should
do. In Betts v. Brady (1942), the
Supreme Court took a survey of state
practices, and found that the majority
of states did NOT provide appointed
counsel to indigents, or poor people.
The Court therefore ruled that only
in special circumstances, when the
charges are complex and the defendant
suffers from low intelligence, should
counsel be appointed. This test became
known as the prejudice-special circumstances
test because the fairness of the process
was determined by whether a lawyer
could have saved the defendant anyway.
Betts was overruled in Gideon v. Wainwright
in 1963
13) In Suits at common law, where
the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial
by jury shall be preserved.
The Sixth Amendment grants the right
to a jury trial in criminal prosecutions.
The Seventh Amendment has been interpreted
to apply only to civil suits in which
money damages are claimed (e.g., breach
of contract, personal injury). The
Supreme Court has long made a distinction
between such “legal” claims and “equitable”
claims. The Seventh Amendment does
not apply if the lawsuit seeks an
equitable remedy (such as an injunction)
where no money damages are involved.
14) Against cruel and unusual punishment.
Stripping a parent of their children
is cruel and unusual to both the child
and parent.
15) No State shall make or enforce
any law, which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.
It is well settled that, quite apart
from the guarantee of equal protection,
if a law “impinges upon a fundamental
right explicitly or implicitly secured
by the Constitution it is presumptively
unconstitutional.” Harris v. McRae
United States Supreme Court (1980)
16) The right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or
by any State on account of race, color,
or previous condition of servitude
(including incarceration),
Against any state abridging your privileges
or immunities, or depriving you of
liberty or property, without due process
of law.
6 ) Plaintive possessed a constitutional
right of which he was deprived.
Child support is an unauthorized TAX!
YOU are all being TAXED! IF THEY TAKE
YOUR CHILDREN THEY ARE TAKING PROPERTY!
The right of a parent to raise his
children has long been recognized
as a fundamental constitutional right,
"far more precious than property
rights." Stanley v. Illinois,
405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972), quoting
May v. Anderson, 345, U.S. 528, 533
(1953); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S.
535, 541, (1942); Meyer v Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), See, e.q.
Castigno v Wholean, 239 Conn. 336
(1996); In re Alexander V., 223 Conn.
557 (1992). In Re: May V Anderson
(1953) 345 US 528, 533, 73 S. Ct.
840, 843 97 L. Ed. 1221, 1226, This
case
involved a mother stripped of her
rights without the right to utter
a single word in her defense.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer
for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or
in the Militia, when in actual service
in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the
same offence to be twice put in jeopardy
of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in
any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
CHALLENGING GENDER BIAS IN CUSTODIAL
DECISIONS
A. Bringing an Equal Protection Challenge
Fathers seeking to bring an equal
protection challenge in court face
many hurdles. Perhaps the biggest
hurdle is proving that the court intended
to discriminate when it awarded custody
of the children to the mother because
of gender discrimination.
In child custody statutes involving
divorce cases, statutes that delineate
the mother as the primary custodian
violate the Equal Protection Clause
because they are facially discriminatory
and the intent to discriminate is
obvious. Most states have repealed
such laws for this reason.
When the statute is not facially discriminatory
but purports to treat both parents
equally, the challenge will be much
more difficult. A father seeking to
prove that his right to equal protection
of the law was denied must present
evidence that the law was administered
in a discriminatory manner by the
trial judge.
As demonstrated in the Ropoleski case,
this is a difficult standard to meet.
Most judges do not state that they
are awarding custody to the mother
because she is the mother; instead,
they may base their decision on a
finding that the mother is the more
fit parent due to her role as the
primary caretaker and that it is in
the child's best interests to remain
with her.
In 1991, the Georgia Commission on
Gender Bias in the Judicial System
released a report listing "[c]ulturally
based gender-biased beliefs that influence
some judges and disadvantage fathers."[283]
The Commission found that these beliefs
included:
Policy of this violates my Constitutional
Rights.
A. The belief that a mother is a better
parent than a father.
B. The belief that children, especially
young children, need to be with their
mothers.
C. The belief that a father cannot
work outside the home and be a nurturing
parent.
D. Since the father does not work,
and is home with the child, and was
the primary care provider to the child,
where the child, who has epilepsy
also, the father showed care and control
by keeping the child seizure free
in his care where the child has had
some 14 seizures in the mothers care.
Judicial Council of California Administrative
Office of the Courts.
August 1996
I am pleased to provide you with this
booklet on gender fairness issues,
“Guidelines for
Judicial Officers: Avoiding the Appearance
of Bias.”
