NOTE from the AUTHOR:
Thank you for caring enough about your country to read this article. I would hope that by the time you finish reading this, you are angry enough to raise your voices in unison, and demand the return of our country, and all the money you've paid into the pockets of the 1% and their traitorous lackeys...those in alleged "representation" of us, and in alleged "authority " over other countries just like us around the world.
Thank you for caring enough about your country to read this article. I would hope that by the time you finish reading this, you are angry enough to raise your voices in unison, and demand the return of our country, and all the money you've paid into the pockets of the 1% and their traitorous lackeys...those in alleged "representation" of us, and in alleged "authority " over other countries just like us around the world.
For those of you that are new to all of this, this is, hopefully, the next to the last article I write about me and my situation. Following the 8th circuit's FINAL ruling on this matter, (where, I'm certain, they will protect their minion on the lower level, as they almost always DO), I plan to dedicate every inch of space to the horror stories of others, from that day forward. THIS PARTICULAR article is special, however. I am, first, going to mass email this article to every citizen in POLK COUNTY, IOWA; then to everyone in Iowa; then, every email address I can scrape up across the country. Then, as a courtesy heads up for those criminals responsible, who I'm sure will have a flood of letters that are GUARANTEED to start pouring in; I will then email this to the senators and the Representatives of every state, and to every CPS AGENT, State AG, COUNTY ATTORNEY, GAL, ETC. I believe this might just be the end of this government-sponsored child-trafficking. If not, and some unexplained fire burns down my house a week into the job, well, somebody will just have to scoop up this article and complete my task.
I have led you here to witness the corruption of the courts as it pertains to me and my federal case; a case that stems from nearly 5 years of corrupt state activities and actions, and is a result of the same.
Folks, if you ever wanted to know what's REALLY going on in our now NON-EXISTENT system of justice, this is the article for you. It's very important that you pull out your copy of the Constitution and follow along...because what you see here will change your life.
Also to you newcomers, this blog represents my 4 1/2 year personal battle to recover my rightful legal and my wife's biological property, my daughter, stolen from her mother nigh on 5 years ago. We are currently fighting in the 8th Circuit Appellate Court in St. Louis against 30 or so of Iowa's more criminal officials (you can see the entire record of the appeal at WWW.PACER.GOV, case #18-3038/39. Here is what has been going on, and what you desperately need to see and learn for yourself, per my example.
Before we begin, this ENTIRE blog is dedicated to my lost daughter, TRYLYNN MARIE BRUEGGEMAN. Daddy loves you, forever and always. I never stopped fighting for you EVER. Here, you can find EVERYTHING these criminals of Iowa did, to keep our love from you. You WILL find out the truth HERE, someday.
This post is also dedicated to the thousands of families torn to shreds by Iowa's corrupt courts, the Department of Human Services, The Polk County Attorneys Offices, The Attorney Generals Office, and every other court in Iowa. More so, it is dedicated to parents across our country that are ALL suffering just the same way. Ultimately, believe it or not, this is dedicated to those parents AROUND THE WORLD THAT ARE ALSO SUFFERING FROM THIS MAFIA SCAM. It is also dedicated to the tireless efforts of the THOUSANDS of parent warriors who fight this corruption DAILY, WORLD-WIDE; including those victims of divorce and custody, parental alienation and Child Protective Services. We will continue to fight until God strike us DEAD, and those who BOTH CAUSED AND IGNORED this state-wide, nationwide and world-wide pain are BROUGHT TO JUSTICE!!!
To see the original claim in this action, please, go here:
To see the claimants initial appellate brief, go here:
and, finally, to see our reply to THESE briefs en masse, go here:
http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-fed-funny-farm-take-2-part-viii.html
P.S. - There is a SLIGHT chance...though a doubtful one, that the appellate court may do the right thing and rule in favor of the claimants..and if they ruled in our favor at this point, it's probably likely that it's only because of the fact that you have seen this, and are waiting for their ruling to be published. Please, do NOT count on that. No guarantees.
P.S. - There is a SLIGHT chance...though a doubtful one, that the appellate court may do the right thing and rule in favor of the claimants..and if they ruled in our favor at this point, it's probably likely that it's only because of the fact that you have seen this, and are waiting for their ruling to be published. Please, do NOT count on that. No guarantees.
*********************************************************************
INTRO:
HELLO AMERICA, and welcome to the "death of the justice system.", AS WELL AS all this means to you. I have probably sent you an invitation, via email or press release, for the express purpose of rocking the very foundations of our country, our justice system, our most basic human and unalienable rights, those additionally and allegedly covered by our Constitution, and more. Here, in this case, and in THIS article in particular, you will see and, hopefully, finally believe things you have dreaded might be truth, since you hear these rumors more and more today than you ever have. This will change the way you view EVERYTHING that happens in this country, and will change your moral outlook, concerning all you see happening in it. Hopefully, this will serve to finally raise a little good ol' fashioned moral outrage, and cause something to be done about it.
You folks are going to find us a little bit hard to believe, but we have been the victims of a nationwide scam that has been running for well over a hundred fifty years. I will not go into the whole thing today, but I will tell you that you are being fleeced for a great deal of your money nearly every single day; for all of your property, and, someday, you may also be deprived of you children.
The perpetrators of this mafia scam? Why, your federal, state and local Government, of course. They are NOT what they have pretended to be, in "Authority" over you, but since this fraud scheme was so devious, and happened a long time ago, the knowledge of it by the average citizen is rare. It is my intention, through the mailing of this article, to raise that awareness JUST enough to cause you to start looking into this some more...to plant the seed of doubt, if you will.
Probably the largest and most un-deniable evidence of the fraud and fleecing of the American Public, is best shown in the place you, allegedly, receive your "justice;" and in dealing with any other officials in office. Do you ever feel like you pay these people to do their jobs already, but pay them again and again for additional services, like administrative fees, copies, court costs, etc.?
These people's jobs are already paid for...by you!! They are, quite simply, double and triple dipping into your pockets. Keep in mind that your taxes, on all levels, are paying these people to DO THEIR DUTY. In the case of the judiciary, this should include each...and every....thing that judges and clerks DO. It doesn't. Here's a list of extra money extorted from the American people pay in their pursuit of State and Federal justice:
1. A charge to file your action. Oh sure, for those filing on their own behalf, they have an option to file IN FORMA PAUPERIS, which translates to "I'm much too poor to pay the filing fee." Isn't that great. The problem with this is, once that fee is covered, there are many other fees that cover their loss. We'll get to those in a moment. For everyone else, the average fee for filing on a state level is $150 for an appeal. For federal, it costs you $400 to file on the District Court level, $500 for the appellate level...and to the U.S. FEDERAL SUPREME COURT? Nearly $1000...and the Supreme Court, in 1 out of 1000 cases, does not choose to address your case. Isn't that fantastic? For $1000, pal, you had BEST hear MY case.
2. Pacer. Pacer is the service, on the Federal Court level, that allows you, the litigant, to view your documents electronically. There is, however a rather large downside. To do so (and, of course, this allows you to download your docs to your PC or print them) costs you $.10 a page. And YOU'RE DOING ALL THE WORK. For viewing the entire page of docketed documents in your case (this does NOT include viewing the documents), costs you $.10 a computer page, as well. NOTE: the cost to view your own documents, that you filed? SAME CHARGE.
3. Court costs, should you lose. Wait...so I have to pay...if I lose too? Isn't the fact that I lost and didn't get any relief or monetary compensation enough, now I have to pay MORE money because I lost, for the costs to the courts? What about the filing fee....doesn't that serve to pay for those costs too? What the Hell!
So....the fleecing of America is very obvious in the pursuit of justice. Justice, my friends, is supposed to be free...and yet we pay these people to do their jobs...then pay them to do their jobs...then pay someone else to do our own work in the case (or pay some attorney a ridiculous hourly wage to do it for us), then pay them to do their jobs again. There's your free justice, America. Worse still, is the fact that most cases...I believe ALL cases, myself....those filed against the Government, are dismissed before they even get to trial. Some free justice THAT is.
There's an awful lot more to the fraud perpetrated against Americans besides that of our nation's courts, and those will be dealt with, in articles that will be added to this blog, very soon...but this is probably the most important, since it is through the courts that a lot of this fraud stems, as well as where a lot of it happens. This is due to the fact that the majority of people in this country do NOT know about the law, or very little of it...and those who DO know about it are part of the scheme.
The Color of Law
Before we tear into the first briefs, submitted by the State of Iowa; in defense of its COUNTY HIRED judges, then move on to those of CPS and more; it’s important to relate to Americans everywhere that each and every attorney, each and every judge in this great country of ours is currently operating against every citizen UTILIZING COLOR OF LAW. More so, so is every other official in ANY position. The term color of law is defined as “an appearance of legal power to act against the citizens that may operate in violation of law.” This places every official in office today and everything they do, squarely in the box of using the color of law in their daily functions against this country’s citizens.
