guys....Guys....GUYS! The "Brief" IS DONE! Not only a moment too soon, but 17 days and a moment too soon! These criminals are gonna FLIP...as is the appellate court. There is, NO WAY...I REPEAT, NO WAY that the appellate courts can find these decisions by the Fed District Court to be anything but MADE IN ERROR!!!
And they'd best get busy writing their replies to this brief...because it is gonna take every brain cell they're in possession of to properly refute it. America? I give you....the most brilliant appellate brief to ever hit the record of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Enjoy! See you soon with the answers of the criminals, eh? :D
NOTE: the ORIGINAL brief was stricken from the record of the court...get this, because it was too long. I told them that if they had let me format it in 12 point type, with 1" side margins and .75 inch margins top and bottom, it would have only been 42 pages long. Stupid rules of court. Anyway, it's OK, because now? it's perfectly brilliant. So to all you criminals? PFFFFFFFT!!!
INDEX
I.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .PAGES 2-8
II.
DISCUSSION OF
ERROR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGES 8-44
III.
ARGUMENT . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGES 44-53
IV.
CONCLUSION . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PAGES 53-68
The claimants the above captioned
case, claimant Christopher (Bruce) the living man and Elizabeth (Bruce) the
living woman do file this brief in support of our appeal:
I.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS
1. The claimants
filed claim (#4:18-cv-40) on 2/12/2018.
2. The claimants
filed motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis on 2/15/2018. It took the District Court until 4/05/2018; a
month and a half, to grant the motion; putting the claimants on a tight
schedule to serve the summons on the defendants. The claimants paid someone to serve summons
to the majority of the defendants at their respective law departments. All other defendants were mailed their
summons via certified mail, and each was signed for; indicating that the
defendants had all been served. The
claimants find it difficult to understand and accept that a summons can be deemed
“not properly served,” according to defendant Katherine Beth Walker, but
obviously the same defendant knows the case exists and is claiming improper
service; thereby obviously has a copy of the claim and summons. What more can the claimants provide the
court? The body? A lock of hair? The defendant’s fingerprints? The claimants believe that her denial of
proper service should be enough to show she has her copy, and is using the
court’s stringent rules of service to get out of her part in it. And, if Ms. Walker can get out of her part
using the District Court Judge’s logic, why couldn’t every other defending
party get out of their parts the same way; since the claimants didn’t serve
directly on any of the defendant’s actual persons? Tony Reed’s attorney BEGAN claiming improper
service. Finally, yet even he answered
after proof was submitted to the court.
What makes Katherine Walker special?
3. The State of Iowa,
on the date of 5/14, 2018, did file a motion to seal documents filed by them in
the case, (that were totally irrelevant to the entirely NEW lawful claims that
were alleged by the plaintiffs;) and stated, along with every other defendant
in their respective answers almost identically, that the plaintiffs were trying
to bring “an appeal from a juvenile case;” a lie and unfounded assumption;
since the claims made by the plaintiffs cover over 8 state cases, both Juvenile
and criminal. When they did so, the
court granted the order, on the SAME DAY via text order, and sent it to the
claimants, IMMEDIATELY. The claimants replied
to this filing; and stated that these documents were filed and sealed in error. No order from this court has never addressed
the claimants’ rebuttal for the need to seal these documents, let alone the
need for these documents to be filed in this case at ALL; as this was also
rebutted.
4. On 5/22/2018,
Defendant Lucas Taylor, through his attorney Helen C. Adams, motioned the district
court for an extension of time to answer the plaintiffs’ claim. The district court granted this motion ON THE
SAME DAY, via Text.
5. The Court, on
5/31/2018, ordered the plaintiffs to provide proof of service on defendants
Katherine Walker and Anthony Reed, so they could either be dismissed, or if
service was proved proper, so that they might answer to the claim. The plaintiffs did so and filed proof of
service on 6/6/2018. The district court did
NOTHING, until the day these matters were decided.
6. Claimant
Christopher filed motion to file electronically on 6/6/2018. Court granted this motion 5 days later.
7. The claimants motioned
the District Court for a permanent injunction against defendant John P.
Sarcone, on 6/19/2018, in an attempt to stop him from taking unreasonable
actions against plaintiff Christopher performed outside the scope of his official
duties. The County Attorney has been contacting
federal Law Enforcement offices across the country, to stop claimant
Christopher, from speaking freely, a fact proven by the claimants per filed
evidence. The district court did NOTHING
concerning this motion until after petition was filed with the appellate courts
for a Writ of Mandamus and the cases were decided.
8. The plaintiffs then
asked the district court to dismiss numerous defendants from “Bruce I”
immediately; so the plaintiffs could file a new claim against MOST of the same
defendants in their individual capacities (and did so, see 4:18-cv-223;) on
6/20/2018; and the district court did NOTHING concerning this until the day
these matters were decided.
9. After waiting for
the district court’s response to the motion to dismiss the defendants and keep
others; that motion referenced in item 8 of this section, claimants filed motions
to set a schedule for evidentiary and scheduling hearings on 7/13/2018. The court then denied these motions via Text order
within a couple of days, utilizing the absurd and disproved reason that the
court had no clear idea, nor were they “able to make a clear determination who
the defendants are” in the case at that time, though the defendants motioned to
be dismissed and remaining were clearly named in the afore-mentioned motion.
10.The Plaintiffs
then, on 7/13/2018, according to their right per the District Court’s rules of
Federal Procedure, filed motion for summary judgement and relief sought in part
from defendant Katherine Walker and the district court did NOTHING; even though
the time for her answer to be filed in this action was well past the original answer
date; and far past the date the claimants provided proof of service, per the
district court’s request in June of 2018)
Then, Ms. Walker was released in the Judge’s decisions, based SOLELY on
improper service. Until that date,
nothing at all concerning this matter, save the order that ordered the
claimants to file proof of service for defendant Walker, is even on the record
of the court. This indicates that the
District Court Judge has been directly communicating with Defendant Walker ex-parte,
off the record. This is a violation of
the plaintiff’s due process rights.
11.The plaintiffs
then filed a demand for the district court to take action, in a timely fashion,
for the claimants’ motions on the record, on 7/25/18; in accordance with the
district court’s own rules of civil procedure; because they addressed all the
defending motions immediately. The court
did not ever address this motion.
12.On 7/29/18; the
claimants filed a letter on the record, and mailed this letter to the chief
justice, Justice Jarvey, asking him if he would address the court’s inaction. Justice Jarvey also did nothing, in response.
13.The claimants
then filed a petition, asking for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus for the 8th
Circuit Appellate Court.
14.Upon asking the
District Court for their response to the writ (there was a letter in error for
the clerk, then a proper one was sent out) the District Court then chose to act
on both claims, decided both matters in error within an hour of each other; and
dismissed both actions on September 21st, 2018.
II.
Discussion of
Error
The claimants wish to first address the
cases separately. In the first claim,
claimants did as they were instructed.
