The Truth Bites "NH": Attach to Civil Case 226-2010-CV-00612 against NH DHHS CPSW's Maggie Bishop and individuals hired by DCYF, Including the Reimbursment Unit if you have at ANY TIME received a bill from NH DHHS or had similar problems as in this brief at ANYTIME READ BELOW - STAND TOGETHER IF ONLY TO BE HEARD!
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Attach to Civil Case 226-2010-CV-00612 against NH DHHS CPSW's Maggie Bishop and individuals hired by DCYF, Including the Reimbursment Unit if you have at ANY TIME received a bill from NH DHHS or had similar problems as in this brief at ANYTIME READ BELOW - STAND TOGETHER IF ONLY TO BE HEARD!
ALL interested parties who wish to attach themselves to this lawsuit Docket #: 226-2010-CV-00612 can obtained a copy prior to the 20th of January 2011 at the Nashua Superior Court South, Spring Street, Nashua, NH you must have had similar issues, practiced by any of the Defendant’s included in the suit, you can file a Motion with the Superior Court by January 20, 2010 to be included in the lawsuit under superior court rule 15 Intervention. A sample of what a motion for attachment might look like (THIS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED legal advice, CHECK WITH AN ATTORNEY OR FILE Pro Se):
Plaintiff Attachment: 1) Must fill out a letter of Appearance at this site: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/forms/nhjb-2318-s.pdf
2) Motion
The State of New Hampshire
In The Superior Court of Hillsborough County South
DENISE-MARIE MCINTOSH, et. al., }
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT }
PLAINTIFF OF INTEREST }
Name } 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’s } Docket #: 226-2010-CV-00612
MOTION TO ATTACH AS A PLAINTIFF OF INTEREST
TO CIVIL CASE 226-2010-cv-00612
IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS
NOW COMES,_______________name who states as follows:
1. The Plaintiff of interest named above, asserts their right to attach to the above reference matter. Under Superior Court Rule 15. Intervention
Any person shown to be interested may become a party to any civil action upon filing and service of an Appearance and pleading briefly setting forth his relation to the cause; or, upon motion of any party, such person may be made a party by order of court notifying him to appear therein. If a party, so notified, neglects to file an Appearance and Answer on or before the date established by the court, that party shall be defaulted. No such default shall be set aside, except by agreement or by order of the court upon such terms as justice may require.
superior court rule 129
2. On ___________date the Plaintiff had dealings with the NH Department of DHHS/DCYF in the following manner In Re: ___JV___.
3. "Pleadings in this case are being filed by the Plaintiff, In Propria Persona, and (Pro Se)
4. On 12/16/10 This Court accepted entry of the original Plaintiff’s Appeal.
5. This plaintiff has the following claims against DCYF or named CPSW’s or Maggie Bishop and explain briefly explain the claims as they relate to what was filed by the original plaintiff. Not following the law, procedures, etc.
6. The actors named in this matter, are not immune from civil or criminal liability under NH RSA 169C:31 or otherwise, because the actors did NOT act in good faith but under the Color of Law. Including but not limited to the Judges named as defendants, under Civil Rights Vol. 4, US Supreme Court Digest pg. 555 Judges are not totally immune. In Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 429 (9th Cir. 1969) (dictum) that immunity attaches only insofar as the authorization to act extends.
7. Other Actors in their individual and official capacity did NOT act in good faith, the facts of the matter show the individuals’ actions, inaction and/or testimony are Falsifications in Official matters as outlined in NH RSA 641and/or under the Color of Law, in an Arbitrary Exercise of their official and/or Government Powers.
8. The public interest mandates that fundamental constitutional rights be aggressively enforced regardless of the size of anticipated damages; citizens like the Plaintiff who must sue to enforce the law have little or no money to hire an attorney. Reliance upon the pro bono efforts of private trial attorneys is insufficient to provide meaningful access to justice. A Plaintiff should not be denied or misdirected when seeking justice because of an inability to afford legal expenses.
I. PARTIES - AMENDMENTS Pursuant to paragraphs in original Appeal and in the interest of costs and court time are amended as follows:
9. Paragraph 3, the Plaintiff, Denise-Marie McIntosh, et. al., remains the same.
10. Plaintiff of Interest, is added: _______________
11. Paragraph 4, The Defendant, caller who made report or witness supporting claim, remains as a Defendant; his status is supported by his actions throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters.
12. Other named reporters who reported falsely with documentation to prove it.
13. Paragraph 6, The Defendant, Susan G. Vonderheide, Ph.D., remains as a Defendant; her status is supported by her actions throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters and acting under the color of law. This defendant/witness is also requested to be served a Subpoena duces tecum - "a writ issued by a court at the request of one of the parties to a suit; it requires a witness/defendant to bring to court … any relevant documents under the witnesses/defendants control". The Plaintiff is requesting all of her progress notes on sessions with CHILD from DATE to the date of the associated hearing to be produced directly to the Plaintiff 10 days prior to the Preliminary hearing, in line with Ross v. Gadwah, 131 NH 391.
14. Other name therapist who contributed to problems in case
15. Paragraph 7, The Defendant, Tracy Roukey, remains as a Defendant; her status is supported by her actions throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters, and/or acting under the color of law and/or being unqualified or incapable of conducting a proper investigation. This defendant/witness is also requested to be served a Subpoena duces tecum - the Plaintiff is requesting a copy of the protocols for her job at the time of the investigation, the reasons and dates of her demotion within the department and a copy of her video interview with the child, JV CASE NAME., for the purposes of having a competent expert witness review the content and protocols used, directly to the Plaintiff 10 days prior to the Preliminary hearing.
16. OTHER CPSW’S
17. Paragraph 10, The Defendant, Ellen McCormick, CASA remains as a Defendant; her status is supported by her acts done in her official character but not in line with her lawful authority, throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters, acting under the color of law and/or being unqualified or incapable of conducting a proper investigation. This defendant/witness is also requested to be served a Subpoena duces tecum - the Plaintiff is requesting a copy of all notes and the case file from the Nashua Visitation Center, which would only be released to a CASA or GAL, and a copy of all documentation of her evaluation or investigation in this matter, including who she spoke with regarding the case in line with Ross v. Gadwah, 131 NH 391, directly to the Plaintiff 10 days prior to the Preliminary hearing.