U.S.C. 42, Section 1983 - Deprivation of your rights using color of law (Fed. Code)
The Color of Law
Before we tear into the first briefs, submitted by the State of Iowa; in defense of its COUNTY HIRED judges, then move on to those of CPS and more; it’s important to relate to Americans everywhere that each and every attorney, each and every judge in this great country of ours is currently operating against every citizen UTILIZING COLOR OF LAW. More so, so is every other official in ANY position. The term color of law is defined as “an appearance of legal power to act against the citizens that may operate in violation of law.” This places every official in office today and everything they do, squarely in the box of using the color of law in their daily functions against this country’s citizens.
The first way we know this is that lawmakers, those in “representation” of you in your U.S. and State houses and senates are not real “lawmakers.” The LAW is already put in place; and doesn’t fill up an entire set of books, it takes up about 2 lines on any given page. In summary, common law says “Do not harm others, and do not harm or deprive another of his/her rightful property.” What these “lawmakers” are in reality is hotly under debate, but they have no real right to create or subject you to their countless “laws”. And why not? Well, for one thing, they don’t follow those laws themselves, and are immune to all suit that may arise against them because of the same. Didn’t know that? Read on. For another, they don’t come to you to find out how you feel about those laws before they pass them, they don’t ask for your input or opinion, and they don’t ask for you to read them or vote on them either; as they should, in their representation of you or the area you reside in. Because they do not have your informed consent or permission to pass them, only your IMPLIED consent, through their falsely claimed REPRESENTATION of your district or state; they are, without question, not able to enforce those laws against you; and they are just words on a piece of paper. Should they ever attempt to do so, they are OPERATING UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
For a known situation presenting a “color of law” incident, when a social worker comes to your door stating that they have the right to be let in and check on your children, she is lying, and is attempting to use the color of law to enter your home without your consent, presenting that she is granted this power by those who put her to work. She has no such power granted her, the Constitution clearly states that you, a U.S. Citizen, are protected against unwarranted searches and seizures by ANYONE. Thereby, just like police officers who tell you that they have a right to search you, your car, etc., she is operating under color of law; and at the same time, circumventing THE law that states otherwise. More importantly, none of these social workers are actually working FOR what we believe to be “The Government.” The place that employs these people is a BUSINESS, activated for the intention of protecting children. So how about attorneys, judges, etc.? Let’s take a more complicated example.
Say you’re representing yourself in your own person; and issue summons to witnesses to testify on your behalf, and some of those are attorneys, police officers, judges or officials of office. You have a right, per the Constitution to call witnesses on your behalf, and that law is prevalent, and is not to be refused you. Then, because they don’t wish to do so, each of the police officers and officials put motions into the case, asking that they be let out of testifying for you. The judge, then, can release each of the witnesses you called, by “quashing” their subpoenas, and ruining your entire defense. One such Judge released the majority of my elected witnesses by stating that, to have them leave their taxpayer paid jobs to come and answer three questions for you that might take 5 minutes, that this was considered to be “overly burdensome” on him, since it would take him away from his duties as ….whatever, for that amount of time, and it was deemed an “inconvenience” for him. Yeah. They did that, and they did that with each of the 29 officials that I had subpoenaed for this case. Worse still, we had PAID to have those subpoenas served to these people. Who eats that cost then? You do, of course. How does a judge get around doing this? Well, it does say that you have a right to call witnesses in your defense. It doesn’t say that the judge must let them testify. That judge has just operated using color of some local court rule to quash those witnesses from having to testify for you. Whereas he may have circumvented your right to call witnesses, however, it is, ultimately, a serious violation of your due process rights.
And another thing, for the citizens, if we’re called to testify in a case, what do you believe the chances are, that, if you do not wish to testify, that the judge will quash YOUR subpoena for you? Little to zero, I’m betting. As a matter of fact, if you choose to not come when a judge subpoenas you, your absence is called “Contempt of court” and you are charged and arrested. And, again, you, the citizen, believe that these “Judges” are working for your “Government”, and have authority that gives them power over your lives, when in reality, they work for your county, which is a BUSINESS. They have NO SUCH AUTHORITY THAT HAS BEEN GRANTED THEM BY “THE GOVERNMENT OR THE LAW.” It would surprise you, surely, to know that we don’t have a legitimately empowered “Government”, not one that is described by our Constitution anyway.
More so, every judge in this country is, essentially an elevated attorney, a person that was appointed to fill the position by someone that wasn’t you, obviously; as is every Supreme Court Justice on the bench. At no time have the people or the states ratified a law that demands that each judge be a former attorney; nor did they elect that man or woman by popular vote to fill this position of authority over them. They were slowly taught to accept that attorneys had to be licensed BAR attorneys, and that Judges could only be former BAR attorneys; and accept this as a fact, but the fact is, that attorneys were, at one time, not even allowed to enter the courtroom, and a judge’s position could be filled by ANYONE. As the BAR came into existence, and as the law changed, attorneys managed to weasel their way back into the courtroom, and then what do you know…all of a sudden you HAVE to be an attorney, and as judges managed themselves various immunities to suit, given them by “LAWMAKERS”, attorneys, of course, were extended that privilege as well. I think it’s kind of funny that, we think of lawyers as money-grubbing snakes; and we somehow don’t feel that way or think of a judge in the same way. You should. They are one in the same, make no mistake. Once a snake…always a snake. Who do you believe it was of the people that came to agree to this “fact of life” then? It sure wasn’t any of us regular people, you can certainly count on that.
Folks, you have to understand that consent DOES NOT COVER ONLY YOUR VERBAL RESPONSE OR YOUR SIGNATURE…Consent can be IMPLIED….just by your silence. Because you do not reject or object to the law, you are, essentially saying YOU AGREE TO BE RULED BY AND ARRESTED FOR IT. Because you are not generally allowed to speak for yourself in a court of law unless you’re representing yourself, and your attorney is speaking for you, you are consenting to his representation, and thereby, setting yourself up to fail, since you do not speak on your own behalf. DO YOU GET IT YET? You have to OBJECT TO THE LAW, OBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY SPEAKING FOR YOU, AND OBJECT TO THE JUDGE HAVING ANY POWER OVER YOU, or they assume that you agree to all those things, and act against you. The problem with that now, is that we have not spoken against these courts and those acting as judges for so long, that even if you do, it’s likely that the judge will ignore you and continue acting against you anyway.
What the American people have to MAINLY get out of this article and these defending briefs, is that Statutes, Codes, Regulations and Ordinances, passed by your alleged “lawmakers” ARE NOT REAL LAWS; and immunities are being falsely garnered to protect the biggest lawbreakers of all…your judges and elected officials…and the lawmakers THEMSELVES. Did the lawmakers for your district ever call you up, asking for your opinion of that statute? Did he ask for your consent to pass it? Did you have any hand at all at creating the law? Have you even READ the statute (If you did, you’d be amazed at how they are really stated, and would agree very quickly that the common man wouldn’t define the same crimes like they do)? I think we can answer A BIG NO to all those questions. Then, anytime you’re arrested for this statute, you are being arrested under color of law; being tried for it utilizing color of law and being convicted under color of law; by a person operating under color of law.
U.S.C. 42, Section 1983 - Deprivation of your rights using color of law (Fed. Code)
So how does this relate to a FEDERAL CODE U.S.C. 42 section 1983 rights violation action? Attorneys, as well as other officials of Government on all levels; are, essentially, now considered to be officials of the court, after a fashion; and now enjoy immunities formerly passed for them by lawmakers for their protection. With those immunities, they can now weasel out of being held responsible for violating your rights; and enjoy these immunities, mostly because their judicial counterparts enjoy them, as former attorneys.
A 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action and its respective code IS SUPPOSED TO protect you, the citizen from unwarranted vindictive and malicious violations of your Constitutionally protected rights, as they were executed by those of YOUR “GOVERNMENT”, those in official office. The problem is, that it DOES NOT do this. No, every lawmaker, every President, every Senator, judge, representative, attorney, court clerk, etc. is NOW IMMUNE, NOT ONLY TO SUIT, BUT TO CRIMINAL CHARGES, AND CAN VIOLATE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FREELY and BREAK THE LAW AGAINST YOU, AND GET AWAY WITH IT SCOT FREE OF ALL ACCOUNTABILITY, no matter what the crime, no matter what the intent, no matter if it was executed vindictively, etc. There is case law, rulings by JUDGES THAT ARE OPERATING UNDER COLOR OF LAW, that protect each…AND EVERY PERSON, on ANY level of “Government”, whether city, county, state, or federal doesn’t matter.
Here's a scenario I’ll bet NONE of this country’s citizens knows or believes happens. Should a situation arise where no law is in place to arrest someone, you can call an emergency session of your local lawmakers, and create one, vote on it, pass it over to your counterparts in the house, then rush it to the Governor, who also wants this law passed. What you don’t consider here, is - what if this law is to help only them, say, get by with appropriating someone’s rightful property, or freeze and take their assets? – You would believe this couldn’t happen…but folks, it happens a lot, I GUARANTEE it. It’s called SELF-INTEREST LEGISLATION; and is exactly the category that IMMUNITY TO ALL SUIT falls under.
