DMVC Productions: MOJO
MOJO
(MOJO) Mothers Opposing Judicial Oppression
MOJO Mothers Opposing Judicial Oppression mission is:
“To aid the victims of crimes performed by individuals acting under the color of Law.” As in Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance, where the California Supreme Court distinguished legal error from judicial misconduct, setting forth the following factors relevant to a finding of misconduct: repeated error, bias, abuse of authority, disregard for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of the law, or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty.
To create, establish, and provide oversight and review of Judicial decisions’ based on the color of law and report the infractions to increase public awareness of the problems and destruction these individuals further and needlessly inflict on families through their misuse of power in the Judicial System and Social Services Agencies under the Department of Health and Human Services.
MOJO Mothers Opposing Judicial Oppression provides grassroots leadership to create major social change in the attitude and behavior of Americans toward the NEED TO DEMAND accountability of our Judicial System, Social Services and Domestic Violence. To recognize judicial oppression, Social Services oppression and domestic violence, to oppose it, and make it unacceptable with a demand for personal responsibility.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Monday, December 20, 2010
CA Judge: Secrecy of Juvenile Hearings Protects DCFS, not Children « Fathers & Families
CA Judge: Secrecy of Juvenile Hearings Protects DCFS, not Children « Fathers & Families: "I’ve written once before on the problems of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. Those problems are legion and the county is moving to rectify them. This editorial raises an issue I’ve long been concerned about that goes far beyond the borders of one California County - the secrecy of legal proceedings involving the care of juveniles (Los Angeles Times, 12/19/10)."
Bring Us a Baby: An Early Christmas Present
Bring Us a Baby: An Early Christmas Present
One Families happiness is through another families pain. A baby stolen from a parent to make another happy. CPS strikes again!
One Families happiness is through another families pain. A baby stolen from a parent to make another happy. CPS strikes again!
Suit accuses Oregon caseworker of hitting 8-year-old foster child | OregonLive.com
Suit accuses Oregon caseworker of hitting 8-year-old foster child | OregonLive.com: "A court-appointed representative is suing the Oregon Department of Human Services for $149,000 on behalf of an 8-year-old foster child who reportedly was hit by her caseworker.
The suit, filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court Thursday, offers few details about the alleged incident. It states that on Oct. 11, an unnamed caseworker struck the girl without justification. The blow physically injured the child, as well as embarrassed, frightened and degraded her, according to the suit."
The suit, filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court Thursday, offers few details about the alleged incident. It states that on Oct. 11, an unnamed caseworker struck the girl without justification. The blow physically injured the child, as well as embarrassed, frightened and degraded her, according to the suit."
Sunday, December 19, 2010
DMVC Productions: Research/Sample/DHHS
DMVC Productions: Research/Sample/DHHS: "Research/Sample/DHHS
This is a sample of research for a New Hamsphire RSA 169 C The Child Protection Act when dealing with the Department of Health and Human Services. This is not legal advice; you should check the particulars of your case with an Attorney. If there is an area not covered, or you have comments or suggestions please leave a comment, all inquires will be confidential and information will be updated. "
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SOUTH
XXXXXX-XXXXX XXXXXXXX, et., al., }
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT }
} CIVIL ACTION
V. }MANDATORY DE NOVO APPEAL
} VOID JUDGMENT
} AND
STATE OF NH and DEPARTMENT OF } JURY DEMAND
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et., al., }
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE } Civil Action Number:# 226-2010-cv-00612
PLAINTIFFS’ APPEAL/BRIEF/COMPLAINT
IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS
1. NOW COMES, the Plaintiff/Appellant, Xxxxxx-xxxxx xxxxxxxx, pro se, (hereinafter Plaintiff) and in accordance with NH RSA 169 C:28 I. The Plaintiff, files this Brief in Appeal and on the above referenced action (s) individually and combined due to the intrinsic pattern of systemic ills that tie this case and occur in cases shrouded in secrecy for its own sake. With the absence of governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, this case makes clear the Defendant’s lack of credibility, when effective restraints are absent and/or manipulated by those intent on self protection or self-promotion.