They listed facts in detail and hoped that this would suffice. They did so in error, obviously, since
immediate answers and motions to dismiss followed, all stating that there were
no claims of damage made upon which relief could be awarded. The claimants replied to all of these answers
and resisted the motions to dismiss, but decided that, since error had been
pointed out so clearly (as well as redundantly, using almost the exact same
words and reasons from every defendant’s attorney,) that they would then file a
new claim in another suit, that corrected this error; then moved to dismiss
those defendants all claiming to be employees of their respective corporate
fictions/Government Service Corporations and acting in their official
capacities; switched the defending parties to “Individuals” (since one attorney
had expressly noted this error in his answer); added more defendants and 14 pages
to the claim; added claims of damage; and resubmitted it into case #4:18-cv-223. Six defendants were asked to be kept (in what
the District Court Judge has named “Bruce I”) that had already been named as
individuals; but these were also added in the 2nd action (dubbed by
her as “Bruce II”) since it and every one in “Bruce I” would obviously be
dismissed, as no claims of damage were properly made. Also important to mention is that the
claimants had filed viable evidence in the replies to answers given by the
defendants in “Bruce I”; but since reference had been made to the vagueness of
the claim (even though it was detailed for 49 pages,) and the court had made it
clear it would accept no amendment of the claim, the claimants decided to give
the court a massive increase in evidence in “Bruce II;” including court and
other documentation in support of the violation of the claimants rights, wholly. The filing of these exhibits had not been
completed as yet, since summons had not even been issued to the claimants in “Bruce
II.” The claimants felt they had time to
complete the task; yet “Bruce II” was hurriedly and rashly decided before the
summons were even issued. The exhibits
the claimants did get filed (the claimants do not even believe they had
finished filing for the entire first year yet; numbering 40 exhibits that we
remember), paint a clear picture of the violations of the claimants’ rights; the
conspiracy against the claimants’ rights; and served to show the activities
engaged in for profit and these activities’ scope and range. Finally, these exhibits served to show
clearly an obvious meeting of the minds between varying defendants at varying times. The claimants chose to file these additional
exhibits to avoid the possibility of dismissal in “Bruce II”; but obviously
there was a lot more needed; such as photos, video recordings, bodies, blood
and other forensic proof; since papers signed by the defendants and crimes
committed by them as they were recorded (i.e., Defendant Nieman’s kidnapping of
the claimants’ child) were and are not enough for the district court judge.
In their discussion of error, the
claimants choose not to address the order concerning “Bruce I”; though
reference may be made to it where it applies; as when there is a gap in the
logic of the court in 2nd claim’s order; though that gap is wide
enough in both orders.
In discussion of
the error preserved on the record in both cases, the claimants provide these
valid errors:
1.
Leniency was not provided the claimants in their cases. The claimants are poor and cannot afford
proper legal counsel and no council was due to be appointed for them, per the rules
of court. The court, therefore, should
have granted leniency; i.e. the option to amend their claim, something it was
obvious the court wouldn’t allow. The
claimants will restate for the court that they are NOT ATTORNEYS OF THE BAR, (as
stated in their filed affidavits) and, should thereby have been granted extra leniency.
2.
We the claimants begin with a “Standard of Review” of their own,
the common defining characteristics of a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action. This section leads a plaintiff to believe
that the it exists to protect citizens from the violation of their
Constitutionally guaranteed rights by those acting in positions of alleged and
granted ‘Authority’ over them; while they act in their official capacities,
within the scope of their respective everyday duties. What the District Court has done in issuing
these orders is prove; to the claimants and every citizen in America; that no
one can bring a successful claim using this section of statute in the District
Federal Court without the help of the U.S. Attorney (since several times and
concerning several allegations, the court alludes that the claimants “having no
standing to bring these allegations” by themselves.) or another attorney. In the past, the claimants have brought these
allegations before the U.S. Attorney in the Southern district of Iowa SEVERAL
TIMES in the 4 years prior to these claims (see also the docket of the Federal District
Court, which lists other prior “related actions” that were brought by the
claimant Christopher on other dates, while he was incarcerated); and have been
told by those of that district’s office that there wasn’t an action that could
be brought against these officials by the U.S. Attorney located there;
concerning these obvious violations of the claimants’ rights. This proves, to these claimants, that there
is no action; per section 1983 or any other section that can or will be brought
against those in official capacity on ANY level for ANY reason, since the
determination to file charges has been limited to a single (and easily
corruptible) official in each district – the respective U.S. Attorney. It must be this way in order to better
protect those of official capacity from having to endure such matters brought
by the “children” of the citizenry, as they tend to cry too loudly too often. It also proves to the claimants and to all
Americans that those alleged to be in ‘Authority’ over us can do whatever they
want whenever they choose, without possible consequences - whether those actions
be felonious, against federal law, or in complete violation of every right
allegedly provided all citizens; since almost everyone named has been dismissed
with immunities of all types (no matter what the position or level of
“Authority;” no matter what the motive, or what level of criminality); have
been deemed not under the jurisdiction of the federal district court because
they were not properly “served” per the court’s rules; fell outside the State
of Iowa’s statute of limitations; were victims of a ‘Threadbare recital of
vague and baseless statements,” etc.; or that the claimants had no standing to
bring the allegations made. The
claimants would like to point out that every one of the 64 collective defendants
in both claims ALL had at least one way to skirt the claims of the plaintiffs;
without fail and with the nod of the District Court Judge and with barely any
effort; even defendants that were added in the 2nd claim who didn’t
even know about that claim at all. The
claimants add that the summons to ‘Bruce II’ weren’t even issued yet to the
claimants to be served at the time of the order deciding “Bruce II”; meaning,
again, that neither the added defendants or those repeated defendants even knew
this claim existed nor had they even read that claim. How can the matter be ruled on if none that
were defendants even knew that this claim existed? This new claim had claims of damage
added. There were 14 added pages. Tens of new exhibits were filed, and over 100
more were still to be filed. How can the
judge of the District Court properly make an informed decision in “Bruce II” on
the same day, using pretty much the same order?
This alone is a grave error of the District Court. The claimants ask this court to consider the
possibility that the District Court, located in Des Moines, Iowa, has obviously
conspired with those of the County and State that they’re both located in; in
order to help the defendants get these matters buried once and for all before they
can do any real damage. To allow even
one defendant to remain in these matters, or should the plaintiffs succeed in receiving
any of their due justice or relief, would invariably serve to prove other wrongs
done the claimants by other defendants (in that one action of any listed defendant
leads unerringly to other criminal actions and defendants named herein; whether
the additional actions were made by the same or other defendants); and further shows
the obvious bias of the district court in favor of those elected officials this
claim primarily accuses of wrong-doing. The
claimants wish to show another side to this reasoning, by asking this
question: If 42 U.S.C. 1983 isn’t for
the purpose that it states that it is, or doesn’t apply to ANY of the
defendants in either of the claimants’ actions; or doesn’t address
Constitutional violations of the rights of citizens or the claimants, then what
is its purpose, and who DOES it apply to, if not the defendants and the
claimants listed? The claimants have
given the District Federal Court a variety of defendants from different walks
of life, in quite a variety of elected offices on every level; city, state,
county, and appellate; and others who were not acting officially at all. Who does this action apply to, and who does
it protect, if it doesn’t protect these claimants from damage inflicted by
every one of the defendants? Finally, is
it the intent of the order by the District Court to say that violating a
citizen’s rights is OK as long as it’s done in the course of the defendant’s
job, and that crimes engaged in, that can be freely committed by them without
consequence against the claimants and others (the claimants define “crime” to
mean criminal actions that, when executed by the citizens of this country,
would land them in jail or prison; for a long time) while performing those
duties (some that are obviously not “duties” that could be construed as “Part
of their job”) are no big deal? If they
are saying this, then it is this court’s moral and Constitutional duty to find
the District Court in grave error based on only the answer to these questions.
3.
The claimants also argue that, when it was ruled that “because
there is no statute of limitations made in the federal statute concerning a
1983 action, that state law concerning those matters applies instead.” More so, a defense is used that, since these
matters are already decided in Iowa Courts of law, that these matters are all
“Res Ajudicata” and this trumps anything the claimants are asking the Federal
Courts to do for them, concerning their requested relief. The claimants, thereby ask that the federal
appellate court answer these questions, presented by the claimants. First, should State law say that Marijuana is
legal, but then, a federal DEA agent comes in and says, marijuana is still
illegal, per federal statute, and arrests the perpetrator - Who wins? The answer is obvious – The Federal
Government trumps the several States in matters of the law. Then why is this different in this case? How is it that matters of the state can trump
federal law? Is not the SCOTUS the law
of the land? Do not the words of the
SCOTUS outweigh those of the State Supreme Courts, in order of legal weight in
already decided matters, when new ones come before the federal courts? Do not the words of the SCOTUS outweigh ALL
legal arguments? Then why should
anything spoken by or decided of the State courts matter, when they come
before, say, the Appellate Courts of the Federal Government, or before even the
Federal District Courts? And yet, when
it is convenient for those in office, all of a sudden, everything the State has
ruled outweighs the Supreme Court of the United States; the “Law of the
Land”? The Claimants, quite simply,
smell a rat; and a dead one at that.