THE DIAMOND SHIELD (Immunities)
There are so many things that you, a citizen, believe protects you; especially in the law, and these protections simply DO NOT EXIST. For instance, my former state has a rule that, if you do not plead guilty or not guilty to your charges against you, the Judge of the court can, by “law”, enter a plea for you. Bet you didn’t know that actually happens.
On the subject of immunities, I say we should ask, first of all, if you’re doing nothing wrong….what do you need immunities for? One of the biggest arguments stated at the time in favor of these immunities being granted to ONLY Senators and Representatives, our alleged “lawmakers” (and to those in important positions in Washington), protections that were later granted to Judges and Lawyers, and, without your knowledge has NOW been granted to EVERYONE IN ANY OFFICIAL POSITION…was that if they were always in court defending themselves in lawsuits, they would not be able to function in their positions. I say, do no wrong, and you won’t be sued. What WASN’T SAID, I’m sure, was that, should they violate your guaranteed rights or commit crimes against you, as they came to later on, they could NOT BE BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES OR SUED. And what do you believe happened then? Folks, you have to know that, thanks to rulings by those immune to all laws and suit, these people are now able to COMMIT CRIMES AND VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY and will never EVER go to jail, will never face criminal charges, will never be held accountable for creating law that is wrong, and will never ever pay for what they’ve done. Is this what you want America? Was this your intent when you allowed this to happen; or, more so, did you ever know this was a fact of life…AT ALL? Well…now you do.
Now get this…there is now a new immunity called QUASI immunity (like "Kinda Pregnant"), that allows someone ORDERED to do something by an official of government, to perform a duty, in which case, he can ALSO commit crimes against you, and he/she will be immune to all of the above. I have to seriously believe that none of this country’s citizens are aware of the extent of this powerful group of ways that each and every person operating officially can use to get out of paying for violating your rights and can now do whatever they like without fear of justice coming after them.
My fellow citizens, it's like this: These people are protecting themselves and gathering up these ways out of suit FOR A REASON. Little do you know, but there's going to be a rather sharp increase in accountability-type lawsuits VERY soon...and you have to know that, when you do bring these suits that all of these people in office will, more than likely beat you down and slip out of your fingers, if you don't raise the alarm about this NOW, and bring change to this self-serving, self protecting system; and, in conjunction to that, restore justice and accountability back to our country, we are more doomed, and the suicide of our country will finally do us in. The consequences, should you ignore this warning will be DEVASTATING...to you, to your fellow citizens, and to our race as a whole.
THE BRIEFS
We will be adding ALL 9 defense briefs, minus 1....that of Carlton Salmons, defending Tony Reed. Mr. Salmons will not be filing a defense brief.
In the state’s briefs to follow, I will show you this corruption in the courts and judiciary, in living color and high def, in all the briefs, written by these 9 defending attorneys in full representation of these state, county and city officials. Here, you will be aghast at how each and every person, while engaging in every rights violation that occurred against us for four and a half years, whether due process, Constitutional, unalienable, and civil, and even our BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS; were covered by some immunity, some ruling, or some statute. Essentially, it presents as only one thing folks. You are not Constitutionally protected against these people, nor are you able to get relief if they violate you or your rights. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY LIKE…and you are SCREWED. PERIOD.
So whaddya say we get right to it, eh? You do realize that these claimants, at NO TIME, ever thought they would win in these actions. We knew eons ago we would not, absolutely. The PRIMARY and SOLE purpose of these cases is to expose these “officials” and show you that you have no more protection from those in office than a common prisoner; or more accurately, a common slave, or a cow. You have no basic human or civil rights. You have no Constitutional rights or guarantees. You have no Constitution, and you have no say in anything that concerns LAW. You, my friends are a piece of corporate property, you are like a dead thing, with no right to speak up for yourself. Everything you have, and everything you do, is not yours, nor do you have a choice in any matter. You are a slave, just like the African slaves of old, and when you were defined a “U.S. Citizen”, it was to deprive you of all the above. The purpose of these suits, my friends, is to show you who you are enslaved to, and show you that if you have any complaint against any official, you will never…EVER win out. Let’s go then and let the criminals and the crimes fall where they may.
These first two briefs came from the State of Iowa. They are, of course, the worst of the bunch. There is no violation of rights that is not covered by the ruling of some judge someplace, sometime in history. It presents BEST why justice will never again be granted to the People in such an action. I will be pointing out all the excuses, reasons, immunities, etc. in the commentary following the relevant offense. I placed the state briefs in the pole position, because the attorneys are even trying to claim immunity to the federal code ITSELF; namely, a DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS USING COLOR OF LAW, or 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action. Folks, if you do not reign in those of our local, state and federal “government” now, soon, they’ll be able to walk up to you and shoot you in the head, and there will be nothing you can do to receive due justice for it. These people have elevated themselves to the position of GOD and will use that position to accomplish all they desire, free of accountability, make no mistake. They have no accountability, and absolute power…and worse, the military, and their best weapons to date (actual cloaked killer drones, the 5G microwave active denial cell phone network, and DEW’s). So what’s to stop them from taking over the lives of the people, taking their property and stripping them of their freedoms; maybe even their very lives? NOTHING. These 2 briefs will prove, beyond ALL SHADOW OF DOUBT, that this is the truth, in the very words of those who enjoy their GOD STATUS....for now. In the following brief, you can skip down to just under the summary of the case is located, where both the BS of the State of Iowa and my commentary begins.
At the end point of every brief, we aim to present a summary of the issues they present, my answers to them, and my solutions.
NOTE: It would only take a REASONABLE PERSON anywhere in this country about halfway into any one of these briefs to realize that, should you be wronged by ANY official ANYWHERE, and try to bring suit against them, that there is NO JUSTICE OR REMEDY THAT IS AVAILABLE TO YOU, the U.S. Citizen. We'll get back to this later, I promise. Naturally, in the more important strings of commentary, I will point this out so that you will believe it ABSOLUTELY....BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
NOTE: It would only take a REASONABLE PERSON anywhere in this country about halfway into any one of these briefs to realize that, should you be wronged by ANY official ANYWHERE, and try to bring suit against them, that there is NO JUSTICE OR REMEDY THAT IS AVAILABLE TO YOU, the U.S. Citizen. We'll get back to this later, I promise. Naturally, in the more important strings of commentary, I will point this out so that you will believe it ABSOLUTELY....BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
1. Brief sumitted for the State of Iowa AG for the Judges and a GAL
I'd like to say that this guy doesn't waste even a second with his BS, and neither does Mr. Phillips on the next brief. Mr. Phillips' brief is twice as long, and twice as BS packed. I've never known a person anywhere, aside from Emily Nieman, our child stealer and a defending party, that could possibly pack so much dishonesty in a single sentence.
Now, should you truly be interested, the order(s) for both federal district court cases are here:
http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-fed-funny-farm-take-2-part-v-death.html
Mr. Rancht begins his dishonest defense almost immediately. The District Court Judge didn't only "acknowledge" our "Voluntary" dismissal of the defendants named in the motion for dismissal in "Bruce I", she grabbed onto that puppy like a marlin on a hook, and refused to let go. I haven't had the patience to count the number of times this "voluntary dismissal" of the defending parties is mentioned in her orders, but it's a LOT, as it is also in these defending briefs that the matter is beat to death as well. I'll see you soon, after the summary of issues.
Notice the Marlin hook again? They simply cannot let go of that "voluntary dismissal" hook. One thing you'll begin to notice, but will be sick of by the time you get three pages down; is the tendency of these attorneys to latch onto what looks to win the case for them best, and shake that sucker until it's bloody, beaten and decomposed. Another thing you see is that, because this is good for them, they will cite case law in favor of this dead stinky meat, backing what you did (wrong), then praise you for doing just what they hoped you'd do; giving them a reason for the court to affirm the district court decision AGAINST the claimants. Gee. Thanks buddy.
This attorney goes a little nuts on the whole "dismissal" thing, in that, "DAMMIT, I DISMISSED THEM. LET 'EM BE DISMISSED, THEN!!" The claimants absolutely agree. Let them be dismissed...in the first action. Then put them right back in, in the 2nd case. What's the problem here? There is no problem. This is no issue, folks. I am not challenging the district court judge's decision to dismiss them, anyway. I am challenging her methods, and, as I stated in the initiating brief on appeal, and other places, her way of deciding the cases.
Finally, one thing I despise about orders and motions that refer to actions taken and rulings made by other judges; like in all the cases I mention in the claim; an attorney believes to simply re-state the wrongful or illegal decision made by some unknown or innocuous judge somewhere, matter-of factly, without a backing statement, as if just stating that decision or action, performed by one of their judge buddies; means what he said or did is more revered than The Gospel of Luke, now carries more weight, accuracy, and wisdom than anything said relating to King Solomon, and is presumed to be 100% devoid of error.