“Hesitated to award a father primary
child custody or given a smaller support
order if the paying spouse is the
mother primarily because of their
gender?”
That in most cases (81.4%) the fathers
are the obligors.
The mothers are the obligors in 13.0
percent of the reviewed orders and
neither parent is specified as the
obligor in 5.6 percent of the reviewed
orders
The Commission noted that in addition
to the actual application of these
biases by judges, "perceptions
of gender bias discourage fathers
from seeking custody by creating a
'chilling effect,'" thus convincing
fathers that it is not worth their
effort to even seek custody.
Children of an Unmarried Couple
California no longer categorizes children
as "legitimate" or "illegitimate."
The law says that the parent-child
relationship extends equally to every
child and to every parent, regardless
of the marital status of the parents.
Establishing a parent-child relationship
is important for such things as inheritance,
child support obligations, custody
of children, and adoption. Everything
in this section applies to any person
who is the parent of your children,
whether you ever lived with that person
or not.
The court can issue an order to establish
paternity for purposes of determining
child support, through the administration
of blood tests to the mother, child
and alleged father, if appropriate.
If a party refuses to take a blood
test, the court can resolve the issue
of paternity against that party. (Fam.
Code, §§ 2330.1 and 7550-7557, et
seq., and Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 11352.) A voluntary declaration
of paternity may also be made. (Fam.
Code, § 7570 et seq.) DNA proof of
paternity.
A child born outside of marriage has
the same inheritance rights as a child
born in marriage. (In re Bassi's Estate
(1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 529, 541-548.)
A child born outside of marriage has
the same rights to receive through
his/her parents Social Security, union
and insurance benefits as a child
born in marriage. (Rodriguez v. Rodriguez
(N.D. Cal. 1971) 329 F.Supp. 597.)
A child born outside of marriage may
sue a third party for the wrongful
death of a parent. (Juarez v. System
Leasing Corp. (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d
730, 737.)
7) The municipality had a policy or
custom.
Violence Against Women Act is BIAS.
Removing a Child because the parent
is disabled is BIAS.
"Women's shelters receive funding
from the state pursuant to a gender-specific
funding statute," said Marci
Fukuroda, a domestic violence lawyer
for the Los Angeles-based California
Women's Law Center. Under the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994, the California
legislature sets aside money to fund
programs for female and juvenile domestic
violence victims in need of emergency
shelter.
Fact: their male partners beat almost
four million women in their homes
every year.
Fact: Because violence inflicted upon
a woman by her partner is treated
much differently than violence inflicted
by a stranger, batterers are not always
arrested.
In 1974, the first battered women's
shelter in the U.S. opened its doors
in St. Paul, Minnesota. Today, having
been funded by billions and billions
of dollars, thousands of shelters,
hotlines and government programs exist
to help women who are victimized by
violence. Nothing remotely comparable
exists for men.
Studies of spousal and dating violence
indicate that women are as likely
as men to assault their partners physically.
Correspondence and reprint requests
should be sent to Martin S. Fiebert,
Ph.D., Department of Psychology, California
State University, Long Beach, 1250
Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach CA
90840 or e-mail mfiebert@CSULB.edu.
225 college women participated in
a survey which examined their past
history and their rationales for initiating
aggression with male partners. Subjects
also responded to 8 conflict scenarios
which provided information regarding
possible reasons for the initiation
of aggression. Results indicate that
55% of the subjects admitted to initiating
physical aggression toward their male
partners at some point in their lives.
The most common reason was that aggression
was a spontaneous reaction to frustration)
(Summary from Fiebert, Annotated Bibliography.)
The Alabama Supreme Court addressed
the issue of whether such a maternally-slanted
bias could withstand a 14th Amendment
challenge, and found that it could
not. The court stated: "...we
conclude that the tender years presumption
represents an unconstitutional gender-based
classification which discriminates
between fathers and mothers in child
custody proceedings solely on the
basis of sex."
Once recognizing and acknowledging
this bias, we can start to work at
correcting the imbalance which it
has perpetuated, just as is done with
any other discriminatory bias which
has wronged the peoples of our society.
Perhaps the most important factor
in this case will be the educating
of those who make the decisions: the
judges, the lawyers, the psychologists
and social workers.
CHAPTER 6
PARENTAL RIGHTS
I. PARENTAL FITNESS
Persons with disabilities have the
same right as anyone else to bear
and raise children. A
parent's or child's disability does
not by itself indicate a need for
intervention by child protective
services. A parent's physical disability
cannot be used as a basis to deny
him or her child custody, unless the
disability prevents the parent from
exercising care and control. (Welf.