Jurisdiction of the Federal government obviously applies here, and is proven,
(since the federal court Judge has made her ruling over BOTH matters) thereby,
anything presented in relation to “Res Ajudicata” DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT APPLY
IN THESE MATTERS. These are NEW CLAIMS,
and nothing decided in the past in any state court MATTERS AT ALL in these
claims. Second; how is it that the
Statute of Limitations can be set by the several states, in relation to a
statute of FEDERAL LAW? Who is it that
is really in charge here? Do we live in
a country of 51 countries, or are we a united country of 50 segments; who are
all under the Governance of the United States Federal Government?? If the Federal Government has not imposed a
Statute of Limitations in a Section 42 U.S.C. 1983 matter, then there should be
none…period. This is a federal statute; so
let the federal government set the limits on it. Should these statutes and their limitations
be set by the several states, then there should be no federal code at all. Finally, the Federal Government and its
judiciary should be the last word in deciding if the actions of a state are too
corrupted to be considered legally proper.
Is it the intention of this federal District Judge to put forth to the
claimants that, since a corrupt state court ruled, for instance, that the nationally
recognized LEGAL AND PROPER FATHER of the child in question, that child that
was asked to be returned to the lawful parents without fail as relief; was
ruled by the State of Iowa to be a non-father with NO PARENTAL RIGHTS TO START
WITH, then anything the federal government says following this corrupt and
empty legal decision doesn’t matter??
If the Federal Government has no power; and State Courts can run through
the fields legally naked, willy-nilly, with no consequences, then why do we
need federal courts, federal laws and; most importantly; why do we need the
Federal Government and its alleged authority…AT ALL? Obviously, the States rule last in all
matters, so then those of this court and the SCOTUS may as well pack up,
collect your remaining pay and clock out.
We evidently don’t need you anymore, since you obviously have no
decision, weight or power that you can produce or have that super-cedes those
of the courts of the several states; and their decisions, weight or power.
4.
As to the relation and summary of the facts that were deemed to be
facts by the District Court Judge in charge of the case (per the order), the
claimants intend to address each of the condensed and summarized ‘Facts”, what
is missing (per show of claims of damage) and intend to show how what is
missing does in fact apply to the plaintiffs’ claims and desired relief. The plaintiffs will only address the actual
claims of damage and relate their item numbers in doing so:
a.
Per summary of relevant facts, page 2, paragraph 1, it addresses
the claim of damage concerning defendant Nieman. In it, it states, as fact, that the claimants
were visited by Ms. Nieman (at which time Ms. Nieman would lead the claimants
to believe everything was fine, and the case would be considered to be
“unfounded” and the caller would be considered as acting vindictively in her
report of the claimants. Then Ms. Nieman
returned the next morning, while the father was absent; to take both the mother
and the child to an unannounced medical appointment at Methodist Hospital, with
a pre-arranged group of doctors; an “appointment” that eventually turned into a
“mandatory” 72 hour stay to observe them both; also without the claimant’s
consent or knowledge. It then states
that Ms. Nieman arranged to have the child, T.B., removed from the mother’s
care. It doesn’t address missing
allegations of conspiracy, in that Ms. Nieman pre-arranged the stay of T.B. and
plaintiff Elizabeth with the Doctors and the hospital beforehand, that she told
them that she wished to alter the reports of the doctors to show the child
needed to be removed; neither does it state that plaintiff Elizabeth was forced
to remain at the hospital the entire weekend; without her knowledge and without
her consent. The child was also checked
into the hospital under the same non-related pretense, also without the
mother’s knowledge or her consent. The
Child protective assessment only succeeded because the worker lied 55 plus
times about the claimants, and that the allegations that were originally made
were all discarded for new and fabricated ones and were all based on a single
call made by a psychotic woman on her way out of state, who was mad at the
claimants for evicting her from their home.
DHS only spoke with the woman once; and weren’t able to verify, prove or
charge any of these accusations at any time during either case. After this forced stay, the worker then
returned to bully the plaintiff, Elizabeth, into signing a document stating
that she consented to the removal of her child into the care of the Department
of Human Services, and Ms. Nieman. She
forged the mother’s initials into the document where the plaintiff was supposed
to sign them, showing that she had read the document, and understood what was
happening. The plaintiffs provided the
court with an audio recorded copy of the entire unlawful removal; and if
nothing else, the recording shows that plaintiff, Elizabeth, was not given a
choice to sign this document; she was forced into signing it, using Ms.
Nieman’s deception and legal duress. More
so, the other claimant (the “legal father” wasn’t present to give his
“consent”, though he had all right to be.
It also totally discludes all mention of the obvious intent to fake the
Polk County and State of Iowa’s jurisdiction over the claimants and their
newborn daughter; when they deprived the mother, through the act of falsifying
plaintiff Elizabeth’s answer to a very important question about the mother’s
possible Native American heritage; thereby depriving the mother wholly of the
possibility of a different jurisdiction over them both; for over 5 months. Also missing is the fact that, per Iowa
Statute, “reasonable efforts” were to be taken, as well as listed prior to this
removal, to possibly prevent or eliminate the need for the removal. None were listed, and defendant William A.
Price, acting as alleged ‘judge’, in his official capacity, then allegedly signed
this order (we believe we have undisputable proof showing the worker also
forged the Judge’s signature on this order as well; an act we do not put past
her, considering the dishonest behavior we have already proved), also validating
that these non-existing efforts had indeed occurred. Finally, per the recording and the form, only
a very small portion of the entire order was read to the plaintiff, Elizabeth, and
none of the lines that were read gave plaintiff Elizabeth even a half of an
inkling what was going on and why, or her rights in this case. Elizabeth; though she did herself sign the
order, did not check any of the boxes saying she had read and understood the
form; and this is evident, since on the recording, it is Ms, Nieman reading to
Elizabeth only the things she wants her to hear, obviously only half or less of
what is stated and asked in the form; meaning Elizabeth wasn’t allowed to read
any of it; nor was she given a chance to.
b.
Next, the judge lights on the “irregularities” of the petition
(see damage claim pertaining to Polk County Assistant Stephanie Brown; and
relation of ‘Summary of Facts, page 2, paragraph 4), and summarizes the
allegations made against her with one sentence, referring to the entirety of
the damaged claimed by saying “the court, DHS, the county attorney’s office AND
our own lawyers were working in concert against us;” using one sentence of our
entire group of allegations and ignoring the rest (Id. Claim #20.) Then, while referring to the conspiracy
portion of the plaintiff’s claim against Ms. Brown, the District Court Judge
only mentions a single sentence as well, and misses the majority of the
wrongful actions taken by Ms. Brown against the claimants, such as her forgery
of the claimants’ signatures on the forms that were filed, forms we had
allegedly signed, stating that we had received the petition for removal; when
we didn’t receive a copy of that petition until September 12th,
2014, the date of the adjudication hearing, nearly a month later. These are most serious depravations of due
process.
c.
Skipping all that happened between the removal and the
adjudication hearing (such as the first drug test tampering, the removal
hearing, etc.); the judge moves immediately on to a single claim made against
attorney/defendant Mays (summary of facts, page 3, paragraph 2); mentioning
only the infraction that Mays had the plaintiff, Elizabeth, file a 2nd
financial affidavit a month and a half after the first went into effect; so as
to portray her as having income with no expenses. This is, according to the plaintiffs, just
one of a dozen or more of Mr. Mays’ listed infractions…and absolutely none of
the others are mentioned in the order, nor are any claims or allegations even
used which could possibly show, blatantly no less, any and all of the
violations of the plaintiffs’ rights by defendant Mays.
d.