For instance, "The Supreme Court found that Mr. Bruce was a legal father, but not considered a PARENT per definition of Iowa code section....blah blah blah; BSBS, and per the decision of J.C. vs...."....whatever bullshit case. So, in essence, because A judge in some bullshit case decided to redefine the term "Legal Father" to mean an extra father, then IT IS SO. Period. "Oh, and only here in Iowa. As soon as you cross the border to Nebraska, you'll be a legal father again. Have a nice day." Now, that statement is GOLD, and there's no dispute that will change anyone's mind about it...uuuuuuuuuuntil the next judge comes along, with a whole different viewpoint, and overturns it. Then the word of the first judge is unusable and is no longer good case law, and the latest one's decision then becomes gold...until the next guy, and it starts over again. Folks, surely you're not stupid enough to believe that just because it comes from a judge's mouth, it's auto-gold. I wouldn't trust some of these judges to wash my car correctly, let alone rule whether I'm guilty or innocent.
Pay attention now, here comes the first legal cite that backs up his logic....wait for it.....waaaaaaait for iiiiiiit........and.....ACTION! Take note that, how this cite references or associates to my case is EXTREMELY vague. All you see is part of the quote...I'm sure, with anything that contradicts its validity omitted. Even one too many non-associated words can ruin an entire opinion reference, so these attorneys are extra careful never to say a word too much.
Here's another problem I have with these attorneys and judges citing the opinions of their fellow judges; most of our law is NOT able to be found on the internet, or in one place either. Our law is spread out across the country, in dusty tomes; in the offices of, and on the shelves of everyone; from "Merryl Lynch" to "Pat the Pompous Potus, Attorney." Good luck verifying the case law cited without your $1000 subscription to Lexus Nexus, where I believe there is only around 25% of all law categorized, nationwide. I'm sure just the words "The Challenge must fail because the appellants themselves sought the dismissal" were all the words he really needed, and that this reference probably continues on more than enough to discredit it in just a few more words or couple of sentences. Who knows what that case was about, or if it was at all relevant to this one, and good luck finding and verifying that suspicion as well....if you even have the energy available to follow up ALL the case law these attorneys find and cite, God knows where. Something tells me that the judge himself is lwho stores up all this case law for those attorneys defending his peers, should they happen along at some time. I happen to know, as testified to fact, that most attorneys without their very own paid paralegal, are far too lazy to do all the research and locate all the case law they end up presenting in their briefs. "THANKS JUDGE, I'LL PAY YOU BACK WHEN WE WIN!"
Ahhhhhhhhhh.........finally a good place for me to quit yackin' and start really addressing some notable issues you HAVE to be made aware of. Note, just after they talk about my Gravy Man (what the hell, and who knows what a GRAVAMAN is in the real world??), then he quotes the District Court, basically stating Judges get immunity for all their acts as a judge EXCEPT...and here it is, "for actions OUTSIDE OF HIS OR HER CAPACITY," and for actions "taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction."" OK, and thank you, for completely winning my case FOR ME.
See, NONE of our courts, from sea to shining sea, have jurisdiction over you...unless your feet are IN the sea...of commerce. They are unlawful NON-CONSTITUTIONAL courts - some have said admiralty, some say Military Tribunal, and some say Martial Law courts. Whatever they really are, these folks and I all agree on one thing. They are not "courts of law", or "Article III courts of Record;" as they are supposed to be, though they may have been once upon a time. What they are now is a lot closer to the "Law and Order" version of "Captain Kangaroo," or "Monty Python's Flying Circus." None currently "in force" have jurisdiction over you. Challenge their jurisdiction right away, as soon as you appear in front of your judge. It won't work for dismissal; and they may not follow the rules following such a challenge (they're supposed to deal with this challenge IMMEDIATELY) and they couldn't POSSIBLY rattle off their jurisdiction honestly, on the spot; and will say just about anything, even the wrong thing, in order to sound like they have the right answer; but it will mess them up and cause them to walk sideways for a while, until they come up with a believable answer for you; plus cause them to pause and wonder if ruling over your case is really something they have the strength to follow through on.
2nd, there's the phrase "Outside of his or her capacity"...meaning actions taken OUTSIDE the scope of their normal everyday duties. The problem with this phrase is this: What if, while the judge is relating the verdict of the jury to the courtroom, he pulls out a pistol and shoots both the defendants on trial in the head. That murder could be said to have happened during the time he was operating in his official capacity...right? And, you know this is the logic this attorney is shooting for the judge to use to come to his decision, since he mentions that I mention violations of my rights in conjunction with things a judge does; like "Blink issuing a warrant without cause," or Price "ruling on the termination, saying he has no rights to terminate." (I included the violations in the phrases used here. The attorney goes out of his way to leave the violations OUT of these quoted statements).
Let's also consider the phrase, "Within, OR outside the scope of his official duties." What an incredibly vague statement THIS is. Sir, I would like a list of each and every official, and described next to those names, I want you to define the SCOPE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES, and where they start the scope...and where it ends. When is a judge no longer his official self? Is it just after the robe comes off, or when he actually punches out...or maybe not until he is completely off the property of the courthouse; who knows?
As to these attorneys on this point, their immunity while serving could be legally argued to the insane level. When you hire one, they're on the job 24/7, until you relieve them of their help, or the last gavel falls in your case, right? That means they can do all the wrong they want, in between these two points in time, and be immune the whole time. Technically, this immunity could be true for judges too, from the moment your case opens to its conclusion. And really, as long we're trucking down that path of legal insanity, could we ever say that either lawyers or judges are ever NOT operating in their official capacity, since they always have a case open, or are always representing a client somewhere? I wonder...could they violate your rights while representing someone else and still be immune? I'm betting so.
Evidently, as long as they're doing their job or "Acting in their official capacities"....whenever that actually starts and stops, the world may never know...while they violate your rights, or commit crimes, it's O.K. You're excused mister. For the judges, they then lump the violation of your rights and the duty together into a big unrecognizable lump and call it a "Judicial Act.", and deem it IMMUNE TO PROSECUTION. Cool, huh? For those other officials, naturally, this same lump is called "An official act", and the same immunity applies.
You'll notice, now, that this attorney is attempting to put words in my mouth, as well as define my feelings about these judicial decisions. Excuse me? Do I know you? How do you know I'm frustrated, to start with; furthermore, how are you going to tell the court how I feel or how I felt, or how I'm about to feel...at all?? More so, because he knows how I feel...frustrated, well, this gives me no right or cause to bring a federal action. Whaaaaaatever pal. But then, saying this gives him a great bridge over to yet another useless piece of case law he can use to defend his position. So I guess we can let that slide, huh? OK, so let's review the reference. Federal case...check. Pierson v. Ray....check. What's this reference do for this attorney? Sorry...don't see it. What I believe he's saying is this. The judge was acting officially, doing his job...so, he's immune. PERIOD. Convenience, that's what this is all about, isn't it? Doesn't matter if he was violating rights. Doesn't matter if he might have been in the process of committing a crime against the person he was ruling over at the time. He was doin' his job. He's innocent, regardless. You starting to get it yet America? If not, you know I have more. Let's go on. Here's a part I've been waiting for. You're gonna love this. Now we're quoting a judge ruling this ridiculous statement that would NEVER FLY where the people are concerned:
"Judicial immunity applies EVEN WHEN THE JUDGE IS ACCUSED OF ACTING MALICIOUSLY OR UNJUSTLY."
...and there you have it America. Even though the judge may be acting maliciously, vindictively, violates your rights, wrongfully convicts you....it DOESN'T MATTER. As long as he's doing his job....he's immune. Kinda takes you back to that part where, during the verdict, he gets up and pulls out a pistol and shoots the defending parties in the head...and walks. He's immune folks, and there's no bringing this guy to justice for what he did. Forget the suit....ain't happening. GOD STATUS. Was I kidding you? What would be the purpose? Who could make this stuff up? The LAWYERS AND THE JUDGES THEMSELVES ARE SAYING THESE THINGS IN THEIR MOTIONS, THEIR BRIEFS AND THEIR ORDERS. What more do you need? Let's do it sommore.
Part B now presents that the Guardian ad litem, the man THE JUDGE appointed for my 1 month old baby without my consent, the man who didn't say 2 words in any one hearing that happened after that, who NEVER said ANYTHING to us, but just sat there in his $1000 dollar suit, and his silk ties, and just smiled the entire hearing, the man probably collecting $2-500 dollars an hour for doing diddly squat....imagine that, auto-immune. He was doing as ordered. He was doing his job. He's immune too. 'Magine that. Absolutely immune, because he was performing duties integral to the judicial process....if that's what you WANT to call what he did, which, again, was...NOTHING. Let's see if maybe I can move on to the next page, finally....