18. Other casa workers
19. Paragraph 16, The Defendant, Margaret A. Bishop remains as a Defendant; her status is supported by her acts or inactions through her official character but not in line with her lawful authority, throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters, acting under the color of law and/or being unqualified or incapable of ensuring the community of safe interactions with DCYF, through proper training, protocols and strict standards of performance. This defendant/witness is also requested to be served a Subpoena duces tecum - the Plaintiff is requesting a copy of all protocols, training to CPSW’s in this matter and her job details including but not limited to her conflicting appointment of overseeing and supervising the Administrative Appeals Unit, which appears to be a conflict of interest when the appeals are against her direct subordinates. Provide the states designed and operated TANF program, not limited to specific eligibility criteria that must be met to receive financial assistance payments and/or types of benefits and services, directly to the Plaintiff 10 days prior to the Preliminary hearing.
20. Paragraph 19, The Defendant, Matt Barrington, remains as a Defendant; his status is supported by his acts through his official character but not in line with his lawful authority, throughout the matter contrary to NH RSA 641 Falsifications in Official Matters, and/or acting under the color of law and/or being unqualified in providing requested documentation and acting in an ethical manner. This defendant/witness is also requested to be served Subpoena duces tecum - the Plaintiff is requesting a copy of all training materials for his position and identification of the procedures accounting of incoming and outgoing monies both federal and state and the identification/disclosures procedures to numerous payees on the same account, directly to the Plaintiff 10 days prior to the Preliminary hearing.
21. OTHER reimbursement department employees OR QUESTIONABLE BILLS WITHOUT FEDERAL REIMBURSMENT DEDUCTIONS.
22. Paragraph 21, The Defendant, Judge Thomas Bamberger remains as a Defendant; his status is supported by acts done in his official character in excess of his lawful authority, including but not limited to an abuse of discretion, inadequate pleadings, and acting under the color of law.
23. OTHER JUDGES WITH ORDERS THAT ARE NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AND/OR REQUIRED FURTHER LITIGATION TO UNDERSTAND THEIR MEANING
24. Paragraph 23, The Defendant, Marital Master Alice Spelas Love remains as a Defendant; her status is supported by acts done in her official character in excess of her lawful authority, including but not limited to an abuse of discretion, inadequate pleadings, acting under the color of law and Judge shopping for support of her recommendations.
25. OTHER MARITAL MASTER THAN HAD MORE THAN TWO JUDGE’S SIGN OFF ON THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND OR WHO DID NOT ORDER A SHOW CAUSE HEARING BEFORE BOUNDING OVER TO THE DISTRICT COURT.
26. The Plaintiff’s assertions of court procedure in the preceding paragraphs, by and through her De Novo appeal coupled with a request for a VOID judgment, jury demand and change of venue is also supported under Title 42 USC 1983 – which … Effectively made equitable relief available to those whose constitutional rights had been violated by an actor acting under State authority and the color of law depriving citizens of their constitutional rights.
27. Plaintiff under able to get a DE NOVO APPEAL UNDER NH RSA 169-C 28 when filed in a superior court.
28. The breach of duty, in this case gives rise to a jury demand because an equitable claim is joined by a legal claim. The equitable claim in this matter has two supporting factors, one is on the perceived right to recovery by the Reimbursement Unit in the 1st instance - compelling the court to follow standard rules of procedure under the NH RSA 169-C (De Novo Appeal – ANEW under the NH RSA 169-C not something else). The 2nd equitable factor for which the Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial based on the case as a whole, the importance of the acts, failure, breach, or violations that lie in the legal effect of the facts and circumstances, considered as a whole, and related to applicable law based on NH RSA 169-C and supporting civil and constitutional rights.
29. The NH RSA 169-C affords the Plaintiff a right to Appeal and Civil Rule 15 of the NH Superior Court Rules gives anyone the right to Intervention with standing- once a State affords that right, Griffin held, the State may not "bolt the door to equal justice," id. , at 24 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment). Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 16 (1956). The Plaintiff is entitled to a prompt refund of $180.00, and summons as requested should be sent out by the court.
30. The change of venue is just when weight is given to the number of Justices involved in the matter from the given appeal court, which do not serve justice when the Plaintiff’s are asserting that their Civil Rights have been grossly violated.
31. Lastly, Pro Se litigants may be entitled to Attorney fees and costs under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fee Award Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, as amended 42 USC 1988. Id. at 287-288. Section 1988's "chief purpose is to enable enforcement actions so that those whose rights are violated may obtain meaningful redress." Id The leading case on this issue showed:
The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in a Section 1983 action were entitled to nominal damages for the deprivation of their due process rights even without proof of actual injury. The Court explained that "[b]y making the deprivation of such rights actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury, the law recognizes the importance to organized society that those rights be scrupulously observed." Id. at 1053-54. See also Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English, 69 F.3d 920, 949 (9th Cir. 1995) (deprivation of redress under de novo appeal).
32. The actions of the court thus far are deterrence to the Plaintiff’s right to justice. Strict Scrutiny is applicable in this case, as shown throughout the Plaintiff’s pleadings.
The US Supreme Court has … long recognized that a parent's interests in the nurture, upbringing, companionship, care, and custody of children are generally protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g. ,Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923);Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 535 (1925); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651(1972); Wisconsin v.Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232 (1972); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 255(1978); Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602 (1979); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 753(1982); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720 (1997). As we first acknowledged in Meyer, the right of parents to "bring up children," 262 U. S., at 399, and "to control the education of their own" is protected by the Constitution, id., at 401. See also Glucksberg, supra, at 761.
Had the court and named defendants followed proper procedures and acted in an ethical manner the review of this matter would have been solely based on the right to recovery. Instead, the review of the case must go back to the start of the matter and recognize the pattern of deceit to have this case heard in the first instance, entitling the Plaintiff’s to the relief requested.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court order:
A. Attach as an interested party as an additional Plaintiff’s to the Appeal referenced.
B. Will be attending structuring conference on 1/20/11 at 9am
C. Order a Trial by Jury as Demanded for both prayers A through H and Paragraph 29 of the original pleading of 12/16/10, to protect the public from further abuse of this nature, and compensate ALL the Plaintiff’s accordingly based on their constitutional rights to a jury, attachment under rule 15 as an interested party.
D. Recognize and grant the original Plaintiff’s request to Change Venue in paragraph 30 of the original pleading of 12/16/10, and in line with NH RSA 169-C:5 II.
E. Incorporate a list of procedural safe guards and an injunction against DHHS as warranted in this case to protect the public from future abuses.
F. Declare portions of NH RSA 169-C unconstitutional towards the protection of family rights specifically NH RSA 169-C:13 from a preponderance of the evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt see paragraph 40 of this amendment.