& Inst. Code, §§ 300, subd. (b)
and 16509.2.)
It is Policy to discrimination against
parents in favor of child protection.
These institutions are suppose to
be upholding the Constitution and
protecting the rights of the citizens
of the United States but have failed
once again. Child Protection like
CPS are not entitled to immunity.
Miller v. Gammie, 01-15491, 292 F.3d
982 (9th Cir. 2002) Order Taking Case
En Banc: 309 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2002)
Nor, are they an officer of the State
without proper licensing, without
such are impersonating an officer.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER
33 > § 701
8) This policy or custom amounts to
deliberate indifference to constitutional
rights.
Contract include:
Consent - The agreement must have
been entered into freely. Consent
may be vitiated by duress or undue
influence.
Legality - The purpose of the agreement
must not be illegal or contrary to
public policy. Must be Constitutional
in nature.
A contract which possesses all of
the above ingredients is said to be
valid. The absence of an essential
element will render the contract either
void, voidable or unenforceable Ab
initio literally "from the beginning."
When an agreement is for legal reasons
void ab initio, it is void for all
purposes throughout the period of
its purported existence, and not merely
from the moment that it is declared
to have been void by the Court. When
a man enters upon lands or into the
house of another by authority of law,
and afterwards abuses that authority,
he becomes a trespasser ab initio.
(9) the policy or custom caused constitutional
deprivation.
Parental rights are so fundamental
to the human condition so as to be
deemed inalienable. Termination of
parental rights equals or exceeds
the detriment of criminal sanctions.
The "liberty interest of parents
in the care, custody, and control
of their children is perhaps the oldest
of the fundamental liberty interests"
recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Troxel v. Granville, 527 U.S. 1069
(1999). Moreover, the companionship,
care, custody, and management of a
parent over his or her child is an
interest far more precious than any
property right. May v. Anderson, 345
U.S. 528, 533, (1952). As such, the
parent-child relationship is an important
interest that undeniably warrants
deference and, absent a powerful countervailing
interest, protection. Lassiter v.
Department of Social Services, 452
U.S. 18, 27 (1981).
The agency has complied with the case
plan by making reasonable efforts,
including whatever steps are necessary
to reunify the family.
There are three exceptions to the
mandate that states file or join a
petition to terminate parental rights:
1. The child is being cared for by
a relative;
2. The state has documented a compelling
reason that filing a petition to terminate
would not serve the child's best interests;
or
3. The state has not made reasonable
efforts to reunify the family.
A. Court must make finding that “continuance
in the home of the parent or legal
guardian would be contrary to the
child’s welfare.” (42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(1).)
This finding must be made at the time
of the first court ruling authorizing
removal of the child from the home.
(45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(c).)
NEVER eligible for Title IV-E funding
(45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(c).)
B. Court must order that “placement
and care are the responsibility of
the State agency or any other public
agency with whom the responsible state
agency has an agreement.” (42 U.S.C.
§ 672(a)(2); 45 C.F.R. § 1356.71(d)(1)(iii).)
C. Court must make finding that “reasonable
efforts have been made to prevent
or eliminate need for removal.” (42
U.S.C. § 671(a)(15); 42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(1);
45 C.F.R. §1356.21(b)(1).)
This finding must be made within 60
days of the date of removal. (45 C.F.R.
§ 1356.21(b)(1).)
Reasonable Efforts
In addition to severance and guardianship
reasons for considering reasonable
efforts, the court needs to make reasonable
efforts findings to meet the requirements
of federal reimbursement of services.
Thus, the Court:
Must also make a finding that the
agency has made reasonable efforts
to finalize a permanency plan.
The permanency plan may be to reunify
the family or secure the child a new
permanent home. In other words, the
regulations have consolidated these
two reasonable effort findings into
one. The finding is based on the agency's
permanency plan at the time of the
hearing, not on a prior plan the agency
has abandoned."
Where it is POLICY to first and only
secure the child a FOSTER home!
Statutory Grounds
The severance and permanent guardianship
statutes require separate hearings
at which the grounds must be proven
by clear and convincing evidence.
10) the policy or custom of allowing
the other parent to kidnap the child.