Oh good...they started with this phrase....the best interests of the child....my favorite. Folks, if you were never aware of where this phrase comes from? Hitler. Our good friend, the man who took over his country and killed millions; whose notorious use of social workers who began the whole child stealing business, this is the man who COINED the use of this phrase. But then, if you also didn't know it, we admired the system of the Nazis....we appreciated their control of their people so very much, we put a shit-ton of their people to work for US after the war, and long after the Nuremberg trials. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, then, of the Nazi tactics used by the social workers here. Folks, I aims to tellya, Germany? Was just a test market...millions of children, THE WORLD OVER, are being stolen, and put in foster care and adopted out to strangers for money...and because of this, they are screwed up beyond all repair...as are the parents. For all the proof you should ever want of this, please, see my post here, and just read the Child Trafficking section:
https://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-whole-ball-o-wax-continued-post.html
What you find there will change your view of Child Protective Services FOR LIFE...as well as show you the true colors of what you THINK is your government.
So, now that we find that each and every attorney is immune, as well as judges and lawmakers just for doing their jobs, let's get on to a new excuse to get out of these kinds of cases: THE ROOKER- FELDMAN DOCTRINE.
This "Doctrine" of law stems from the decisions made in a case, once upon a time, Rooker v....aw, who really cares. It's in the damned index, you look it up! The point is, this doctrine, in general states this as an excuse to allow these state, county and city officials to get off the hook: If the state says this, then it is so, and there's nothing that the feds, in THEIR courts, can do to argue with it, they can't overturn it, they can't interfere....it's decided by the corrupt courts of the State...and that's that.
Let's see if we get this straight. So...should the State of so and so rule that marijuana is legal, and a fed comes into town and arrests the man growing marijuana because federal law says marijuana is still ILLEGAL, who gets the upper hand? The Feds do. They win. Why? Because they are ALLEGEDLY in control here. Their law trumps state law. The SCOTUS, the "law of the land," right? What they say carries more legal weight than ALL LAW...But wait a minute...
So...in THIS matter, because the state said that I'm guilty, and I say they violated my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS....too bad, so sad. "I'm sorry, but the state's ruling is FINAL, and they said you were guilty, and that none of your rights were violated...and there's nothing that we can do. We're not allowed to interfere. Oh well. Dismissed. NEXT!" WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT???? Say that again?
Wash....Rinse....Repeat.
Let's say the judge violates your right to due process. A good example? The judge in my juvenile cases shut me out from seeing my prosecutorial documents for over 2 months...and I was representing myself in those cases. He out and out violated MY RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. But....because this was a state matter, and the state found that it wasn't violated...well, that's that. It's over. Are you feeling me here yet America? Folks, at the very end of this article...which, I'll warn you, is about to be a VERY LONG WAY DOWN...I am going to put up the exact language of the 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, and, like I've done in the court articles prior, I'm going to repeat all the immunities these people have used to get out of this action 200%...AND YOU JUDGE FOR YOURSELF. Why does this code exist on the fed level? Who does it protect, and who can you sue? NOBODY, according to these people....so again...WHY DO WE HAVE FEDERAL COURTS? FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO WE HAVE A SUPREME COURT? WHY DO WE HAVE FEDERAL CODE? WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR THE SALARIES OF THE SUPREME COURT, THE FDA, THE IRS, THE FBI, THE BLM, ANYBODY??? Why are we paying for the FEDS TO DO THEIR JOBS...AT ALL???? It is THIS important question that I have presented in this appeal...who's really in charge here boys? You say it's you...but if a state is ruling for itself 100% of time in its state courts, and shutting out all manner of justice for it's citizens, isn't it YOUR job to ensure that it doesn't happen like that, without the rolling of some heads? What is the purpose, then, of the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE??? Who are they in charge of, and what is their job, if it isn't to reign over the courts of our country and the several states of our UNITED STATES? If it isn't that...then GO HOME, AND STOP TAKING MY TAXES TO PAY YOU AND YOURS. CLOCK OUT, AND GET OUTTA HERE, AND LEAVE US ALONE!!
Evidently, as long as they're doing their job or "Acting in their official capacities"....whenever that actually starts and stops, the world may never know...while they violate your rights, or commit crimes, it's O.K. You're excused mister. For the judges, they then lump the violation of your rights and the duty together into a big unrecognizable lump and call it a "Judicial Act.", and deem it IMMUNE TO PROSECUTION. Cool, huh? For those other officials, naturally, this same lump is called "An official act", and the same immunity applies.
You'll notice, now, that this attorney is attempting to put words in my mouth, as well as define my feelings about these judicial decisions. Excuse me? Do I know you? How do you know I'm frustrated, to start with; furthermore, how are you going to tell the court how I feel or how I felt, or how I'm about to feel...at all?? More so, because he knows how I feel...frustrated, well, this gives me no right or cause to bring a federal action. Whaaaaaatever pal. But then, saying this gives him a great bridge over to yet another useless piece of case law he can use to defend his position. So I guess we can let that slide, huh? OK, so let's review the reference. Federal case...check. Pierson v. Ray....check. What's this reference do for this attorney? Sorry...don't see it. What I believe he's saying is this. The judge was acting officially, doing his job...so, he's immune. PERIOD. Convenience, that's what this is all about, isn't it? Doesn't matter if he was violating rights. Doesn't matter if he might have been in the process of committing a crime against the person he was ruling over at the time. He was doin' his job. He's innocent, regardless. You starting to get it yet America? If not, you know I have more. Let's go on. Here's a part I've been waiting for. You're gonna love this. Now we're quoting a judge ruling this ridiculous statement that would NEVER FLY where the people are concerned:
"Judicial immunity applies EVEN WHEN THE JUDGE IS ACCUSED OF ACTING MALICIOUSLY OR UNJUSTLY."
...and there you have it America. Even though the judge may be acting maliciously, vindictively, violates your rights, wrongfully convicts you....it DOESN'T MATTER. As long as he's doing his job....he's immune. Kinda takes you back to that part where, during the verdict, he gets up and pulls out a pistol and shoots the defending parties in the head...and walks. He's immune folks, and there's no bringing this guy to justice for what he did. Forget the suit....ain't happening. GOD STATUS. Was I kidding you? What would be the purpose? Who could make this stuff up? The LAWYERS AND THE JUDGES THEMSELVES ARE SAYING THESE THINGS IN THEIR MOTIONS, THEIR BRIEFS AND THEIR ORDERS. What more do you need? Let's do it sommore.
Part B now presents that the Guardian ad litem, the man THE JUDGE appointed for my 1 month old baby without my consent, the man who didn't say 2 words in any one hearing that happened after that, who NEVER said ANYTHING to us, but just sat there in his $1000 dollar suit, and his silk ties, and just smiled the entire hearing, the man probably collecting $2-500 dollars an hour for doing diddly squat....imagine that, auto-immune. He was doing as ordered. He was doing his job. He's immune too. 'Magine that. Absolutely immune, because he was performing duties integral to the judicial process....if that's what you WANT to call what he did, which, again, was...NOTHING. Let's see if maybe I can move on to the next page, finally....
Oh good...they started with this phrase....the best interests of the child....my favorite. Folks, if you were never aware of where this phrase comes from? Hitler. Our good friend, the man who took over his country and killed millions; whose notorious use of social workers who began the whole child stealing business, this is the man who COINED the use of this phrase. But then, if you also didn't know it, we admired the system of the Nazis....we appreciated their control of their people so very much, we put a shit-ton of their people to work for US after the war, and long after the Nuremberg trials. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, then, of the Nazi tactics used by the social workers here. Folks, I aims to tellya, Germany? Was just a test market...millions of children, THE WORLD OVER, are being stolen, and put in foster care and adopted out to strangers for money...and because of this, they are screwed up beyond all repair...as are the parents. For all the proof you should ever want of this, please, see my post here, and just read the Child Trafficking section:
https://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-whole-ball-o-wax-continued-post.html
What you find there will change your view of Child Protective Services FOR LIFE...as well as show you the true colors of what you THINK is your government.
So, now that we find that each and every attorney is immune, as well as judges and lawmakers just for doing their jobs, let's get on to a new excuse to get out of these kinds of cases: THE ROOKER- FELDMAN DOCTRINE.
This "Doctrine" of law stems from the decisions made in a case, once upon a time, Rooker v....aw, who really cares. It's in the damned index, you look it up! The point is, this doctrine, in general states this as an excuse to allow these state, county and city officials to get off the hook: If the state says this, then it is so, and there's nothing that the feds, in THEIR courts, can do to argue with it, they can't overturn it, they can't interfere....it's decided by the corrupt courts of the State...and that's that.
Let's see if we get this straight. So...should the State of so and so rule that marijuana is legal, and a fed comes into town and arrests the man growing marijuana because federal law says marijuana is still ILLEGAL, who gets the upper hand? The Feds do. They win. Why? Because they are ALLEGEDLY in control here. Their law trumps state law. The SCOTUS, the "law of the land," right? What they say carries more legal weight than ALL LAW...But wait a minute...