G. The Plaintiffs have incurred substantial expenses, including out of pocket expenses, in an effort to comply with obligations resulting directly from this matter since YEAR, including separation from THEIR child and child support payments based on fraud, payments for court ordered visitation, loss days from work. The damage to the Plaintiff and THEIR FAMILY right to their care may amount to a sum in excess of the Court’s maximum jurisdiction.
H. Absent a jury award and/or with a jury award, an award of nominal fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Act. Attorney Fees and nominal damages are right and just.
I. Grant such other relief as the court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
, Pro Se
Dated: PRIOR TO 1/20/10 ____________________
ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBERS
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that a copy of the ATTACHMENT HAS BEEN SENT TO________________________ In line with the portion of this matter under NH RSA 169-C:28 I.
AFFIDAVIT OF FACT AND TRUTH LAST PAGE
AFFIDAVIT OF FACT AND TRUTH
I ____________________________________swear (affirm) that:
· A. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have fully disclosed and prepared all the information contained in the Cause of Action AND MY ATTACHMENT AS AN INTERESTED PARTY TO 226-2010-CV-00612 of 12/16/10 and Amendment of 12/18/10, based upon real facts supported with appropriate evidence to the same, with a right of action by different rules of law.
· B. I WILL include a financial affidavit, IF REQUESTED BY THE COURT
· C. The information contained in all documents submitted on the matter outlined in A. is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date __________________________Signature ______________________________
State of New Hampshire, County of Hillsborough. The person signing this financial affidavit
Appeared and signed this before me_______________________________and took oath that the
Statements set forth in this Amendment and referenced material as an Affidavit of FACT,
Are true to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. This instrument was acknowledged before
me ___________________________________ on ________________________________ my
Commission expires___________________________________: Affix seal, if any
Signature of Notarial Officer / Title_________________________________________________
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
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Truth Bites "NH": Attach to Civil Case 226-2010-CV-00612 against NH DHHS CPSW's Maggie Bishop and individuals hired by DCYF, Including the Reimbursment Unit if you have at ANY TIME received a bill from NH DHHS or had similar problems as in this brief at ANYTIME READ BELOW - STAND TOGETHER IF ONLY TO BE HEARD!
freethefldschildren: HOW SERIOUS DO THINGS HAVE TO BE TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN TAKEN AWAY AND SOLD?
freethefldschildren: HOW SERIOUS DO THINGS HAVE TO BE TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN TAKEN AWAY AND SOLD?
Let me begin by stating that anyone who thinks the information below is false or exaggerated is either a fool or a CPS / CASA worker. Let me know which one you think is simply ridiculous, and I'll send you the case number of the Court case to back it up.
Keep in mind; in this economy, your blond headed, blue eyed child is worth IN EXCESS of $125,000.00 to CPS and CASA in ADDITION to the job security they represent for those people. YOU are the only thing standing between them and that paycheck, and they own all the marbles.
As for all those foster parents who take in these "Poor abused little children", if that nonsense eases your conscience, go with it, but you're only fooling yourselves. But for the blood money you are being paid to steal other people's children, that tot would be home with his real family.
WHAT ARE THE REASONS THAT JUDGES ALLOW A CHILD TO BE SOLD?
A child comes to school with no lunch money.
A child comes to school late.
A child comes to school "Improperly" dressed.
The electric company turns off your lights.
The gas company turns off your gas.
You run out of fuel oil for heat.
The water company turns off your water.
You do not put a seat belt on your child.
You bounce a check.
You apply for food stamps.
You apply for WIC.
You apply for welfare.
You lose your home to foreclosure.
You get evicted from your apartment.
You can't find a job.
You leave your children at home to work.
You smoke around your children.
You don't take your children to Church.
You take your children to the "Wrong" Church.
You belong to the "Wrong" group.
You name your children the "Wrong" name.
You discipline your child.
You don't discipline your child.
Your child gets lost in the Supermarket.
You take a picture of your naked child.
You allow your naked child to swim in your backyard.
Your child takes a picture of him/herself.
A neighbor/relative decides they want your child.
A foster parent needs more income.
An adoptive parent is willing to pay big bucks for your child.
You become a witness against CPS and CASA concerning a child they want.
Your LAWYER prevents them from stealing your child and gets HIS children taken away.
You finally find a lawyer who can effectively fight CPS and CASA and they disbar him/her.
Now; If you see a valid reason above to warrant taking someone's child away from them permanently, please read no further, and have a good life. You might also Thank God you have no children to worry about.
If, on the other hand, you feel that allowing CPS and CASA to sell your children for fun and profit and that, absent any REAL instance of Abuse and/or neglect, they have no business interfering in yours or your children's lives, then sit down and write a letter to your Congreesman or Senator and tell them to stop CPS and CASA from destroying the American Family by filing frivolous and petty charges.
2011 is the year we have to turn these agencies back into the entity they were SUPPOSED to be on inception. CAPTA is a joke, Title IV is a travesty, The Mondale Act DESTOYS families rather than help them and Congress is CLUELESS unless we rub the dreck of CPS, CASA and the Courts in their faces.
Child "Protective" Services in America (And Internationally) is little more than a group of White Slavers. They take your children for the money, and it has NOTHING to do with "Protecting" anything other than their jobs and positions.
Do just a little research and learn what they are REALLY about. Then, get involved by joining a group you are comfortable with. There are THOUSANDS of them out there on the Internet!
One of the most effective and user frindly is a group called AFRA. You might also contact Mr. Richard Wexler at the NCCPR on the Web.
Please keep in mind; if you do nothing the REAL predators and child abusers will win and run laughing all the way to the bank.
THE AMERICAN FAMILY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION: AFRA
http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/
Posted by BILL MEDVECKY
Let me begin by stating that anyone who thinks the information below is false or exaggerated is either a fool or a CPS / CASA worker. Let me know which one you think is simply ridiculous, and I'll send you the case number of the Court case to back it up.
Keep in mind; in this economy, your blond headed, blue eyed child is worth IN EXCESS of $125,000.00 to CPS and CASA in ADDITION to the job security they represent for those people. YOU are the only thing standing between them and that paycheck, and they own all the marbles.
As for all those foster parents who take in these "Poor abused little children", if that nonsense eases your conscience, go with it, but you're only fooling yourselves. But for the blood money you are being paid to steal other people's children, that tot would be home with his real family.
WHAT ARE THE REASONS THAT JUDGES ALLOW A CHILD TO BE SOLD?
A child comes to school with no lunch money.
A child comes to school late.
A child comes to school "Improperly" dressed.
The electric company turns off your lights.
The gas company turns off your gas.
You run out of fuel oil for heat.
