“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.
|