So...in THIS matter, because the state said that I'm guilty, and I say they violated my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS....too bad, so sad. "I'm sorry, but the state's ruling is FINAL, and they said you were guilty, and that none of your rights were violated...and there's nothing that we can do. We're not allowed to interfere. Oh well. Dismissed. NEXT!" WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT???? Say that again?
Wash....Rinse....Repeat.
Let's say the judge violates your right to due process. A good example? The judge in my juvenile cases shut me out from seeing my prosecutorial documents for over 2 months...and I was representing myself in those cases. He out and out violated MY RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. But....because this was a state matter, and the state found that it wasn't violated...well, that's that. It's over. Are you feeling me here yet America? Folks, at the very end of this article...which, I'll warn you, is about to be a VERY LONG WAY DOWN...I am going to put up the exact language of the 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, and, like I've done in the court articles prior, I'm going to repeat all the immunities these people have used to get out of this action 200%...AND YOU JUDGE FOR YOURSELF. Why does this code exist on the fed level? Who does it protect, and who can you sue? NOBODY, according to these people....so again...WHY DO WE HAVE FEDERAL COURTS? FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO WE HAVE A SUPREME COURT? WHY DO WE HAVE FEDERAL CODE? WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR THE SALARIES OF THE SUPREME COURT, THE FDA, THE IRS, THE FBI, THE BLM, ANYBODY??? Why are we paying for the FEDS TO DO THEIR JOBS...AT ALL???? It is THIS important question that I have presented in this appeal...who's really in charge here boys? You say it's you...but if a state is ruling for itself 100% of time in its state courts, and shutting out all manner of justice for it's citizens, isn't it YOUR job to ensure that it doesn't happen like that, without the rolling of some heads? What is the purpose, then, of the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE??? Who are they in charge of, and what is their job, if it isn't to reign over the courts of our country and the several states of our UNITED STATES? If it isn't that...then GO HOME, AND STOP TAKING MY TAXES TO PAY YOU AND YOURS. CLOCK OUT, AND GET OUTTA HERE, AND LEAVE US ALONE!!
Suddenly, all I can think about is having my cake and eating it too. Make up your mind boys...one way or the other, not both.
Ok folks, we're going to go over this attorney's issues again, in summary, and we're going to answer his questions for him, in a nice, easy, undead, common language we can all understand. I will do this for you on every brief, so if you want to skip down past all the idiot briefs and my commentary, and move right on to the conclusion, I would hardly hold you with blame. WARNING: You will miss out on some damned good commentary.
1. ISN'T IT LEGALLY PROPER FOR A JUDGE TO DO SOMETHING FOR THE PLAINTIFF, SINCE HE ASKED HER TO, LIKE DISMISS ALL THE DEFENDING PARTIES, ESPECIALLY THE ONES I'M ASKING TO BE LET OFF THE HOOK?
Answer: Why yes, of course it is. The is what the defending parties WANT! To be dismissed. Of COURSE this is an issue for the State!
Problem: The claimants let them out of the FIRST case to put them in a 2nd one.
2. Are judges, magistrates and guardian ad litems absolutely and utterly immune to ALL prosecution AS LONG AS THEY'RE DOING THEIR JOBS, WHENEVER THAT BEGINS AND ENDS?
Answer: Yes, they are.
Problem: Who said they are, and when exactly do their jobs begin and end?
3. Does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibit this federal court from re-reviewing decisions made final in state courts?
Answer: Evidently it does.
Problem: Evidently, it shouldn't. State courts can now make as corrupt a decision about anything they want, and no one has oversight, nor does anyone have an ability to correct these corrupt decisions.
Conclusion: States are corrupt. Justice is an outdated concept. Fleecing is PARAMOUNT. Judges and courts are out of control, as are lawyers, lawmakers, and each and every other public servant and official, on all levels.
SOLUTION? Tear them out of office, abolish all immunity, replace these self-serving criminals with REAL PEOPLE who actually care about our issues with what the Government is doing wrong. The end.
BRIEF #2 - The State of Iowa AG for CPS, and those of the AG's office.)
Let's get it on with this HORRENDOUSLY LONG 2nd state brief, in defense of those of the Department of Human Services folks and The Attorney General's office.
This is a very important brief, in that this idiot attorney, Mr. Phillips, is going to address just about every single thing we say and has a ready defense for it. There are, in fact, over 90 uses of "case law" and precedent used in his brief.
He lies, immediately after the first word GO. He states later refuted "facts", refuted by the VERY AGENCY THAT ORIGINALLY ALLEGED THEM, in court; decisions decided later in OUR FAVOR (e.g., an administrative hearing to determine the validity of the allegations made against us to begin with, which, in turn, led to the removal of our child by The Department of Human Services). The "Department" decided that these allegations were UNFOUNDED and ruled that the reasons for removing OUR DAUGHTER were NOT VALID. So what's the argument then? You'll find out...NOW.
He lies, immediately after the first word GO. He states later refuted "facts", refuted by the VERY AGENCY THAT ORIGINALLY ALLEGED THEM, in court; decisions decided later in OUR FAVOR (e.g., an administrative hearing to determine the validity of the allegations made against us to begin with, which, in turn, led to the removal of our child by The Department of Human Services). The "Department" decided that these allegations were UNFOUNDED and ruled that the reasons for removing OUR DAUGHTER were NOT VALID. So what's the argument then? You'll find out...NOW.
Needless to say, we can comment RIGHT AWAY, since he begins stating his BS at the same time...right away. He begins right off by stating that Child Protective workers do very important work. They most certainly do...for the State; and for another more sinister purpose. Let's review that important work, as we have come to see it.
1. They steal children for the purposes of killing some, and crushing them up into microscopic bits, so that they can place their remains into vaccines that they can then administer to the people of our country, unwillingly and without their informed consent; essentially indoctrinating them into a satanic ritual and into Satanic cults. This is also done in the case of BIO-SLUDGE, where they do the same thing, then spread that sludge, filled with baby bits, into our fields that grow the majority of our franken-food and into our water, where we can consume it, and accomplish the same result. This also accomplishes the desired result of weakening our bodies and our minds, making us more vulnerable to demon possession.
2. They steal children for the purpose of destroying their little minds, in that, while doing so, they make them weaker, mentally, through the avenues of molesting and killing them themselves, over-medicating them with dangerous prescriptions of psychotropic drugs, sexual and physical abuse, and disconnecting them from themselves, and their families. This also accomplishes making them vulnerable to demon possession; both when they're young, and when they're older.
3. This produces thousands upon thousands of jobs, and work for these upper demons.
4. This brings in massive amounts of funding from the head demons, in charge on the federal level.
5. This injustice and evil serves to destroy the entire country, in that it saps our real strength, the strength of any great nation - The family; and assists in these demon's ultimate purpose - to spread their influence, via taking over more human's bodies and minds, in our country and destroy humans and humanity.
Now, should you not really believe any of that, maybe you'll be more receptive to other absolutely true facts, facts that have been hidden from most Americans for nearly 4 decades:
I'll preface these facts with another fact: I have almost 5000 friends on Facebook. 90% of those are all victims of family court and CPS corruption. Of those, around 75% of them are from the U.S. (oh yes, others in Canada, England, Ireland and Australia are having the EXACT same issues!), from every state. My state alone had a group of almost 10,000 such victims, alone. And those are just the ones with courage to speak up. Houston...I think we may just have a WEE problem. (Note: Facebook, around the time I showed up on this scene, had just begun capping the amount of friends you can have at 5,000. I've also had my ability to share to groups and messages knocked down to around 10 and 20 times, respectively, from what used to be UNLIMITED SHARING. Then came Facebook Jail, a place where you end up, restricted from engaging in sharing anything altogether; for as little as 3 to as many as 30 days; should you cross the line. If you cross the line two or more times, your account can be completely de-activated. Postings that have a possibility of raising too much attention on the right people are often hidden from others, though you can see it's right where you put it. These are actions taken with the intent on limiting the truth coming from the users of Facebook; and this censoring is also practiced on Google, Twitter, Youtube and Instagram.)
1 kid in 17 kids taken today are actually abused or neglected. The rest are removed for this vague general accusation: could not provide basic needs; or cares (too poor, cant afford to feed them without some welfare assistance; cant afford healthcare/daycare, etc.) But...these states condone taking these childres from their families, giving them to complete strangers, and paying the adopting family 10x more money per child than welfare pays out to the original parents; and paying the foster and adoptive families til the child is 22. WELFARE MOMS ARE NOT SUCKING THE SYSTEM DRY AND COSTING THE TAXPAYER; GOVERNMENT AND THE CHILD STEALING RACKET ARE!!
Kids in state care are 4 times likely to die than at home.
State care kids are 6 times more likely to be physically abused, and 8 more times likely to suffer mental and sexual abuse, then at home.