The water company turns off your water.
You do not put a seat belt on your child.
You bounce a check.
You apply for food stamps.
You apply for WIC.
You apply for welfare.
You lose your home to foreclosure.
You get evicted from your apartment.
You can't find a job.
You leave your children at home to work.
You smoke around your children.
You don't take your children to Church.
You take your children to the "Wrong" Church.
You belong to the "Wrong" group.
You name your children the "Wrong" name.
You discipline your child.
You don't discipline your child.
Your child gets lost in the Supermarket.
You take a picture of your naked child.
You allow your naked child to swim in your backyard.
Your child takes a picture of him/herself.
A neighbor/relative decides they want your child.
A foster parent needs more income.
An adoptive parent is willing to pay big bucks for your child.
You become a witness against CPS and CASA concerning a child they want.
Your LAWYER prevents them from stealing your child and gets HIS children taken away.
You finally find a lawyer who can effectively fight CPS and CASA and they disbar him/her.
Now; If you see a valid reason above to warrant taking someone's child away from them permanently, please read no further, and have a good life. You might also Thank God you have no children to worry about.
If, on the other hand, you feel that allowing CPS and CASA to sell your children for fun and profit and that, absent any REAL instance of Abuse and/or neglect, they have no business interfering in yours or your children's lives, then sit down and write a letter to your Congreesman or Senator and tell them to stop CPS and CASA from destroying the American Family by filing frivolous and petty charges.
2011 is the year we have to turn these agencies back into the entity they were SUPPOSED to be on inception. CAPTA is a joke, Title IV is a travesty, The Mondale Act DESTOYS families rather than help them and Congress is CLUELESS unless we rub the dreck of CPS, CASA and the Courts in their faces.
Child "Protective" Services in America (And Internationally) is little more than a group of White Slavers. They take your children for the money, and it has NOTHING to do with "Protecting" anything other than their jobs and positions.
Do just a little research and learn what they are REALLY about. Then, get involved by joining a group you are comfortable with. There are THOUSANDS of them out there on the Internet!
One of the most effective and user frindly is a group called AFRA. You might also contact Mr. Richard Wexler at the NCCPR on the Web.
Please keep in mind; if you do nothing the REAL predators and child abusers will win and run laughing all the way to the bank.
THE AMERICAN FAMILY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION: AFRA
http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/
Posted by BILL MEDVECKY
Vacate Judgment-Void Judgements
Vacate Judgment
void-judgments.com
you can have the judge stamp a "void" on that judgment!
Twenty Reasons to Vacate a Judgment
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1574:
Void judgment. One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.
Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties. See: Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz, 411, 300 P. 955(1931), Tube City Mining & Millng Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146p 203(1914); and Millken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S. CT. 339,85 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1940).
I can go into void judgments at great length with enough court case cites to make anybody's eyes glaze over but I shall refrain. Let it be said that the really big deal with subject matter jurisdiction is that it can never be presumed, never be waived, and cannot be constructed even by mutual consent of the parties.
Subject matter jurisdiction is two part;
the statutory or common law authority for the court to hear the case
and the appearance and testimony of a competent fact witness, in other words, sufficiency of pleadings.
Subject matter failings are usually the following:
(1) No petition in the record of the case, Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118,122 (1930).
(2) Defective petition filed (same case as above).
(3) Fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction, Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d 893(1985)
(4) Fraud upon the court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962)
(5) A judge does not follow statutory procedure, Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921)
(6) Unlawful activity of a judge, Code of Judicial Conduct.
(7) Violation of due process, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193 ;Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956);Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936), (If the court exceeded it's statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)
A statutory right is a right granted to a person by authority of a statute. Statutes are created by legislative (and in certain countries executive) bodies, and form the codified law of a jurisdiction. For example, a statute governing court process might contain provisions giving an election on either party to an appeal, and that right to appeal would be considered statutory.
Due process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due process
(8) any acts in violation of 11 U.S.C. 362(a),in re Garcia, 109 B.R. 335(N.D. Illinois, 1989).
(9) Where no justiciable issue is presented to the court through proper pleadings, Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App 3d 701, 637 N.E. 2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994).
(10) Where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against that party, Charles v. Gore, 248 Ill App. 3d 441, 618 N.E. 2d 554 (1st. Dist. 1993)
(11) where any litigant was represented before a court by a person/law firm that is prohibited by law to practice law in that jurisdiction.
(12) When the judge is involved in a scheme of bribery (the Alemann cases, Bracey v Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133(June 9, 1997)
(13) Where a summons was not properly issued.
(14) Where service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Court Rules, Janove v. Bacon, 6 Ill. 2d 245, 249, 218 N.E. 2d 706, 708 (1953)
(15) when the rules of the Circuit court are not complied with.
(16) when the local rules of the special court are not complied with. (One Where the judge does not act impartially, Bracey v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133(June 9, 1997)
(17) where the statute is vague, People v. Williams, 638 N.E. 2d 207 (1st Dist. (1994)
(18) when proper notice is not given to all parties by the movant, Wilson v. Moore, 13 Ill. App. 3d 632, 301 N.E. 2d 39 (1st Dist. (1973)
(19) where an order/judgment is based on a void order/judgment, Austin v. Smith, 312 F 2d 337, 343(1962);English v. English, 72 Ill. App. 3d 736, 393 N.E. 2d 18 (1st Dist. 1979) or
(20) where the public policy of the State of Illinois is violated, Martin-Tregona v Roderick, 29 Ill. App. 3d 553, 331 N.E. 2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975)
And another that can and should be checked on is does the judge have a copy of his oath of office on file in his chambers? If not, he is not a judge and yes, you can go into his office and demand to see a copy of his oath of office at any time. The laws covering judges and other public officials are to be found at 5 U.S.C. 3331, 28 U.S.C. 543 and 5 U.S.C. 1983 and if the judge has not complied with all of those provisions he is not a judge but a trespasser upon the court. If he is proven a trespasser upon the court (upon the law) not one of his judgments, pronouncements or orders are valid. All are null and void.
In all, there are 20 indices which tell us whether or not a court had subject matter jurisdiction and when examining a judgment one has to know each and every one of them by heart. If he knows them by heart he can go through a judgment like Sherman going though Georgia and point out all of the errors which might make the case a void judgment, null and void upon its face.
Sufficiency of Pleadings: (Cross-appeals)
A party challenging an ALJ's decision must do more than recite evidence favorable to its case, the party must demonstrate with some degree of specificity the manner in which substantial evidence does not exist or why the decision is contrary to law. Cox v. Benefits Review Board, 791 F.2d 445, 9 BLR 2-46 (6th Cir. 1986).