Then the District Court Judge goes on to say, in the relation of
facts (page 3, paragraph 3, summary of facts), that the termination of parental
rights hearing was held on September 12th, 2014. This was the date of the adjudication hearing,
not the termination hearing. She then
refers to when claimant Christopher was locked out from seeing documents filed
by the prosecution (summary of facts, page 3, paragraph 4), a violation of the
plaintiff’s due process rights, one that continued on past that date for well
over a month and a half. Then, numerous,
pertinent and relevant claim items are passed by in abundance.
e.
The District Court Judge then refers directly to the claim
concerning the termination hearing, and states that the parental rights were
terminated (see page 5, paragraph 1).
She does not refer to the fact that the biological father’s rights were
initially slated to be terminated, then changed to giving the child to him free
of all responsibility; as defendant Price and Attorney/Defendant Walker decided
to work together to FURTHER violate the claimants’ rights; does not mention the
removal of the father as an interested party of the case both illegally and
unlawfully; makes no referral to the claimants’ motion for intervention of the
Cherokee tribe in the case at THIS time period, when the case was nearly over (something
the claimants finally realized they could do, after Ms. Nieman deprived them of
that possibility from the beginning by falsifying the removal form and the
record with her affidavit, stating that that neither Elizabeth nor her daughter
T.B. had any ties to any tribe), discards entirely the vindictive disregard of
plaintiff Elizabeth’s motion related to her rescindment of all signatures on
all documents she had signed to date; not only once, but TWICE; or granting of
permanency of T.B. by Defendant Price to the biological father, R.S., though R.S.
had not been at all involved in either juvenile case up to and including that
date, had no interest in the child at all; nor did he even know he had a child,
didn’t know that plaintiff Elizabeth had been pregnant, had given birth to
T.B., or that she had been alive for an additional 6 months past THAT time,
until DHS hunted him down.
f.
In the paragraph that follows, the District Court Judge then
refers to the instance of claim made, referring to actions taken by Mrs.
Rhinehart (summary of facts, page 3, paragraph 5), actions that inadvertently
threatened the Claimant Christopher’s first amendment rights, and this is
clearly stated in the claim. The
District Court Judge also refers to an incorrect fact that states (page 3,
paragraph 5) “Defendant Stephanie Rhinehart informed Christopher Bruce in a
telephone message he would not be allowed to visit T.B. unless he stopped
writing about the termination proceedings in his blog.” The termination hearing didn’t occur for
another 4 months. Defendant Rhinehart threatened
the claimant Christopher with the deprival of his visits with his daughter, if
he did not stop writing on his blog about ANY events that were occurring. Christopher hasn’t seen his daughter since
9/24/14.
g.
A host of claim items; pointing to and proving violations of both
the claimants’ rights are then completely passed over without comment. These are related events that occurred
between the time of the adjudication hearing and the termination hearing. These include the ATTEMPTED conspiracy to have
plaintiff Christopher arrested for harassment of his active visitation
supervisor and caseworker Katie Gosch (this was foiled when Christopher
produced a mountain of evidence to the contrary); all the events that occurred
at the permanency hearing, which contained the most harmful and vindictive
violations of the claimants’ rights than all else combined. Not mentioned are the dispositional hearing,
and two hearings that were held in December 2014, hearings held to allegedly “hear”
motions that had been filed by the claimants; the 2nd continued one
being one that included a PROVEN 2nd falsification of their drug
test results. These events occurred long
before the termination hearing ALLEGEDLY took place. These aren’t even addressed in passing in
this judge’s order.
h.
The District Court Judge goes on to say (on page 4, paragraph 1,
summary of facts), that the claimants had claimed the termination of parental
rights hearing to be ‘fraught with error.’
The claimants do not even allude to this fact, they CLAIM that this
hearing did not take place, AT ALL. They
claim error, not because of decisions made in it, but because this hearing
never happened. Nobody listed as being
in it or transcribing it were even there…including the claimants themselves,
since the defendants involved, in collusion, had smartly waylaid the claimants
with a surprise warrant for claimant Christopher’s arrest for non-existing
crimes, one week before the termination hearing.
i.
Following this (summary of facts, page 4, paragraph 2), the
District Court Judge refers to the incident involving the Des Moines Police
Department’s Jake Lancaster, DHS employees Gosch and Rhinehart, and the County
Attorney’s offices, as they conspired together and produced non-existing
charges with no filed proof of these crimes; exactly a week prior to the
termination hearing, charges using weakly chargeable and TRANSCRIBED/FILED
statements left for defending parties Nieman and Gosch on their answering
machines by the claimant, Christopher; in support of the charged ‘crimes’ ; and
events that had occurred (and, as they apply, had also NOT occurred at all) almost
2 months prior to the charges being filed; when the claimant, Christopher,
called them both – on the weekend, at night, when the claimant knew neither
would answer, absolutely. Claimant
Christopher didn’t even speak to these workers.
NO THREATS WERE MADE, with the possible exception of when the claimant
said “Enjoy your job, because it’s about over.”
The District Judge totally omits all matters concerning the methods used
to hunt plaintiff Christopher down against all logic; almost a full month after
the termination hearing; and neglects to refer to the fact of the County Attorney’s
office calling the President’s own Secret Service in order to affect Christopher’s
arrest for these non-existing crimes;
nor does the judge say anything in summary about the continuous libel and
slander that occurred (and still occurs TO THIS DAY) without reasonable cause;
abounding on every webpage, TV Station and Newspaper in the Des Moines and
surrounding areas; as Mr. Lancaster went insanely above and beyond all duties required
of him as a city police detective to ensure the utter decimation of the
character of the plaintiff (by placing the plaintiff, Christopher, from day one, into the #1 MOST wanted criminal
position for “harassing” social workers, ahead of murderers and felons, for
over a month.) Christopher plead quickly
to the 2 simple misdemeanors so he could get back home; the other was completely
dropped against him (the false aggravated misdemeanor.) The District Court Judge hides these
allegations well behind a ‘conclusory’ statement, saying (quoting the
plaintiffs here) “the defendants involved, Price, The DHS, and all at the
county attorney’s offices (including and ESPECIALLY {Defendant} assistant
County Attorney Kevin J. Brownell) conspired together to make sure T.B. went
somewhere, ANYWHERE and to ANYONE as long as no one gave her back to” the
plaintiffs.” in her reference to the single statement in the one portion of the
claim made about these events (even though there were QUANTITIES of statements
of damage made in the claim; concerning this and numerous other matters.
j.
On page 5, paragraph 3 (summary of facts), the District Court
Judge refers to the appeal to the termination of parental rights and states the
dates it was held as July 5-6, 2015; although these are the dates of the Child
Protective Assessment appeal, in front of the ALJ at DHS. The plaintiffs know why this appeal isn’t
mentioned or detailed in any way, since it was this appeal that the removing
entity THEMSELVES claimed the Child Protective Assessment to be “Unfounded” and
in error, then, upon the State’s appeal up to the director of DHS, he ALSO ruled
these findings of the ALJ as AFFIRMED (meaning, of course, that wrong was done
these claimants and the child shouldn’t have EVER been removed in the first
place – and, in effect, also showed that all the District Courts of Polk County
had kidnapped their child for no reason, deprived them of the possibility of tribal
intervention for all of two juvenile cases, then terminated their unalienable
right to parent; was also IN ERROR.) She then talks of assistant AG Katherine
Miller-Todd (who was in no way involved in this appeal), mixed in with facts
from the Iowa Supreme Court appellate appeal concerning the claimant’s
termination of parental rights (which was heard almost a year later, and not
mentioned in this portion of the claim); and the hearing appealing the Child
Protective Assessment.
k.