The same are 35% more likely to commit crimes and go to jail, and 25% less likely to attend college.
This "important work", America, no longer has a damn thing to do with protecting children. If it did, it would protect these children from the State, their care and their corrupt, god-status, very often childless and evil social workers; who often have zero to no experience with real families or children, no respect for the law, for the courts, judges, no care or respect for parents or kids, nor the Constitution or your rights.
Don't believe me? My story is hardly unique. I welcome you...no, I DARE YOU to grab any one of my listed friends on Facebook and ask them for theirs.
Here's the link. Come on down, anytime:
www.facebook.com/christopher.thelivingman.1
Here's the link. Come on down, anytime:
www.facebook.com/christopher.thelivingman.1
Make one mental image and keep this one as an accurate representation of today's social worker: His/Her job now is to keep thousands of people working in this racket, working. The only way they can accomplish this and keep federal moneys coming in? Steal as many of our children as you're able to get away with and adopt them out to others, even if it means destroying the family, and screwing up the kids for life. THAT, my friends, is the "IMPORTANT WORK" this attorney is defending here. It sure isn't to protect our children, I believe I've easily shown that. With no social workers to get off the hook, this attorney would no longer have his cushy over-paid position at the Attorney General's office, and he wouldnt be able to bill the taxpayers of Iowa for the 100+ hours he probably spent spitting out this way-over the top, as-many-words-as-were-allowed-per-court-rule brief and its totally unneeded host of defending arguments.
Now, it's time I give you a challenge. Somewhere in this attorney's windy brief, it even states (not unlike where the judge has been allowed to act against you maliciously and vindictively) that, while they're doing their "Important work" they can lie as much as they want to and completely fabricate entire cases against you; and the most that might happen would probably include getting her hair ruffled; and cause her supervisor to tell again what a good job she did.....and that's that. After all she accomplished against us, taking and costing us our daughter and our parental rights; using hearsay, unfounded lie and libel-filled reasons and reports, perjury on the record, and on the stand, she more than likely got a raise, if anything. She is still employed there...we know that much.
End of "important work" section. Let's move on, shall we?
Next, he states that because of this "important work," all state employees, those of the department in particular, and the AG's office, who defends these workers, are extended absolute immunities to all suit that might arise in opposition to this "important work," even suit that alleged that they violate the People's rights. Yes folks, these state workers are even immune to accusations of the violation of your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Funny that, eh? Let's go on.
Let’s start right away with the Statements of facts here:
Section A is PRIMARILY correct.
In section B, they start right off with a lie. And, these lies continue all the way until the end of Mr. Phillips’s brief. It states first, that the Department and AG’s offices are asserting that all of both cases are our attempt to appeal state decisions. This is a falsehood that they have been perpetrating since the beginning. Maybe the claims of the plaintiffs are “inextricably (another $1 word no one ever uses) intertwined” (something that can hardly be avoided, period, since it was the state that brought all these cases) with some state decisions; and although this might be true (see defense offered that states this to be the truth; as well as the PERFECT defense of these criminal’s actions, later on), the issues have ALWAYS been stated this way, by the claimants: That a criminal organization, presenting as Government, that is making money off of our children, exists; that there was a conspiracy to deprive us of our rights, and that our rights were deprived of us utilizing color of law. These are all NEW issues…period.
On page 3, Mr. Phillips then states that not only does the 11th amendment of the Constitution protect state employees acting in their official capacities, it also protects them in their INDIVIDUAL capacities. What is Mr. Phillips using, then, from the 11th Amendment? Let’s find out, since he doesn’t state that right away. Here’s what it says: “The Judicial Power of the United States (Federal Courts) shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity; commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by CITIZENS of another State, or by CITIZENS or Subjects of any Foreign State.” This is lunacy, only considering that the only two cases a Federal Court is apparently allowed to hear is federal question cases…and those involving THOSE OF TWO DIFFERENT STATES (Diversity cases). More lunacy, the claimants are both NOT U.S. CITIZENS, as they repatriated themselves into the Republic of the united States of America. Add to that, they are CERTAINLY not subjects of that Republic.
Now first, let’s note…or I’ll note for you, that this Amendment is NOT listed in this attorney’s “List of Authorities.” So let’s see if we can hunt down, in his sea of excuses, where else he mentions this amendment as a defense, shall we? Here, we find this buried deep into the brief on page 26. It says, and I quote (page 26, Section D., first paragraph, if you would like to follow along) “D. The Iowa Department of Human Services and the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, as State Government Entities are IMMUNE and are not PERSONS Susceptible to a §1983 Action.”, then goes on to say “To the extent the Plaintiffs intended to include the Iowa Dept. of HS and the AG’s Office as defendants in this suit, the claim is barred by 11th Amendment immunity and was properly dismissed.” End ridiculous quote.
Now first, it IS our ACTUAL intent (and this is actually an intent as stated in fact by the real claimants, not the imagined intent guessed by this attorney a paragraph behind this one) to quote to you a piece of a document from WAAAAAAAAAAAY back in our case, called “Form to file a complaint.” We shall say, at this point, that we have NEVER called this matter a COMPLAINT. We filed a CLAIM. The plaintiffs are not called COMPLAINANTS, THEY STATE THAT THEY ARE, AT ALL TIMES, CLAIMANTS…because they filed a CLAIM.
2nd, the quote from JS44, THE GUIDE FOR FILING FEDERAL CIVIL SUIT (these are evidently part of the "local rules of court for the Southern District of Iowa,) it states, from Local rule 1.(a.) quote “If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify FIRST THE AGENCY, THEN THE OFFICIAL.” Note too, the top of the form, which states this “guide” is in fact, “for Pro Se Party NOT being represented by an attorney.” Sound like the Fed District Court may just be setting up (entrapping) the “Pro Se Party” for the State Employee’s Attorney’s defense….doesn’t it? Thank you JS44. That defense, therefore, is invalid. Let’s just skip over our KNOWN fact that “Bruce II” omitted those agencies entirely, and the rest of the defense, is now INVALID, OH, AND INVALID. Buh-bye 11th Amendment. Hellllloooooooo Injustice!
And, here, my favorite part, is where, again, the State not only states facts that may have been (UNPROVEN) "fact" in the first six months of our cases; but only as stated by the State, and were and are lies, such as the fact that we tested positive for drugs. What’s left out of this "fact" ENTIRELY, is that they falsified BOTH our initial tests, using a DHS state sponsored drug testing center of THEIR choosing, someone who had EXCLUSIVE DHS contract in ALL related centers all over the state of Iowa, all run by one crook; a Juvenile Court Officer named Tony Reed….named also in this action. See later on. We caught them RED-HANDED falsifying our tests the 2nd time, then produced additional proof of the falsification of the first test, and filed the proof of the falsification of BOTH tests in the court. It was at THIS time that they tossed me (and all of my physical evidence as well...this they THREW AWAY, within minutes of the order to remove me) out of the case as an extra unnecessary father…because if they hadn’t, their entire case would have been fact-less…something it was anyway, but we were about to bring it all out; and they couldn’t have that. They used their ace, and threw me out, after attacking me SOLELY for 6 months. And that’s just ONE example, I won’t bore you with all the rest.
The point is, all of these repeated LIES by the state were all addressed 8 months after the inception of these cases (two months after our rights were unlawfully terminated;) in a hearing that was never mentioned in the District Court Judge’s order at all…but was distinctly mentioned in abundance in the plaintiff’s claim – The Child Protective Assessment Appeal. Here, the ALJ (The administrative law judge)…AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE REMOVING AGENCY HIMSELF, The DHS, ruled that all of these facts were false, and invalid reasons for taking our daughter IN THE FIRST PLACE. Case…closed.
One additional fact worth mentioning...and this is touted in MUI ABUNDANCE in both the plaintiff's briefs; is that the appellate court of the Iowa Supreme Court found in favor of all the corrupt decisions of the district court, after making us wait for over a year and 3 months to receive the ruling, after they denied our request of a stay of termination 3 TIMES, as we presented them the decision made in the administrative offices of the removing agency themselves over a year PRIOR to their ruling; and, following their rejection of the recording submitted in response to their unlawful ruling; that recording we the claimants made of the absolutely atrocious and unlawful removal itself, where defending State "Department" employee Emily Nieman broke over 7 felony laws taking our daughter from us; as evidence. But, as I stated previously, according to attorneys and judges everywhere, as long as some judge somewhere says it....it must be gold...right?