A party may not attack a decision with a view toward enlarging his or her own rights or lessening the rights of an adversary absent a cross-appeal. However, a cross-appeal is unnecessary when a prevailing party merely advances an argument that would provide another avenue by which the fact finder could reach the same favorable judgment. Hansen v. Director, OWCP, No. 91-9559 (10th Cir. Jan. 20, 1993).
An appellee need not cross-appeal in order to make an argument that supports the decision reached by the alj but attacks the reasoning used by the alj in reaching his decision. Malcomb v. Island Creek Coal Co., 15 F.3d 364, 18 BLR 2-113 (4th Cir. 1994).
Jurisdiction
In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.
As a topic, jurisdiction draws its substance from Public International Law, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.
For More information or to contact a Judgment Defense Specialist CLICK HERE
Information here provided by:
educationcenter2000.com
http://educationcenter2000.com
Our mission is to educate consumers about secured and unsecured credit and options available to them.
We believe that if you don't know your rights, you don’t know your options.
Join Us Today, We have been successfully helping consumers with Debt Resolution and Credit Repair more than 10 years.
void-judgments.com
you can have the judge stamp a "void" on that judgment!
Twenty Reasons to Vacate a Judgment
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1574:
Void judgment. One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.
Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties. See: Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz, 411, 300 P. 955(1931), Tube City Mining & Millng Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146p 203(1914); and Millken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S. CT. 339,85 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1940).
I can go into void judgments at great length with enough court case cites to make anybody's eyes glaze over but I shall refrain. Let it be said that the really big deal with subject matter jurisdiction is that it can never be presumed, never be waived, and cannot be constructed even by mutual consent of the parties.
Subject matter jurisdiction is two part;
the statutory or common law authority for the court to hear the case
and the appearance and testimony of a competent fact witness, in other words, sufficiency of pleadings.
Subject matter failings are usually the following:
(1) No petition in the record of the case, Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118,122 (1930).
(2) Defective petition filed (same case as above).
(3) Fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction, Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d 893(1985)
(4) Fraud upon the court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962)
(5) A judge does not follow statutory procedure, Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921)
(6) Unlawful activity of a judge, Code of Judicial Conduct.
(7) Violation of due process, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193 ;Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956);Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936), (If the court exceeded it's statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)
A statutory right is a right granted to a person by authority of a statute. Statutes are created by legislative (and in certain countries executive) bodies, and form the codified law of a jurisdiction. For example, a statute governing court process might contain provisions giving an election on either party to an appeal, and that right to appeal would be considered statutory.
Due process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due process
(8) any acts in violation of 11 U.S.C. 362(a),in re Garcia, 109 B.R. 335(N.D. Illinois, 1989).
(9) Where no justiciable issue is presented to the court through proper pleadings, Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App 3d 701, 637 N.E. 2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994).
(10) Where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against that party, Charles v. Gore, 248 Ill App. 3d 441, 618 N.E. 2d 554 (1st. Dist. 1993)
(11) where any litigant was represented before a court by a person/law firm that is prohibited by law to practice law in that jurisdiction.
(12) When the judge is involved in a scheme of bribery (the Alemann cases, Bracey v Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133(June 9, 1997)
(13) Where a summons was not properly issued.
(14) Where service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Court Rules, Janove v. Bacon, 6 Ill. 2d 245, 249, 218 N.E. 2d 706, 708 (1953)
(15) when the rules of the Circuit court are not complied with.
(16) when the local rules of the special court are not complied with. (One Where the judge does not act impartially, Bracey v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133(June 9, 1997)
(17) where the statute is vague, People v. Williams, 638 N.E. 2d 207 (1st Dist. (1994)
(18) when proper notice is not given to all parties by the movant, Wilson v. Moore, 13 Ill. App. 3d 632, 301 N.E. 2d 39 (1st Dist. (1973)
(19) where an order/judgment is based on a void order/judgment, Austin v. Smith, 312 F 2d 337, 343(1962);English v. English, 72 Ill. App. 3d 736, 393 N.E. 2d 18 (1st Dist. 1979) or
(20) where the public policy of the State of Illinois is violated, Martin-Tregona v Roderick, 29 Ill. App. 3d 553, 331 N.E. 2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975)
And another that can and should be checked on is does the judge have a copy of his oath of office on file in his chambers? If not, he is not a judge and yes, you can go into his office and demand to see a copy of his oath of office at any time. The laws covering judges and other public officials are to be found at 5 U.S.C. 3331, 28 U.S.C. 543 and 5 U.S.C. 1983 and if the judge has not complied with all of those provisions he is not a judge but a trespasser upon the court. If he is proven a trespasser upon the court (upon the law) not one of his judgments, pronouncements or orders are valid. All are null and void.
In all, there are 20 indices which tell us whether or not a court had subject matter jurisdiction and when examining a judgment one has to know each and every one of them by heart. If he knows them by heart he can go through a judgment like Sherman going though Georgia and point out all of the errors which might make the case a void judgment, null and void upon its face.
Sufficiency of Pleadings: (Cross-appeals)
A party challenging an ALJ's decision must do more than recite evidence favorable to its case, the party must demonstrate with some degree of specificity the manner in which substantial evidence does not exist or why the decision is contrary to law. Cox v. Benefits Review Board, 791 F.2d 445, 9 BLR 2-46 (6th Cir. 1986).
A party may not attack a decision with a view toward enlarging his or her own rights or lessening the rights of an adversary absent a cross-appeal. However, a cross-appeal is unnecessary when a prevailing party merely advances an argument that would provide another avenue by which the fact finder could reach the same favorable judgment. Hansen v. Director, OWCP, No. 91-9559 (10th Cir. Jan. 20, 1993).
An appellee need not cross-appeal in order to make an argument that supports the decision reached by the alj but attacks the reasoning used by the alj in reaching his decision. Malcomb v. Island Creek Coal Co., 15 F.3d 364, 18 BLR 2-113 (4th Cir. 1994).
Jurisdiction
In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.
As a topic, jurisdiction draws its substance from Public International Law, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.
For More information or to contact a Judgment Defense Specialist CLICK HERE
Information here provided by:
educationcenter2000.com
http://educationcenter2000.com
Our mission is to educate consumers about secured and unsecured credit and options available to them.
We believe that if you don't know your rights, you don’t know your options.
Join Us Today, We have been successfully helping consumers with Debt Resolution and Credit Repair more than 10 years.