INTRODUCTION
2. This Appeal comes before the court based on actions by the Defendants under the color of law, indicative of Judicial Oppression through the court (s) that rendered orders without subject matter jurisdiction, denial of due process and the State of New Hampshire employees of various Departments of Health and Human Services (herein DHHS) who put together unconstitutionally gathered evidence, fraudulent fact witnesses, an investigation based on improper analysis, that they were untrained to reach, and/or that evidence was purposefully ignored, the analysis of which would have conclusively proven the Plaintiff’s innocence in the entire matter behind the De Novo appeal. The action leading to the De Novo appeal was brought forward by DHHS and the order of the trial court confirmed as 11/18/10, by the court on 12/10/10 from the Plaintiffs motion to correct. It was not readable, the case is In Re: ***** X. - 05-JV-565, neither order was signed by the clerk of court as attached. The action by DHHS for contempt against the Plaintiff, finally allowed her access to evidence that was concealed in the District Court Files. Evidence that demonstrates the matter was and is forever VOID reverting back to orders from the Xxxxxx Superior Court in the matter of ***** and ***** 00-M-927, for having previously been adjudicated. The invalidity/voidness of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. There is no time limit for attacking a void judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(iv). Eggl v. Fleetguard, Inc., 1998 ND 166, 583 N.W.2d 812 . "A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987).
This is just a portion of this lawsuit. Click on the link for the entire document.
This is a sample of research for a New Hamsphire RSA 169 C The Child Protection Act when dealing with the Department of Health and Human Services. This is not legal advice; you should check the particulars of your case with an Attorney. If there is an area not covered, or you have comments or suggestions please leave a comment, all inquires will be confidential and information will be updated. "
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SOUTH
XXXXXX-XXXXX XXXXXXXX, et., al., }
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT }
} CIVIL ACTION
V. }MANDATORY DE NOVO APPEAL
} VOID JUDGMENT
} AND
STATE OF NH and DEPARTMENT OF } JURY DEMAND
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et., al., }
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE } Civil Action Number:# 226-2010-cv-00612
PLAINTIFFS’ APPEAL/BRIEF/COMPLAINT
IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS
1. NOW COMES, the Plaintiff/Appellant, Xxxxxx-xxxxx xxxxxxxx, pro se, (hereinafter Plaintiff) and in accordance with NH RSA 169 C:28 I. The Plaintiff, files this Brief in Appeal and on the above referenced action (s) individually and combined due to the intrinsic pattern of systemic ills that tie this case and occur in cases shrouded in secrecy for its own sake. With the absence of governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, this case makes clear the Defendant’s lack of credibility, when effective restraints are absent and/or manipulated by those intent on self protection or self-promotion.
INTRODUCTION
2. This Appeal comes before the court based on actions by the Defendants under the color of law, indicative of Judicial Oppression through the court (s) that rendered orders without subject matter jurisdiction, denial of due process and the State of New Hampshire employees of various Departments of Health and Human Services (herein DHHS) who put together unconstitutionally gathered evidence, fraudulent fact witnesses, an investigation based on improper analysis, that they were untrained to reach, and/or that evidence was purposefully ignored, the analysis of which would have conclusively proven the Plaintiff’s innocence in the entire matter behind the De Novo appeal. The action leading to the De Novo appeal was brought forward by DHHS and the order of the trial court confirmed as 11/18/10, by the court on 12/10/10 from the Plaintiffs motion to correct. It was not readable, the case is In Re: ***** X. - 05-JV-565, neither order was signed by the clerk of court as attached. The action by DHHS for contempt against the Plaintiff, finally allowed her access to evidence that was concealed in the District Court Files. Evidence that demonstrates the matter was and is forever VOID reverting back to orders from the Xxxxxx Superior Court in the matter of ***** and ***** 00-M-927, for having previously been adjudicated. The invalidity/voidness of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. There is no time limit for attacking a void judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(iv). Eggl v. Fleetguard, Inc., 1998 ND 166, 583 N.W.2d 812 . "A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties." Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987).
This is just a portion of this lawsuit. Click on the link for the entire document.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)