Tag Archives: Civil Rights Violations in Family Court

DUH!!! The Constitution Does NOT Grant Immunity For Lying To Remove a Child!!! 9th Circuit’s Epic Dis of Court/Gov’t Officials & Social Workers Dubious Claim Of “Right To Lie”.

California’s “Right To Lie” Case, Preslie Hardwick v. Orange County, Marcia Vreeken, Elaine Wilkins, The Estate of Helen Dwojack

But we didn’t know you couldn’t lie to the court. DUH!!! Liar, liar pants on fire!!! That line didn’t work on your Mother and it won’t work in Court!

Judge Stephen Trott, 9th Circuit’s Court of Appeals:How in the world could a person in the shoes of your clients possibly believe that it was appropriate to use perjury and false evidence” to remove a child from a parent, asked Judge Stephen Trott, a longtime member of the court appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987. “How could they possibly not be in notice that you can’t do that?”

The panel did in fact reject the argument, and Trott wrote the opinion, which was released this week. Buried on page 13 is a line that artfully relays his incredulity at the argument: No official with an IQ greater than room temperature in Alaska could claim that he or she did not know that the conduct at the center of this case violated both state and federal law.”

BAM! Trott also provided a more precise dismissal of the constitutional appeal:

“… Government perjury and the knowing use of false evidence are absolutely and obviously irreconcilable with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of Due Process in our courts. Furthermore, the social workers’ alleged transgressions were not made under pressing circumstances requiring prompt action, or those providing ambiguous or conflicting guidance. There are no circumstances in a dependency proceeding that would permit government officials to bear false witness against a parent.” https://imprintnews.org/subscriber-content/9th-circuits-epic-dis-caseworkers-right-lie-case/23746

WATCH JUDGE TROTT HERE – BAM!!!!!! “Since the 1940’s the Supreme Court has held that there is a fundamental liberty interest that parents have in the care, custody and control of their children. That’s been on the books forever. I mean, I have a whole bunch of Supreme Court cases I can read from…They have that fundamental Constitutional right, and it cannot be impaired without due process of law.” The CPS “Right-to-Lie” Case, in which an attorney for CPS is asking a three-panel commission to ascertain if CPS has a constitutional right to take children from a home BASED ON PERJURY AND FABRICATED EVIDENCE-THE RIGHT TO LIE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_8-8IZLP4w

California Court of Appeals Affirms Mom’s $4.9 Million Award https://www.prweb.com/releases/fogarty-hardwick/social_services/prweb4157254.htm

“But we didn’t know you couldn’t lie to the court!DUH!!! Liar, liar pants on fire!!! https://onlinecles.com/orange-county-but-we-didnt-know-you-couldnt-lie-to-the-court/

Formal Complaint To UN Commission on Status of Women Denouncing US Government & States: Systematic Human Rights Violations Against Women & Children In Family Court

On Sunday, August 1, 2021, over one hundred mothers submitted a formal complaint to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women denouncing the United States Government, and the states within for systematic human rights violations waged against women and children throughout the family court systems in the country. The Complaint alleges human rights violations that include systematic gender bias, discrimination on the basis of sex, and facilitation of physical, sexual, financial, legal, and emotional abuse of women and children.⁣⁣The Complaint was submitted by advocacy groups One Mom’s Battle and Custody Peace with over one hundred women throughout the United States joining in the Complaint.

Through personal letters submitted with the Complaint, these brave women provided firsthand accounts of their experience suffering injustices and human rights violations in family court.⁣⁣The Claim submitted to the UN documents disturbing trends throughout family courts in the U.S. including a failure to recognize coercive control tactics as domestic violence warranting court intervention, the tendency of judges to discredit mothers’ child abuse allegations particularly when the father alleges parental alienation as a counterclaim, the weaponization of the family court system itself by an abuser as a means to harass and control a domestic violence victim, punishment of women who raise child safety and abuse concerns by stripping them of custody rights, and judges’ bias towards and unfavorable treatment of women who resist shared parenting with an ex-intimate partner who abused them and/or their child, often leading to a dismissal of these women as simply angry, emotional or crazy.⁣⁣

Learn more, donate to the movement, or to join the Global Family Court Advocacy Community at www.custody-peace.org

#onemomsbattle#omb#tinaswithin#divorce#divorcinganarcissist#support#narcissisticabuse#MeTooFamilyCourt#custodypeaceCustody Peace]

Fraud On The Court, Definitions & Case Law

1.Who is an “officer of the court”?
2. What is “fraud on the court”?
3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?
4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

  1. Who is an “officer of the court”?A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).
  1. What is “fraud on the court”?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”

“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

  1. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

  1. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).

Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.

If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.

However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Annalise Rice, 19 describes her Family Court nightmare

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn., May 5, 2017- Filed in March 2017, new Federal Civil Rights lawsuit in Minnesota hopes to strike a dagger in the heart of corruption in family courts.

Annalise Rice, 19, currently a freshman at the University of North Dakota, recently filed that lawsuit against her father, Brent Rice, a financial advisor at Merrill Lynch, as well as Hennepin and Carver counties, a judge and several court professionals and social workers. All were involved in her family court case that, she argues, deprived her of her civil rights.

All were involved in her family court case that, she argues, deprived her of her civil rights.

In an exclusive interview with this CDN reporter, Annalise Rice described a nightmarish childhood in which she was taken away from her mother without explanation and forced to live with a father who, she alleges, while mostly absent,  she alleges he was abusive when he was present. Rice ran away multiple times, including on incident during which she spent approximately one month on the run with her mother.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/annalise-rice-19-describes-her-family-court-nightmare-88103/#81Jztz8rEGgfxCYD.99

 

How Narcicissts Use The Courts To Continue Their Abuse, by Christine Hammond, MS, LMHC

“As if the abusive marriage, relationship or business partnership wasn’t bad enough, the narcissist has to escalate the matter by threatening legal action. The legal system becomes an unknowing and unwilling extension of the narcissistic arm reaching out to cause as much damage as possible. Their take no prisoners’ attitude stops at nothing to seek revenge for causing pain over some perceived embarrassment.”

How Narcicissists Use The Courts To Continue Their Abuse

Judges-hammer