Legislators set sights on 'anchor babies' - CNN.com
Legislators set sights on 'anchor babies' - CNN.com
(CNN) -- A group of state legislators opposed to illegal immigration plan to propose a legislative "fix" Wednesday that would prevent children of illegal immigrants born in the United States from being citizens, a spokesman said.
The group, State Legislators for Legal Immigration, will reveal their strategy at a Wednesday morning news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, Ty McCauslin said.
The coalition counts members from 40 states. It argues that the 14th Amendment has been wrongly applied to so-called "anchor babies."
The 14th Amendment says that "all persons born ... in the United States" automatically become U.S. citizens.
Should birth grant citizenship? 2010: 14th Amendment rewards immigrants?
The group's proposal "is to fix the misapplication of the 14th Amendment as it applies to the children of illegal aliens," McCauslin told CNN.
The group would not divulge additional details of the proposal before it is officially announced, but said that there would be several constitutional scholars on hand to vouch for its legality.
Besides unauthorized immigrants, no other group would be affected by the proposal, the spokesman said.
(CNN) -- A group of state legislators opposed to illegal immigration plan to propose a legislative "fix" Wednesday that would prevent children of illegal immigrants born in the United States from being citizens, a spokesman said.
The group, State Legislators for Legal Immigration, will reveal their strategy at a Wednesday morning news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, Ty McCauslin said.
The coalition counts members from 40 states. It argues that the 14th Amendment has been wrongly applied to so-called "anchor babies."
The 14th Amendment says that "all persons born ... in the United States" automatically become U.S. citizens.
Should birth grant citizenship? 2010: 14th Amendment rewards immigrants?
The group's proposal "is to fix the misapplication of the 14th Amendment as it applies to the children of illegal aliens," McCauslin told CNN.
The group would not divulge additional details of the proposal before it is officially announced, but said that there would be several constitutional scholars on hand to vouch for its legality.
Besides unauthorized immigrants, no other group would be affected by the proposal, the spokesman said.
PLEDGE OF SOLIDARITY FOR THE RIGHTS OF SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS! Petition
PLEDGE OF SOLIDARITY FOR THE RIGHTS OF SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS! Petition
Please click on the link to sign this Petition
Category: Law Reform
Region: United States of America
Target: State & Federal Courts and Legislatures - U.S.A.
Background (Preamble):
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to provide EVERY AMERICAN with the CONSTITUTIONAL right to self-representation, if they so choose. That privilege, like all other constitutional rights, should be enjoyed without fear of harassment, prejudice or abuse. Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right.
Self-Represented Litigants have no less of a right to FAIR and MEANINGFUL due process under the federal and state constitutions as those individuals who choose to utilize an attorney for their legal affairs and issues. In fact, NOWHERE in any state or federal constitution does it specify that the hiring of a lawyer is a prerequisite to exercising one's due process rights. Democratic principles dictate that we have the right to freely choose between self-representation and hiring a lawyer to handle our legal matters without suffering humiliation, prejudice or penalization. After all, it is the parties to the litigation that ultimately have to deal with the consequences of the case's outcome, and not the judge or the lawyers involved in the matter.
Contrary to the view of certain judges and lawyers, those who opt to litigate their own legal matters without an attorney are NOT second-class citizens deserving of contempt and injustice. Instead, they are BRAVE AMERICANS with an inalienable right to have their legal causes adjudicated objectively and justly -- with or without a lawyer. Self-representation can be a difficult, time-consuming, and often frightening experience, especially for those burdened by demanding work schedules, family responsibilities, and other obligations of day-to-day living. Accordingly, those who engage in the difficult task of self-litigation should be REVERED for their COURAGE and DEDICATION, not scorned or abused.
In support of the foregoing ideals, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization called PEOPLE UNITED FOR LEGAL SYSTEM EQUALITY (P.U.L.S.E.) was founded. PULSE’s mission is to protect the People's right to self-representation, protest undue prejudice and abuse against self-litigants, and advocate for fair and meaningful reforms that will foster equitable treatment for the self-represented. We seek to accomplish this agenda through grassroots mobilization, community awareness and education, policy reform, peaceful public protests, and providing support and assistance to certain "high profile" cases which offer the potential for favorable appellate rulings that honor self-litigation.
For PULSE to be effective, an active network of like-minded, vocal, influential, financially-generous, and politically-expressive supporters and activists from every state in the country must be created. To that end, we submit the following PLEDGE OF SOLIDARITY for your consideration. We hope you will sign it, and respectfully request that you kindly distribute the PLEDGE to all of your friends, family members and other contacts who genuinely support the ideals of FAIRNESS and JUSTICE regarding the legal process.
PLEASE HELP US IN OUR PEACEFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE EFFORT TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM THE PUBLIC'S DESIRE FOR UNBIASED SELF-REPRESENTATION! We also need to amass momentous opposition against those persons, agencies, and institutions who, in the interest of protecting huge profits, careers, and prestige, subject self-litigants to a hostile and often abusive litigation atmosphere calculated to suppress self-representation and force people to become completely and financially dependent on lawyers to gain "paid" access to a taxpayer-funded legal system.
PLEASE .... STAND UP AND BE COUNTED by signing the Pledge of Solidarity! The more signatures collected, the more credibility the courts, legislatures, and the media will attribute to our efforts to expose the many painful, life-altering injustices suffered by self-represented litigants, as well as our demands for meaningful relief and corrective reforms.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
Petition:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ... in support of PEOPLE UNITED FOR LEGAL SYSTEM EQUALITY and its mission to protect the right of ALL AMERICANS to self-representation in state and federal courts without penalty, prejudice, or abuse .... hereby state the following:
WE BELIEVE every citizen has a constitutional right to self-representation in any legal proceeding, if he or she so chooses, and WE BELIEVE the judiciary has a constitutional duty to honor, protect, and meaningfully accommodate that right.
WE BELIEVE that it is the litigants accessing the legal system, and not the judges, lawyers, or court personnel, who solely endure the consequences, good or bad, that result from the adjudication of their legal claims. Therefore, WE BELIEVE that it should only be the litigants themselves who should chose whether to act as self-represented litigants or secure attorney representation and neither choice shall suffer bias, prejudice, or penalty.
WE BELIEVE that since the right to self-representation is constitutionally protected, the choice to utilize non-attorney tools, products, resources, and service providers to aid the self-litigant are equally protected as an expression of that right. Therefore, any offering of such resources to Self-Represented Litigants should not be criminalized, outlawed, or otherwise discouraged by the courts or the government.
WE BELIEVE that anyone who chooses to exercise the right of self-representation should be able to do so free of harassment, humiliation, intimidation, retribution, or bias from any judge, attorney, or court personnel.