If your spouse kidnaps your children,
you are entitled to get help from
the district attorney. If you have
been awarded sole custody of your
children and your spouse takes the
children from you in violation of
a custody order, you can ask the district
attorney to take all actions necessary
to locate your children and to enforce
the custody order. A peace officer
is authorized to take a child into
protective custody if it appears that
someone will conceal the child to
evade the authority of the court,
there is no lawful custodian available
to take custody of the child, there
are conflicting custody orders or
claims regarding the child, or the
child is an abducted child. (Fam.
Code, §§ 3134.5, 3411, and 6240 et
seq.) A parent deprived of joint physical
custody of a child can also make use
of laws for the relief of child-snatching
and kidnapping. (Fam. Code, § 3084.)
Child abduction is punishable by up
to a maximum jail or prison term of
four years, a fine of not more than
$10,000, or
both. ( Pen. Code, § 277 et seq.;
see further discussion in Violence
Against Women and Children portion
of this handbook.) If a person has
wrongfully taken a child from another
state or has engaged in similar reprehensible
conduct, the court may decline to
exercise jurisdiction in a case brought
by that person for purposes of adjudicating
custody. (Fam. Code, § 3408.)
The court may order financial compensation
for periods when a parent fails to
assume caretaker responsibility, or
when a parent has been thwarted when
attempting to exercise custody or
visitation rights contemplated by
a custody or visitation order or agreement
between the parents. (Fam. Code, §
3028.)
Family Code section 3400 et seq. contains
the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
Act, or UCCJA. The purposes of this
act are to:
1. avoid jurisdiction competition
and conflict with courts of other
states in matters of child custody
that have in the past resulted in
shifting of children from state to
state with harmful effects on their
well-being;
2. promote cooperation with the courts
of other states so that a custody
decree is rendered in that state which
can best decide the case in the interests
of the child;
3. assure that litigation concerning
the custody of a child takes place
ordinarily in the state with which
the child and the child's family have
the closest connection, and where
significant evidence concerning the
child's care, protection, training,
and personal relationships is most
readily available, and the courts
of this state decline the exercise
of jurisdiction when the child and
the child's family have a closer connection
with another state;
4. discourage continuing controversies
over child custody, in the interest
of greater stability of home environment,
and of secure family relationships
for the child;
5. deter abductions and other unilateral
removals of children undertaken to
obtain custody awards;
6. avoid reintegration of custody
decisions of other states in this
state insofar as feasible;
7. facilitate the enforcement of custody
decrees of other states; and
8. promote and expand the exchange
of information and other forms of
mutual assistance between the courts
of this state and those of other states
concerned with the same child.
CONCLUSION
My son has been kidnapped by the other
parent.
In fact, Article III, § 3.5 specifically
prohibits a county agency from declaring
a state law unconstitutional or from
refusing to enforce a state law. In
addition, Respondents lack standing
to defend their conduct based on constitutional
claims of private individuals.
"A parent's right to the custody
of his/her children is an element
of "liberty" guaranteed
by the 5th amendment and the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution."
Metter of Gentery 369 NW 2d 889, MI
App Div (1983).
(A) Was the law governing the state
official's conduct clearly established?
(B) Under that law could a reasonable
state official have believed his conduct
was lawful?"
CONCLUSION
The Family Courts, declared a state
law unconstitutional or from refusing
to enforce a state law. In addition,
Respondents lack standing to defend
their conduct based on constitutional
claims of private individuals.
The district court also erred in attempting
to dissuade the aggrieved party from
his case being heard on the basis
it is a “secret case.” It also erred
greatly by refusing to follow the
rules of court, by allowing hearsay
testimony and by allowing POLICY to
supersede Constitutional rights. In
dismissing the action without due
process of the law the Appellees'
conduct deprived Mr. York of his right
to equal protection.
DEMAND with instructions that the
parties be afforded the opportunity
to conduct discovery on the alleged
constitutional deprivation, and to
file any appropriate pre-trial motions.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the Plaintiffs
has caused a copy of the above-named
document was mailed to the following
interested persons on Monday, February
06, 2006.
Priority MAIL: FOUR copies of the
complaint and 4 copies of the
1.) That any refusal to file documents
by said “Clerk of the Court” be backed
by substantive law in writing submitted
to me, in direct alignment and which
is in consonance with the Constitution
of California (1849) to wit: “The
constitution of this state is not
to be considered as a grant of power,
but rather as a restriction upon the
powers of the legislature, and it
is competent for the legislature to
exercise all powers not forbidden
by the constitution of the state,
or delegated to the general government,
or prohibited by the constitution
of the United States." People
v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46; People v. Bigler,
5 Cal. 23; Williams v. Thompson, Jan.
T. 1856.
Mail this completed form to:
Office of the Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals
95 Seventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94103-1526
(415)556-9800
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov
SIGNATURE PAGE
COMES NOW THE AGGRIEVED AND DAMAGED
PARTY IN THIS MATTER, BY THESE PRESENTS:
The Christian male adult, Brain W.