The District Court Judge then covers the fabricated Termination
hearing and its false transcripts (summary of facts, page 6, paragraph 1) and
says that the claimants state error and irregularities in this appeal’s order from
the Iowa Supreme Court as well; a fact agreed to vehemently by the
claimants. The judge then relates and
states that the Supreme Court held that claimant Christopher had no parental
rights to terminate; although he began as a LEGAL FATHER. How then can he have no parental rights;
according to anyone? What is the
definition, then, of a legal father, and where did this term come from? The Supreme Court HAD to state this, in order
to justify plaintiff Christopher’s illegal removal from the case as the LEGAL parent;
who was married to the claimant, ELIZABETH at the time of the birth of T.B.;
and a party of interest in T .B.; an order of the district court below it in
MASSIVE error; so as to assist in justifying defendant Price’s right to then
toss Christopher and his damning motions and evidence out of the case along
with him; by ‘establishing paternity’ in the case in favor of R.S., the
biological SPERM DONOR; something it’s understood, generally, in the realm of
law, as not needing to be done, since there was already a ‘legal father’,
complete with all the necessary rights he most certainly had, since the law ITSELF
provides him that; in position ( i.e., plaintiff Christopher.) So let’s get this straight…if the world
recognizes plaintiff Christopher as a LEGAL FATHER, WITH RIGHTS…but the State
of Iowa says he never had any rights to terminate and defines the term
differently, then it is so? This is,
quite simply, the most ridiculous legal ruling…ANYWHERE; and everyone is
defending this as proper and LEGALLY BINDING???
The plaintiff, Christopher, will personally spit in the face of any one
additional judge that says so.
l.
Following all that occurred at the time of termination, the
District Court Judge then skips all events that show violations of plaintiff
Christopher’s rights; where he was arrested for the false charges that had been
brought by the two Iowa DHS workers; and when he couldn’t be found to be
arrested, was then arrested by the Secret Service, after John P. Sarcone’s
offices involved them and even after they had already accomplished what they
wanted, the claimants to miss their termination hearing; and facts that show
that this arrest was followed out to its completion, vindictively, evidently in
order to teach the claimant Christopher additional lessons; such as ‘We can do
whatever we want to whoever we want. The
District Court Judge totally missed including all the facts and evidence that
showed how Ms. Nieman had collaborated with the County Attorney’s offices to
have claimant Christopher arrested; using such evidence we had already filed in
“Bruce I AND II”; such as the FILED state’s transcripts of the original
statements made by the plaintiff, Christopher to the 2 alleged social workers,
the alleged “Victims” (these were never filed in the criminal case, because to
do so would have shown the charges to be fabricated; the actual statements were
filed in both our juvenile cases two months prior, just after the incident); the
motion that asked the court to drop the 1st degree harassment JUST
BEFORE trial; the filing of the Victim Impact Statement of Ms. Nieman’s WELL AFTER
the case was closed and dismissed. There
was, at no time, a Victim Impact Statement filed on behalf of Ms. Gosch, DHS’
other ‘victim’.
m. The ruling
District Court Judge then (page 8, paragraph 2) refers to the bond amount
increase in FECR292312; and states it to be from $200 to $70,000; though the
increase was from $2000 to $70,000. In
paragraph 4, page 8, she states “plaintiff Christopher appeared before Judge
Egly in an initial appearance, on January 27, 2016; concerning the Tromblay
matter.” This was actually the initial
appearance for the Munson matter. Christopher
had already bailed out for the Tromblay matter; he was arrested again 3 days
later for the Munson matter on January 25th, 2016. The first sentence relates the event of
plaintiff Christopher challenging Judge Egly’s jurisdiction here in error, since
that challenge occurred during his appearance on the Munson matter; then relates
facts following this that concerned the Tromblay matter, which occurred during
the same time period. After this, the
rest of the story again unfolds in order; with the only exception being the
consolidation of cases (as this happened almost immediately after Christopher’s
arrest for the Munson case, before the trial for the Tromblay case, not after
it; see page 9, paragraph 3).
n.
The District Court Judge then passes up entirely NUMEROUS
violations of plaintiff Christopher’s rights, these events included the
appointment of Attorney/Defendant Taylor, because of Judge Kelly’s denial of
the right of the plaintiff, Christopher, to do things an attorney would be able
to do while he was incarcerated and self-represented; basically leaving him, as
his ONLY option, to HAVE to accept Mr. Taylor as a co-council in order to, for
example, get any documents on his cases or view any of the evidence against him. Other events include the hearing that Mr.
Taylor, conveniently, “could not attend,” where defendant Blink dismissed over
29 witnesses from testifying (these were all officials and civil servants) on
behalf of plaintiff Christopher and dismissed over 200 pieces of filed evidence
of the plaintiff’s as ‘Irrelevant’ 3 business days before trial; and denied him
to speak at all about the juvenile cases; as such testimony would have alluded
to the reasons the Munson case even existed; would have shown those who
conspired with Ms. Munson to have her play the victim for what actual reasons;
and finally, who was involved in creating this case out of nothing (John P.
Sarcone); as this defendant acted solely on the behest of the DCFS offices in
Los Angeles; who involved themselves because they didn’t appreciate plaintiff
Christopher’s mass emailing of their staff of social workers about crimes they
were involved in two days prior to his arrest.
It also states (page 10, paragraph 2) that the right of the plaintiff to
speak freely with his wife and his co-council was denied him; yet the plaintiff
related that he was not allowed to speak with ANYONE….his stand-by attorney,
his wife, witnesses, ANYONE without being recorded, and without the court’s
ability to use anything said by him in these recorded conversations against him
in court; while he was incarcerated. If
the District Court Judge states that the plaintiffs have shown NO violations of
rights, then she needs to be clear about the material facts that actually WERE
stated, in their entirety, instead of leaving out those parts of statements of
the claimants that clearly show violations of the plaintiff’s rights. Then the judge passes over other relevant
facts to the violation of plaintiff Christopher’s rights, such as Blink, Lane
and Taylor depriving the plaintiff, Christopher, of any information that told
him how he would proceed on probation after his release, and the purposeful
‘mistake’ of defendant Blink’s; in stating the incarcerated time would be 60
days before Christopher’s release to probation; and when the plaintiff returned
to the jail, this time period turned into 120 days. This matter was, of course, corrected, but
only after notice of plaintiff Christopher, and only after he filed an
immediate request for reconsideration in a letter to defendant Blink, filed on
the record of the Polk County Court. Also
passed are the facts of the probation office and the 2ND reconsideration
letter to defendant Blink. The letter from
the Ames office was sent to plaintiff Christopher AFTER Christopher had sent
Judge Blink a letter stating he was moving back to Des Moines and he wished to
not do a probation period but do his sentence instead. Also left out is that, one day prior to the
warrant issued, the plaintiff posted a 2nd letter to Blink on the
record of the court, asking him to not issue the warrant, since Blink had
already set up a hearing which concerned the matter of Christopher’s voluntary revocation.
Not mentioned, either, is that the day following
that 2nd letter, Blink issued the warrant anyway, without cause.
o.
The District Court judge then, on page 10, paragraph 2, states
that “the convictions were tainted by a libelous story in the Defendant’s Des
Moines Register that affected the jury verdict,” when it wasn’t
“convictions”. This story affected the
outcome of the more serious of these two cases, that of FECR292312. Also omitted are all facts showing the
obvious libel of the Des Moines Register/U.S.A. today in their publishing of
the unverified and incorrect “facts” of FECR292312.
p.
The District Court Judge then, beginning on page 10, paragraph 4,
and continuing on page 11, paragraph 2, goes right into the encounter of
plaintiff Christopher with defendant Theis and ignores the period prior to this
interaction. Missing is the entire set
up to this interaction, where Defendant Newbury Living colluded with defendants
Theis and Elscott to cause the plaintiff to do something that would violate a statute. Also missing are the two encounters with
OTHER officers of the DMPD, where no one said anything that the plaintiff was
doing was wrong, even when the plaintiff actually asked the 2nd
officer about any possible wrong-doing, and he said there wasn’t any. Further, the staff and defendant Elscott did
not “Watch plaintiff Christopher leave after he voluntarily did so,” they
followed along as he left the area in unison per Mr. Theis instructions, to
entrap the plaintiff by inciting his anger and causing him to violate a
disturbance law; which could then give defendant Theis cause to arrest
plaintiff Christopher. The description
of the incident by the judge does very little to reiterate STATED FACTS in the
claim that show clear violations of Christopher’s rights by these defending
parties, as the presiding judge does often.