WE BELIEVE that the courts are public, taxpayer-financed institutions dedicated to the just, equitable, and affordable adjudication of legal claims, and not a venue that prioritizes the professional and commercial interests of lawyers over the right of the public to access the courts without prejudice or bias.
WE SUPPORT the revision of “Unauthorized Practice of Law” statutes and regulations such that non-attorney tools, products, resources, and service providers are not discouraged or intimidated from assisting Self-Represented Litigants.
WE BELIEVE that the “Unauthorized Practice of Law” statutes and regulations should be revised so that they are restricted to regulating the conduct, standards, and practices of attorneys, law firms, and the paralegals, legal assistants, and legal secretaries who are in their employ.
WE BELIEVE that the judiciary has a legal and moral obligation to make the courts more user-friendly, hospitable, accountable, and reasonably accommodating to citizens exercising their right to self-representation.
WE OPPOSE any rule, regulation, statute, appellate opinion, or governing policy which compels litigants to hire lawyers, obstruct, or prevent the right to self-representation, and/or discourages the utilization of non-attorney tools, products, resources, and service providers which exist to aid citizens in their self-representation efforts.
WE SUPPORT reforms that promote fair and equitable treatment of Self-Represented Litigants, and seek the abolishment of policies and practices that grant lawyers special benefits or preferential treatment.
WE SUPPORT reforms that authorize court personnel to provide Self-Represented Litigants with the same information, guidance, and assistance that they readily provide to attorneys and their staff, including the dispensing of procedural information.
WE OPPOSE any case law or judicial policy which punitively obligates Self-Represented Litigants to “think, speak and act” like attorneys and to handle their cases with the same speed and competence as a lawyer. Although Self-Represented Litigants may lack the education, training, and experience attributed to lawyers, WE BELIEVE that, in accordance with the constitutionally protected right to due process, they are still entitled to a fair and equitable adjudication of their legal claims.
Please click on the link to sign this Petition
Category: Law Reform
Region: United States of America
Target: State & Federal Courts and Legislatures - U.S.A.
Background (Preamble):
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to provide EVERY AMERICAN with the CONSTITUTIONAL right to self-representation, if they so choose. That privilege, like all other constitutional rights, should be enjoyed without fear of harassment, prejudice or abuse. Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right.
Self-Represented Litigants have no less of a right to FAIR and MEANINGFUL due process under the federal and state constitutions as those individuals who choose to utilize an attorney for their legal affairs and issues. In fact, NOWHERE in any state or federal constitution does it specify that the hiring of a lawyer is a prerequisite to exercising one's due process rights. Democratic principles dictate that we have the right to freely choose between self-representation and hiring a lawyer to handle our legal matters without suffering humiliation, prejudice or penalization. After all, it is the parties to the litigation that ultimately have to deal with the consequences of the case's outcome, and not the judge or the lawyers involved in the matter.
Contrary to the view of certain judges and lawyers, those who opt to litigate their own legal matters without an attorney are NOT second-class citizens deserving of contempt and injustice. Instead, they are BRAVE AMERICANS with an inalienable right to have their legal causes adjudicated objectively and justly -- with or without a lawyer. Self-representation can be a difficult, time-consuming, and often frightening experience, especially for those burdened by demanding work schedules, family responsibilities, and other obligations of day-to-day living. Accordingly, those who engage in the difficult task of self-litigation should be REVERED for their COURAGE and DEDICATION, not scorned or abused.
In support of the foregoing ideals, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization called PEOPLE UNITED FOR LEGAL SYSTEM EQUALITY (P.U.L.S.E.) was founded. PULSE’s mission is to protect the People's right to self-representation, protest undue prejudice and abuse against self-litigants, and advocate for fair and meaningful reforms that will foster equitable treatment for the self-represented. We seek to accomplish this agenda through grassroots mobilization, community awareness and education, policy reform, peaceful public protests, and providing support and assistance to certain "high profile" cases which offer the potential for favorable appellate rulings that honor self-litigation.
For PULSE to be effective, an active network of like-minded, vocal, influential, financially-generous, and politically-expressive supporters and activists from every state in the country must be created. To that end, we submit the following PLEDGE OF SOLIDARITY for your consideration. We hope you will sign it, and respectfully request that you kindly distribute the PLEDGE to all of your friends, family members and other contacts who genuinely support the ideals of FAIRNESS and JUSTICE regarding the legal process.
PLEASE HELP US IN OUR PEACEFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE EFFORT TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM THE PUBLIC'S DESIRE FOR UNBIASED SELF-REPRESENTATION! We also need to amass momentous opposition against those persons, agencies, and institutions who, in the interest of protecting huge profits, careers, and prestige, subject self-litigants to a hostile and often abusive litigation atmosphere calculated to suppress self-representation and force people to become completely and financially dependent on lawyers to gain "paid" access to a taxpayer-funded legal system.
PLEASE .... STAND UP AND BE COUNTED by signing the Pledge of Solidarity! The more signatures collected, the more credibility the courts, legislatures, and the media will attribute to our efforts to expose the many painful, life-altering injustices suffered by self-represented litigants, as well as our demands for meaningful relief and corrective reforms.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
Petition:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ... in support of PEOPLE UNITED FOR LEGAL SYSTEM EQUALITY and its mission to protect the right of ALL AMERICANS to self-representation in state and federal courts without penalty, prejudice, or abuse .... hereby state the following:
WE BELIEVE every citizen has a constitutional right to self-representation in any legal proceeding, if he or she so chooses, and WE BELIEVE the judiciary has a constitutional duty to honor, protect, and meaningfully accommodate that right.
WE BELIEVE that it is the litigants accessing the legal system, and not the judges, lawyers, or court personnel, who solely endure the consequences, good or bad, that result from the adjudication of their legal claims. Therefore, WE BELIEVE that it should only be the litigants themselves who should chose whether to act as self-represented litigants or secure attorney representation and neither choice shall suffer bias, prejudice, or penalty.
WE BELIEVE that since the right to self-representation is constitutionally protected, the choice to utilize non-attorney tools, products, resources, and service providers to aid the self-litigant are equally protected as an expression of that right. Therefore, any offering of such resources to Self-Represented Litigants should not be criminalized, outlawed, or otherwise discouraged by the courts or the government.
WE BELIEVE that anyone who chooses to exercise the right of self-representation should be able to do so free of harassment, humiliation, intimidation, retribution, or bias from any judge, attorney, or court personnel.
WE BELIEVE that the courts are public, taxpayer-financed institutions dedicated to the just, equitable, and affordable adjudication of legal claims, and not a venue that prioritizes the professional and commercial interests of lawyers over the right of the public to access the courts without prejudice or bias.