York. , who having personal knowledge
of these matters, and knowing the
penalties for the crime of perjury,
hereby truthfully states before Almighty
God and thereby subscribes and verifies
thereto for the record and hereby
deposes and says:
1.) My name is Brian W. York.
2.) My title is Minister.
3.) My name and spelling is only exactly
as: Brian W. York. . I do in fact,
do not use any other, nor do allow
any other form of my name nor capitalization.
4.) I have personal knowledge of the
facts in this matter.
5.) I am acting as my own counsel
in my own proper person: In Propria
Persona Suri Juris; and,
6.) That I am NOT PRO SE. Any such
assertion is an overt lie, as people
making such claim have knowledge of
the law and are making claims for
other malicious designs in which to
disenfranchise and/or enslave me to
them and/or their system which grants
them remuneration.
7.) That I am in fact, ready to affirm
knowing full well the laws for perjury
in the state of California, and in
fact will attest to the same in any
court of law regarding the matters
submitted in this statement, when
I am required to testify in any court
of law thereof in relation to support
the truth to these matters.
8.) I take the following oath or affirmation
that this document is true. “I, Minister,
Brian W. York, do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that this document is true
and correct. I have not violated The
Constitution, I will faithfully and
impartially made this declaration,
under the Constitution and laws of
the United States. So help me God.''
DATED: Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Signed ________________________
Brian W. York, Sui Juris,
A Free Man, Sovereign, Constitutional
Rights Intact
1119 S. Mission Rd # 178
Fallbrook CA. 92028
"Telephone Appearance"
(760)214-7649
*Amended
Blue Text
Label/Receipt Number: 0305 2710 0002
5986 0840
Status: Acceptance
Your item was accepted at 12:01 pm
on February 08, 2006 in FALLBROOK,
CA 92028. Information, if available,
is updated every evening. Please check
again later.
Status: Notice Left
We attempted to deliver your item
at 9:36 am on February 10, 2006 in
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94119 and a notice
was left. It can be redelivered or
picked up at the Post Office. If the
item is unclaimed, it will be returned
to the sender. Information, if available,
is updated every evening. Please check
again later.
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 11:30 am
on February 10, 2006 in SAN FRANCISCO,
CA 94188
Label/Receipt Number: 0305 2710 0002
5986 0833
Status: Acceptance
Your item was accepted at 12:03 pm
on February 08, 2006 in FALLBROOK,
CA 92028. Information, if available,
is updated every evening. Please check
again later.
Status: Notice Left
We attempted to deliver your item
at 9:36 am on February 10, 2006 in
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94119 and a notice
was left. It can be redelivered or
picked up at the Post Office. If the
item is unclaimed, it will be returned
to the sender. Information, if available,
is updated every evening. Please check
again later.
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 11:34 am
on February 10, 2006 in SAN FRANCISCO,
CA 94188.
Label/Receipt Number: 0305 2710 0002
5986 4046
Status: Acceptance
Your item was accepted at 12:05 pm
on February 08, 2006 in FALLBROOK,
CA 92028. Information, if available,
is updated every evening. Please check
again later.
Status: Notice Left
We attempted to deliver your item
at 9:36 am on February 10, 2006 in
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94119 and a notice
was left. It can be redelivered or
picked up at the Post Office. If the
item is unclaimed, it will be returned
to the sender. Information, if available,
is updated every evening. Please check
again later.
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 11:33 am
on February 10, 2006 in SAN FRANCISCO,
CA 94188.
Label/Receipt Number: 0305 2710 0002
5986 0857
Status: Acceptance
Your item was accepted at 12:06 pm
on February 08, 2006 in FALLBROOK,
CA 92028. Information, if available,
is updated every evening. Please check
again later.
Status: Notice Left
We attempted to deliver your item
at 9:36 am on February 10, 2006 in
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94119 and a notice
was left. It can be redelivered or
picked up at the Post Office. If the
item is unclaimed, it will be returned
to the sender. Information, if available,
is updated every evening. Please check
again later.
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 11:33 am
on February 10, 2006 in SAN FRANCISCO,
CA 94188.
|