Finally, on page 11, paragraph 3 of this summary, it mentions that the
EXTREMELY biased defendant, Price, then set a cash-only BAIL of $1500 per
charge on the 3 misdemeanor charges against the plaintiff in this matter,
though mention that these were 3 SIMPLE misdemeanor charges, the bail of which should
have been somewhere around $30 per charge (the bond itself was $300 per charge,
and not usually cash-only) is not mentioned in the District Court Judge’s order;
since this would CLEARLY show the violation of the plaintiff’s Constitutional
rights, both on the Federal AND the State level. These high bails; and the high bail set for FECR292312
(for 2 aggravated misdemeanors and a low-level felony) at $70,000 (when it should
have been $9,000) as they were imposed against plaintiff Christopher in both
SMAC343617 and FECR292312 are in DIRECT violation of one of the rights referred
to in the plaintiff’s claim, that which guarantees protection of a citizen against
the imposition of unreasonably high bails, bonds and fines; a right guaranteed
the people - not only in the U.S. Constitution, but also in the Constitution of
the State of Iowa, for those state’s citizens as well.
q.
The District Court Judge then refers to the fact that the
plaintiff, Christopher “filed a post-conviction relief application, although it
is unclear which conviction he challenged.”
Under claim item #120, it states “C.B. claimed that they had ordered an
unconstitutionally high bail in the underlying case (FECR292312)” This not only showed the case challenged in
PCCE080717; it also shows, both, that the District Court Judge did not take
proper judicial notice of the majority of the facts stated in the plaintiff’s
claim, and that she chose to skim through the claim and refer to only the facts
she chose to read and refer to.
The claimants now stop with these errors; because it should be
apparent that the District Court Judge did NOT address the claims with any sort
of accuracy, did not read or address a majority of either of these claims; and
ruled on them in error.
III. Argument
The plaintiffs in this matter choose, primarily, not to argue
these matters, since argument is made throughout the entirety of this
brief. Therefore, the claimants wish, at
this time, merely to remind the court of all decisions ruled by the SCOTUS
concerning matters of parents and their children over the years, as they did in
their petition of appeal to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
The SCOTUS has ruled thusly:
1.
This was a 4th Amendment (unlawful seizure) and 14th Amendments violation
(due process). This constitutional violation was recognized in a ruling from
the 9th Circuit pertaining to CPS investigation tactics found to violate civil
rights. Greene v Camreta, (9th Cir.)
(Heard in 2009 and 2011). 9th
Circuit civil rights case from Oregon holding common CPS investigation tactics
to be unconstitutional under either the 4th or 14th Amendment.
a. Social worker
lying to get an emergency removal order. The claimed lie was about the mother's
willingness to find another place for husband to live. This was a 4th Amendment
(unlawful seizure) and 14th Amendments violation (due process).
2.
Issue: Did the Court err in its failure to grant a
hearing and give full consideration of the nunc pro tunc to answer the purposes
of justice by proper analysis of the due process claim?
Standard of
Review and Preservation of Error. Error
has been preserved.
a.
Standard of Review
1.) This court reviews challenges to the
sufficiency of the evidence for corrections of errors at law. State v. Yeo, 659 N.W.2d 544, 547.
Error has been preserved. (See State v. Yaw, 398 N.W.2d 803,
805 (Iowa 1987.))
b.
Routing Statement:
2.) Per Iowa R. app. P.6.14(1)(e), this case would
be appropriate for consideration by the Iowa Court of Appeals as it involves
applying existing legal principles. Iowa
R. app., P.6.401(3)(b).
3.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that: “[T]he
custody, care and nurture of the child [should] reside first in the parents,
whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the
state can neither supply nor hinder.” (Meyer v. Nebraska)
The child is not
the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny
have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for
additional obligations.
The Supreme Court
has specifically recognized parental rights of custody and control. In the landmark decision of Meyer v.
Nebraska, closely followed by Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the
Court stated that parents have a substantive due process right to "bring
up children." These cases have withstood the test of time. Indeed, Justice
Brennan has remarked of Meyer and its progeny: "I think I am safe in
saying that no one doubts the wisdom or validity of those decisions." The
precedents Meyer and Pierce generated have further solidified the principle
that parents should have the predominant role in raising their children.
The principle enunciated by Meyer and Pierce, that parents have the right
to direct the upbringing and education of their children, has survived the many
turbulent changes of the last several decades.
In Meyer, the
Supreme Court held that the right of parents to raise their children free from
unreasonable state interferences is one of the unwritten "liberties"
protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court
recognized that the parents enjoy a "well recognized liberty interest in
rearing and educating their children in accord with their own views..."
including "the right to regulate their children's sexual behavior as best
they can..." The protection of parental rights should not have to be
achieved on a piecemeal basis through unpredictable and expensive court
challenges. The constitutional mandate articulated by Meyer and its progeny is
clear:
“The right of
parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children shall not be
infringed.”.
4. Two years after Meyer, the Supreme Court in
Pierce made clear that the constitutional rights of a parent are not limited to
physical custody, but that parents possess the right to direct their child's
"destiny." Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535
(1925).
5. Twenty years after Pierce, the Supreme Court
in Prince v. Massachusetts stated that: "[i]t is cardinal with us
that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents,
whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the
state can neither supply nor hinder.
6. The Supreme Court, in Parham v. J.R,
emphasized that simply "because the decision of a parent is not agreeable
to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the
power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the
state. (Emphasis added.) More recently, in the prominent case of Santosky
v. Kramer, the Supreme Court acknowledged that "freedom of personal
choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty" and stated that
natural parents have a "fundamental liberty interest...in the care,
custody, and management of their child.”
7. Similarly, in Bowen v. American Hospital
Ass'n, the Supreme Court recognized "a presumption...that parents are
the appropriate decision maker for their infants."
8. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit said it best, “The government’s interest in the welfare of
children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also
protecting children’s interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in
the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.” Calabretta v. Floyd,
189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999).
9. State employees who withhold a child from her
family infringe on the family’s liberty of familial association. K.H. through Murphy
v. Morgan, 7th Cir. (1990)
10. The forced separation of parent from
child, even for a short time, represents a serious infringement upon the rights
of both. J.B. v. Washington County, 10th Cir. (1997)
11. Parent's interest is of "the
highest order." And the court recognizes "the vital importance of
curbing overzealous suspicion and intervention on the part of health care
professionals and government officials." Thomason v. Scan Volunteer
Services, Inc., 8th Cir. (1996)
12. A State employee who withholds a child
from her family may infringe on the family’s liberty of familial association.
Social workers could not deliberately remove children from their parents and place
them with foster caregivers when the officials reasonably should have known
such an action would cause harm to the child’s mental or physical health. K.H.
through Murphy v. Morgan (7th Cir. 1990)
In order to conclude point the first, as well as the other two
points promised; what more needs to be said?
The removing agency themselves cleared the claimants of all wrongdoing,
expunged their records, and removed them from their wrongful place on the Iowa
Abuse Registry. Upon appeal by the
Attorney General in charge, Defendant Grant Dugdale, the Director of the
removing agency, Charles Palmer, AFFIRMED those decisions, made by the ALJ of
the DHS. Again, what more needs to be
said? Since the child was not abused,
and the report that said so ruled to be unfounded, the child should have been
IMMEDIATELY returned to the lawful parents, without fail and with full
apologies. The fact that she was not,
should convince this court unwaveringly all wrongs done these claimants in
every day that has followed the removal of their daughter, along with every
flagrant violation of each and every right that has occurred during the course
of 4 years. These are, in fact, 4 years
worth of absolute and unnecessary torture.