WE SUPPORT the revision of “Unauthorized Practice of Law” statutes and regulations such that non-attorney tools, products, resources, and service providers are not discouraged or intimidated from assisting Self-Represented Litigants.
WE BELIEVE that the “Unauthorized Practice of Law” statutes and regulations should be revised so that they are restricted to regulating the conduct, standards, and practices of attorneys, law firms, and the paralegals, legal assistants, and legal secretaries who are in their employ.
WE BELIEVE that the judiciary has a legal and moral obligation to make the courts more user-friendly, hospitable, accountable, and reasonably accommodating to citizens exercising their right to self-representation.
WE OPPOSE any rule, regulation, statute, appellate opinion, or governing policy which compels litigants to hire lawyers, obstruct, or prevent the right to self-representation, and/or discourages the utilization of non-attorney tools, products, resources, and service providers which exist to aid citizens in their self-representation efforts.
WE SUPPORT reforms that promote fair and equitable treatment of Self-Represented Litigants, and seek the abolishment of policies and practices that grant lawyers special benefits or preferential treatment.
WE SUPPORT reforms that authorize court personnel to provide Self-Represented Litigants with the same information, guidance, and assistance that they readily provide to attorneys and their staff, including the dispensing of procedural information.
WE OPPOSE any case law or judicial policy which punitively obligates Self-Represented Litigants to “think, speak and act” like attorneys and to handle their cases with the same speed and competence as a lawyer. Although Self-Represented Litigants may lack the education, training, and experience attributed to lawyers, WE BELIEVE that, in accordance with the constitutionally protected right to due process, they are still entitled to a fair and equitable adjudication of their legal claims.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Prison for Rocklin woman (Former CPS Worker) in extortion case
Prison for Rocklin woman in extortion case - Roseville California News including Rocklin & Placer County
A former Yuba County child protective services worker who falsely accused a Placer County man of child molestation in an effort to extort money from him is headed to state prison for nine years and four months.
Yolanda Perez Fryson, 43, of Rocklin, who was also found guilty of other crimes during a recent jury trial, was given the prison term Wednesday by Placer County Superior Court Judge Joseph O’Flaherty, who called her extortion attempt “close to the worst crime I’ve seen in my 21 years on the bench.”
“A public official picked out a completely innocent victim for monetary reasons,” O’Flaherty said. “It’s a despicable crime. You can’t ignore the evilness of this conduct.”
The victim of the crime, a 40-year-old Roseville man, attended the sentencing and fought back tears as he told the court how being falsely accused of child molestation had turned his world upside down.
The victim said he spent “three days of hell” wondering what to do and kept imagining being led away in handcuffs by police or having people point to him in the false belief that he was a child molester. He said he even briefly contemplated suicide.
He said he still has nightmares about being arrested and losing his family.
The victim eventually told an attorney about Fryson’s accusation. The attorney referred him to the Placer County Sheriff’s Office, which set up a sting operation in which the victim met with Fryson in a parking lot to hand over $10,000 in exchange for the alleged molestation issue being dropped.
Fryson was immediately arrested when she accepted the money.
At the time, Fryson was on administrative leave from the Yuba County CPS Office because of an arrest for a scheme known as “check kiting,” in which a person deposits worthless checks into bank accounts and quickly withdraws money before the insufficient funds can be confirmed.
During the extortion attempt on the victim, Fryson, despite being on leave from her job and out on bail for the check fraud charges, displayed her CPS badge, which she had previously reported to her office as having been lost or stolen.
Prosecutor Stephanie Macumber of the Placer County District Attorney’s Office said the defendant continued to commit crimes even after the check kiting and extortion incidents.
Macumber said Fryson, again out on bail and making an attempt to get out of the check fraud charges, forged a letter absolving her of wrongdoing and signed the name of a 29-year veteran bank employee on it.
Fryson also pressured at least two other bank employees to write letters stating the overdrafts were bank errors and not her fault, Macumber said.
Fryson’s trial on 16 felony counts took place in October, and the jury returned on Nov. 1 with guilty verdicts on all counts, which included such crimes as the attempted extortion, check fraud, falsifying evidence, forgery and accepting a bribe.
A former Yuba County child protective services worker who falsely accused a Placer County man of child molestation in an effort to extort money from him is headed to state prison for nine years and four months.
Yolanda Perez Fryson, 43, of Rocklin, who was also found guilty of other crimes during a recent jury trial, was given the prison term Wednesday by Placer County Superior Court Judge Joseph O’Flaherty, who called her extortion attempt “close to the worst crime I’ve seen in my 21 years on the bench.”
“A public official picked out a completely innocent victim for monetary reasons,” O’Flaherty said. “It’s a despicable crime. You can’t ignore the evilness of this conduct.”
The victim of the crime, a 40-year-old Roseville man, attended the sentencing and fought back tears as he told the court how being falsely accused of child molestation had turned his world upside down.
The victim said he spent “three days of hell” wondering what to do and kept imagining being led away in handcuffs by police or having people point to him in the false belief that he was a child molester. He said he even briefly contemplated suicide.
He said he still has nightmares about being arrested and losing his family.
The victim eventually told an attorney about Fryson’s accusation. The attorney referred him to the Placer County Sheriff’s Office, which set up a sting operation in which the victim met with Fryson in a parking lot to hand over $10,000 in exchange for the alleged molestation issue being dropped.
Fryson was immediately arrested when she accepted the money.
At the time, Fryson was on administrative leave from the Yuba County CPS Office because of an arrest for a scheme known as “check kiting,” in which a person deposits worthless checks into bank accounts and quickly withdraws money before the insufficient funds can be confirmed.
During the extortion attempt on the victim, Fryson, despite being on leave from her job and out on bail for the check fraud charges, displayed her CPS badge, which she had previously reported to her office as having been lost or stolen.
Prosecutor Stephanie Macumber of the Placer County District Attorney’s Office said the defendant continued to commit crimes even after the check kiting and extortion incidents.
Macumber said Fryson, again out on bail and making an attempt to get out of the check fraud charges, forged a letter absolving her of wrongdoing and signed the name of a 29-year veteran bank employee on it.
Fryson also pressured at least two other bank employees to write letters stating the overdrafts were bank errors and not her fault, Macumber said.
Fryson’s trial on 16 felony counts took place in October, and the jury returned on Nov. 1 with guilty verdicts on all counts, which included such crimes as the attempted extortion, check fraud, falsifying evidence, forgery and accepting a bribe.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)