Relief and justice should have been granted to these claimants ages ago;
as well as CLOSURE in these matters; and closure and relief has been
continually and unerringly DENIED them at all turns. T.B. SHOULD BE ORDERED RETURNED TO HER
PARENTS IMMEDIATELY IF NOTHING ELSE, and All immunities claimed by these
defending parties should. expeditiously and absolutely, be denied them; as they
have obviously operated OUTSIDE of the scope of their duties, and have
maliciously violated each and every available and protected civil, due process
and Constitutionally guaranteed right these claimants have in doing so. The claimants ask this court to do its moral
and civic duty and proceed in filing charges of the crimes alleged, in whatever
way is possible. Argument is concluded
at this time.
III. Conclusion
In conclusion, there is good reason the plaintiffs’ claim of
damage is over 64 pages long - because it has to be. This is not only for the purpose of relating,
in full detail, all the crimes and violations of their rights as they have occurred
and still do against both the claimants over a long 4-year period; but also so as
to not deprive the court of a single detail that might be relevant to the
violations of those rights. The
plaintiffs wanted to ensure that District Court wouldn’t be inclined to label
the allegations made as “Threadbare” or “Conclusory.” The claimants NEVER
intended the short version of events (yes, the 64 page claim is the SHORT
version) to be further nut-shelled down by the District Court Judge; who,
because she wasn’t present for any of these events, somehow decided to select
from those parts of the claim she felt wouldn’t hold water; and omitted what
she felt wasn’t necessary (we the claimants accuse that this was done with extreme
bias in favor of ALL the defendants; in order to protect her friends in the
judiciary and in office in Iowa); with no right or ability to do so (since she
knew nothing of the TRUE facts, only those conspiratorial lies given the court falsely
by the defendants; those answers very nearly being obviously scripted,
rehearsed, and stated by the defendants in unison. These are believed by the District Court
Judge instead; because, evidently, even the most criminal person among us, when
in office, couldn’t possibly lie or engage in anything that could be construed
criminally…right?)
Every fact related by the claimants is relevant to another, and
also relevant to each defendant claimed against; and furthermore, each and
every fact lends absolute credence to the plaintiff’s allegations of conspiracy
against their rights; and of these same defendants’ RICO activities. The claimants, therefore, contend that the
entire order was made by the Federal District Court - in both cases at the same
exact time - in error; since the two claims (and, the two cases) are distinctly
different in a number of ways. The 2nd
contains more defendants, names the repeated defendants from the first claim to
now be individuals; omits their respective offices of ‘Government’ and
‘Authority’ as listed defending parties; contains over 16 more pages of
addressed allegations; states claims of damage against each defendant
successfully (since the claim from the first claim failed to state claims of
damage upon which relief could be granted; as the attorneys representing the defendants
hastily and identically pointed out in their answers). How is the 2nd claim’s order able
to state all of these matters as ‘Fully litigated’ and ‘identical’ when it is
held up against the first case’s claim, since, at the very minimum, a third of
the 2nd claim’s list of defendants are completely different, let
alone are there added and clear claims of damage, additional facts and evidence
that were filed for the 2nd claim?
We the claimants, then, hope that the appellate courts see through this
obvious attempt to (once again) deprive the claimants of their right for these
matters to be heard in front of a jury of their peers, and the possibility that
they might finally receive their due process and justice in the eyes of a court
of law.
Surely the claimants deserve some closure in these matters; as
well as some assurance that, in the future, should they experience flagrant
violations of their rights by those acting in official offices, that they have
a right to bring those violations to the Federal Judiciary and receive
something that even slightly resembles justice; instead of having the whole
thing tossed out at a moment’s whim, using every excuse in the book, by a Judge
of the District Court, who is either not really reading or taking proper note
of the facts stated in the claim; or who is purposefully ignoring any true
claims of damage, so as to avoid having to grant the claimants any relief that might
come to them at the cost to those she more than likely associates with closely
and protects from harm, those in office in Polk County and Iowa.
The claimants, at this time, wish to nutshell and reiterate these
clear points that show, absolutely, the error of the District Court in their
decisions concerning these matters:
1.
That neither the State of
Iowa OR the District Courts of Polk County, Iowa has had, at any time, ANY rightful
or lawful jurisdiction over the claimants or their daughter, T.B., in 4 years. This is not only because of the claimants’
NUNC PRO TUNC rescindment of all their signatures, submitted several times to
the state courts (as well as in their affidavits filed in both of these matters
on the District Federal Court of Iowa’s record;) their total and absolute
rejection of all contracts with the United States, Inc.; and their obvious status
of non-U.S. citizenship; as they are, instead, freemen of the formerly free (and
now pretty much no longer existent) republic of the united States of America;
but should also undeniably be a fact simply concerning the State of Iowa’s
employee, defendant Nieman’s falsification and forgeries on the original order
for temporary removal; and should we also mention this along with her blatant
criminal actions against the plaintiffs and her obvious and total disregard of
all of their civil, due process, and unalienable rights on every level; as she
cruelly ripped the claimants’ daughter from the mother’s arms while the mother
cried herself silly; without the presence or the consent of the LEGAL FATHER;
using no lawful right or reason in doing so; and after holding E.B. and T.B.
hostage at the hospital they deceitfully checked them into without their
knowledge for 3 days. These claimants
have the recording of the entire horrific and totally unlawful removal and have
submitted that evidence to every court mentioned, including the Federal
District Court; and that evidence has been purposefully not admitted at all for
6 days after it was filed in person by Claimant Christopher (on the State’s
District Court Level), rejected as new evidence so it wouldn’t have to be
considered (on the Supreme Court of Iowa’s level) and totally blown over and
ignored (on the Federal District Court’s level.) For any court to admit that this evidence even
exists in any way would not only totally destroy every right these courts MAY
have had to involve themselves in these claimants’ affairs or concerning their stolen
child, but would absolutely, and without question, show the criminality of this
removal; and, God forbid, would cause all of the courts of Iowa and their
judges to have to actually admit they were WRONG. This would also, of course, show
that they essentially KIDNAPPED our child; and would force those of all in oversight
over these courts to actually have to DO something about this, give the
claimants their relief; and also charge, convict and possibly jail those
responsible…and we can’t have that can we? This evidence is, once again, not mentioned or
referenced at all in the district Court Judge’s order; and because of this
fact, can only serve to show the total bias and disregard of the Federal
Government concerning violations of the rights of their citizens…and these claimants,
as non-citizens as well.
2.
That the removing agency themselves, The Department of Human
Services and their Director at that time, Charles Palmer, without question,
ruled in favor of the claimants in their Child Protective Assessment Appeal, stating
that the claimants’ daughter, T.B., had been taken from the claimants by the
DHS IN ERROR, and that the assessment used to take her was ruled and changed to
be “UNFOUNDED”. No charges were ever
filed against the claimants concerning the care of their daughter at any time
in 4 years, their records were INSTANTLY expunged; and they were INSTANTLY
removed from the abuse registry, following these decisions. In summary of both points one and two, only
one question could ever possibly remain:
Why have the courts of Iowa and the federal government even HESITATED
for a single second in ordering this child be given back to the RIGHTFUL
parents?
3.
The District Court continually refers to actions taken by the
defendants as “within the scope of their normal duties.”, or to the county
attorney “doing what he needs to do to affect an arrest or conviction” and to
the actions of these attorneys “while in the defense of a client”, etc. If the court could make the claimants believe
that these actions were performed within the scope of the defendant’s everyday
duties, it would be infinitely simpler for the claimants to accept defeat and
finally give up. If it intends to try and
convince the claimants of THESE defendants doing so, however, the claimants
would then have to preface that attempt with this wish: “Good luck with that.”
Is it this court’s opinion that it is within
the scope of the County Attorney’s offices’ normal duties to fabricate charges
with no real documented proof to back them up, or call the secret service; then
lie and tell them that the claimants threatened the President’s life, in order
to assure his arrest by them; or call FBI offices across the country, in an
attempt to have claimant Christopher investigated and arrested, when all
claimant Christopher has ever done is expose the crimes of the County Attorney,
his associates and his buddies in crime?
(If the appellate court will take special note that those of the FBI and
Homeland Security have NEVER been to the door of the claimants – though they
were for a long time infiltrating Christopher’s computer directly; playing his
messages out loud on his brother’s phone left for him in his voicemail box;
keylogging in behind him on Facebook; as well as scouring his email account for
evidence for over 3 years concerning these matters thanks to the calls made to
them by defendant Sarcone. But, since
they have never come to Christopher’s door in person to arrest him; it should
be obvious that no crimes are or have ever been committed.) How is it that libeling and slandering the
claimant, Christopher for 4 years within the normal scope of duties of both the
Polk County Sheriff and the Des Moines Police Department Detective listed in
this matter? How is it within the normal
scope of duties of a judge to declare that a legal father to be an extraneous
father, or deny the claimant his right to question this judge’s bias in front
of an appellate judge; or change the record of the court or fabricate hearings
and transcripts on a whim? Is it within
the scope of a judge’s duties to enforce excessively high bails, bonds and fees
in total and utter violation of the Constitution, or violate a claimant’s due
process rights by denying said claimant access to the record of the court for 2
months when the claimants are representing themselves? How is it that an attorney’s duties, in the
defense of a client can be protected or claimed proper when they don’t do as
their told or as they promise they will, participate in fraud, make up charges
or fabricate cases and paperwork? How is
within the scope of duties of a police officer to arrest whoever they think is
the perpetrator without properly identifying them or even having a warrant; or collude
with their “victims” to fabricate charges or entrap people they want to have arrested
or removed, because they couldn’t arrest them because they never committed a
crime they can be arrested for?
These are, of course, only a few of
the tens of obvious listed violations of rights and actions taken FAR BEYOND
the normal scope of these official duties, and yet, the Federal Courts are
obviously protecting these actions and those who committed them in grave error.
4.
The SCOTUS, those whose words become the law of this land,
allegedly, has ruled TIME AND TIME AGAIN in case after case after case (the
majority of those rulings have been referenced in the argument section of this
brief in abundance) that the State has NO BUSINESS interfering in the affairs of
parents when it comes to the raising of their children, especially in the
affairs of those who have done NO PROVABLE OR CHARGEABLE WRONG. Should this court, and the District Federal
court have trouble understanding this point, the claimants point them right
back to the first two points. Is it the
intention, both of the District and Appellate courts, to quite literally spit
in the face of those decisions? To do so
is to destroy all hope of anything resembling any kind of justice in being done
for any claimant who brings suit against any person in any position on any
level of Government; and it is obviously time for the people to know that this
withholding of justice happens and happens a lot. Rest assured that they will, and that it will
be plaintiff Christopher who will choose to be responsible for the distribution
of that knowledge to every single citizen he can find until the day he dies.
5.
It should be obvious to the appellate court that NUMEROUS efforts
to push the defendants behind the line of limitations by all of the Iowa courts
IN ALL MATTERS have been taken to the extreme detriment of the claimants in
these actions. The District Court judge
relates, specifically, that an example of equitable tolling is “when
affirmative misconduct on the part of the defendant(s) has lulled (or CAUSED)
the plaintiff into inaction.” First,
there was the misconduct of the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa taking a year
and 3 months to decide the matter of the claimants’ termination of parental
rights. Then, there was the misconduct
of Defendant Sarcone in conspiring with the DCFS offices in L.A. County and
defendants Lane, Taylor, Blink, Egly, Kelly, Munson and witnesses Worthington
and others; in creating a false case and further collusion with the same
defendants and “The Des Moines Register” to ensure he was convicted of it; a
case that caused claimant Christopher to spend a year in jail for nothing; as
well as the misconduct of the same defendants in enforcing a ridiculously
overpriced bond and bail to ensure he wouldn’t be released during the entire
time before trial. Then, there was the misconduct
engaged in concerning the purposeful jailing of plaintiff Christopher by
defendant Blink for the exact period of time needed to appeal that matter (and
the attempt to DOUBLE that period of time by “mistake”) added to the inaction
of colluding defendant Taylor when he promised he would file that appeal; and
then never did, nor did he look into the possibility of a mistrial by tolling
the jury as he also promised. Then, the
claimant addressed these matters and more in the Post-conviction case appeal which
he applied for DURING this wrongful incarceration, and Defendant Vaudt took a
full year to decide against the claimant in error, on all counts; after, and in
violation of their own rules of court; they should have given summary judgement
to the claimant at least 3 months before trial when the State didn’t answer the
claim or do anything in the case until 2 weeks before the trial; nearly 6
months after the claimant filed his case; and only because the claimant poked defendant
Sarcone with an email to tell him that he’d best get moving, or he’d lose. Are
these details not, in fact, specifically descriptive of “affirmative misconduct
on the part of the defendant(s)?” The
claimants believe they are.
6.
Probably worth mentioning
most of all is the fact that, prior to this 4-year period, claimant Christopher
had a record consisting of only 3 simple misdemeanors in 53 years, all
unrelated, and unrelated entirely to anything brought against him in these 4
years. It should strike the appellate
panel odd that the plaintiff has, in the last 4 years, suffered a child being
removed from both the claimants’ care for neglect (after Christopher had
ALREADY raised 3 boys well into their 20’s; and all are doing just fine; and
when the child was only 9 days old, hardly any time to determine “abuse”), lost
an appeal of his termination in the Iowa Supreme Court; was then accused of
harassing CASE ACTIVE SOCIAL WORKERS, during the course of their required
duties TWICE (and successfully convicted of it the 2nd time using NO
EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP); was arrested by the Secret Service for threatening the
President; was arrested for threatening a newspaper editor; was then arrested and
convicted for threatening to kill a woman he had only met once (when he didn’t
even know where she lived or worked; didn’t have a car, and lived 84 miles
away; just 2 days after he emailed 8000 L.A. county social workers to let them
know that their business was being aired on his blog); was then arrested for
violating his probation (when he voluntarily asked to be jailed for a year
instead just before that); then was and has been continuously called on by the
county attorney in countless offices of law enforcement and investigated ACROSS THE COUNTRY for possible acts of
terrorism (and, to reiterate a previously stated point - NO ARRESTS HAVE
OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS).
Odder still is the fact that the same claimant hasn’t had any trouble
since he moved out of Iowa to South Dakota a year and a half ago; nor has he
been accused or arrested for a single thing.
Also, Claimant Elizabeth has NO RECORD WHATSOEVER, and, prior to this
time, has never been in trouble, has never been accused of anything, and has
never been arrested…EVER!
In summary, all claimed defenses for most of these defendants do not
and should not apply, considering only the facts that the claimants’ daughter
was UNLAWFULLY and ILLEGALLY KIDNAPPED FROM THE CLAIMANTS; and was not returned
when they were cleared of the allegations.
If that isn’t enough, how about the NUMEROUS violations of their rights,
MORE SO of claimant Christopher’s rights by the majority of the defendants in
these matters? No defense can rightfully
or possibly exist, due to the PURPOSEFUL violations of all the claimants’ rights: the obvious CONSPIRACY against these rights,
as well as the activities engaged in for profit utilizing the claimants’
daughter. Finally, depravation of the
claimants’ due justice and relief by all the courts on every level thus far is
very clear and evident. Should this appellate
court find in favor of the defending parties, the claimants will pursue these
matters further; not only in the SCOTUS, but before WE THE PEOPLE and their
Grand Jury, directly before the DOJ, before the President of the United States and
the NATIONAL judicial oversight committee head; and will add those involved in the
lesser courts’ decisions, and those that continue to deprive the plaintiffs of
their justice in both these courts to the existing defendant’s list for their
conspiracy against the claimants as well.