Referring then, to the sealed documents (Document 13), he refers to MORE facts that were later dis-proven in the assessment appeal (that the District Court judge NEVER addresses, mentions or describes in her orders) as if they are indeed "facts." (i.e., that E.B., the mother left the child UNATTENDED AT THE HOSPITAL - in a hospital filled with over-attentive doctors and nurses, mind you, and after she informed them of her intent to, say, go and get something to eat outside of the hospital, a couple of blocks away from it, at the convenience store, have a cigarette outside, etc - and then states because of this "child abandonment", FORCED her to sign a "consent to remove" the following visit from the worker who stole her - defendant Nieman. Again, all of these FACTS were dis-proven at the ALJ's "Child Abuse Assessment appeal, 8 months later...so how are these now facts again? They aren't.) He also mentions more facts dis-proven later, as well as refers to C.B.'s (my) "LONG HISTORY OF UNRESOLVED MENTAL ISSUES. This mention of "mental issues" stems from the caseworker's (Gosch) lies; lies that would be used to help justify all of these illegal actions during these cases. As to MY mental issues? This concerned my ADD (a bogus "mental issue") and my refusal to take medication for that. Also included in that, was the VA'S bogus finding of my "depression" some months before that. I am, to date, the least depressed person I know. I am only depressed NOW because of these CONTINUOUS INJUSTICES, if anything; and only if I am, in fact, depressed at all. Most of all, other alleged "Mental Issues?" ODD. Oppositional Defiance Disorder. ODD = You do not care for the BS they're trying to pull on you, illegally, and fight them over it. God forbid that we should not roll over and take all of this shit, right? Another, and probably the most LAUGHABLE of these? The worker would state, in her final report on these parents, that the father had a lifetime filled with foster home situations...so this has dis-proven my mental fitness to care for my child (after I had raised 3 boys into their 20's)...except that it was the SYSTEM who put ME there, and took my daughter and placed her in the same situation. So how are you going to use this against me now, since it was YOU FOLKS WHO PUT ME THERE???
Now we come to what is probably my favorite part...where they insist, again, that because the corrupt judge, defending party WILLIAM A. PRICE, at that time had to find some way to rid the court of me ONCE AND FOR ALL, completely re-defined the term LEGAL FATHER as someone that has and had NO RIGHTS OVER THIS CHILD AT ALL, sinc her birth (because they had found the BIOLOGICAL SPERM DONOR and established his paternity, something that was unnecessary, since there was already a LEGAL FATHER IN PLACE - ME); something that is only TRUE in certain places, like IOWA. This is important, because later, the same judge would then TERMINATE MY RIGHTS...that I allegedly didn't have at all, according to them. According to the logic of this attorney, this was done as a precautionary measure, or as the state is overstating the situation, OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, which is BULLSHIT (the legal father HAD RIGHTS, and had to terminate them, this is why they did it. They couldn't say I didn't have rights, then terminate rights I allegedly didn't have, so this was the best thing they could come up with) The Supreme Court of Iowa then VACATED the decision made to do so, because they stated that I didn't have any rights to terminate. YOU LIKE THAT ONE??? He later uses those unlawful and illegal rulings as reason to state that I have and had no standing to be involved in this case, in the Supreme Court case, or in any of the State district court cases; have no rights to bring issues relating to any of these cases, or to bring appeal to any of it. Isn't that a trip? I ask you America: WHAT THEN, IS A LEGAL FATHER? According to Iowa? It's a person who is NOT A PARENT TO A CHILD, AND HAS NO RIGHTS CONCERNING HER. Only in a corrupt state, perhaps...and no where else in the country.
He then relates that they then made the effort to ensure that the Child Indian Welfare act (and its ENTIRELY DIFFERENT JURISDICTION) DIDN'T APPLY....but totally leaves out the fact, that due to defending party Nieman's unlawful actions in the initial removal, 6 months prior to this, they FALSIFIED A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT, said they asked about tribal affiliation, and the mother said YES...and Nieman lied, put NO, and testified to this as fact in her subsequent affidavit concerning it. The only reason this was done at THIS point was because the claimants had motioned the court for INTERVENTION, because they had just found out that she had done what she had done 6 months earlier. NOTE: Remember that a LAWFUL affidavit is exactly the same as TESTIMONY UNDER OATH. Perjury laws NOW APPLY...and none were ever brought against her. Immune to everything...REMEMBER???
Let's mosey on over to the bunkhouse containing this idiot's argument now, shall we?
The original complaint was, indeed, dismissed, and all that were present in it were then relocated to "Bruce II". Bruce II, because it was A PERFECT CLAIM, complete with damage claims and new issues, within an hour of the first one, was dismissed on "Initial review". Remember, please, that no summons had been issued to the claimants in "Bruce II", and, because of this, none had been served to the defending parties either. No one, the repeated defendants, NOR THE NEWLY ADDED PARTIES, had even seen or read this claim. So how is it that a judge can just throw it out? She can't. But she did. ERROR!
Next, there is a set-up for this attorney to state that this 2nd claim falls under a definition of FRIVOLOUS, and he states this alot in his argument. There's a good reason for this.
See, a few years ago, the feds enacted a new policy (statute) that states that, if a court should rule that a matter is being filed (against Government) as vindictive, malicious or frivelous, they can now CHARGE YOU AND THROW YOU IN JAIL FOR FILING A FRIVELOUS CLAIM. Hence, the mention of this designation is peppered all through this criminal attorney's pursuant argument OFTEN, from this point on.
He then says its up to us claimants to prove that this court has jurisdiction. They say we don't prove this...but we did, quite well in fact (see Jurisdiction, 2nd claim, link back at the beginning, around page 2 or so.) But you know, we can't have these matters getting before a jury...because if that happens, WE'LL WIN....GOD FORBID THAT HAPPEN, AND THE CRIMINALS BE FOUND TO BE WHAT THEY ARE...guilty, Guilty, GUILTY of all they have been accused of.
He then states, here, that the court must assume all the claims made to be true...then turns around and contradicts this order to state that it needn't do this....WHAT? Do you get it yet? No way to win out here.
Now we move on to section B, which asks if the District Court lacks jurisdiction to hear matters of custody. Now, we come to what is probably the most important thing. See, with the IMPORTANT BUSINESS of the criminal Child Protective industry at risk, we MUST deprive the feds of their jurisdiction to hear these matters, and absolve them ABSOLUTELY of blame, as well as any chance that they may find error in these matters, for to do so would be to DESTROY THE ENTIRE SCAM of stealing children, DESTROY all possible means of keeping these people's jobs in tact, and would hamper the state's ability to bring in much needed monies from the federal government. Ever wonder why our social security money is disappearing(Hell, I practically GUARANTEE YOU it's been gone for AGES, already)? The Child Stealing industry is also stealing these monies (SEE TITLE IV-D AND E of the Social Security act) and giving it to these criminals on the state levels. Can't have any of the blame falling on these appellate or district federal courts for that, can we??? It does however give us the answers we need, folks...We may not bring juvenile matters before the District or the Appellate FED COURTS...but EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction for this rests with the U.S. Supreme COURT!!!! Now you know. Get to it. Thanks asshole, for giving us our new ammo. Boy are they going to regret giving me THAT INFORMATION. There will now be a flood of U.S. Supreme Court decisions hitting the books. JUST MAKE SURE YOU FILE INFORMA PAUPEROUS, or you can kiss your bank accounts GOODBYE. Then he goes on with the parrotted excuse presenting as THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE, like everyone else.
Now we come to another excuse used to dismiss these cases, in the form of the claims being "INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED" with state decisions. Folks, this presents just another bad method for the crooked purpose of taking the actions of these corrupt courts AWAY from the eyes of where they should be...in our alleged courts of our NATIONAL Government, and depriving us of this governing group of courts that should be in OVERSIGHT OF THESE CRIMINALLY OPERATING COURTS, allowing them to fleece us of everything we own, willy nilly...INCLUDING OUR OWN CHILDREN AND OUR HOMES AND ALLEGED "PERSONAL PROPERTY." I'm sure they have run from all responsibility for the criminal actions of this court, for a number of reasons, the largest being SURVIVAL (Continuity of Government, they call this); and because they more or less get "a cut of the action" from the profits generated by those states, by and through those criminal activities.
And if that isn't enough, America, we now state that, since the claimants had opportunity to raise any and all of these matters before appellate courts in the CORRUPT STATE COURT SYSTEM, and DIDN'T (mainly because it didn't take us long to realize that the appellate courts were as corrupt as the lower courts, and planned to back up each and every corrupt decision made by the lower courts WITHOUT FAIL...so why bother?), that we had no right to bring these matters to the feds. BULLSHIT...BULLSHIT..AND UTTER BULLSHIT. The State courts are ALWAYS GOING TO BACK UP OTHER STATE DECISIONS, COVER THEIR LOWER BUDDIES' BEHINDS, AND RULE IN THEIR OWN FAVOR. So don't waste your time America. THE DOJ is allegedly there for a reason...and it's NOT TO SOLELY CHARGE YOU WITH FEDERAL CRIMES. PUT THEM TO WORK, FOR THE MONEY YOUR TAXES PAY THEM TO DO. Make them provide OVERSIGHT, OVER THESE CORRUPT STATE COURTS...NOW.
Another thing I happened to come across while going through the brief, the attorney refers to a Rooker-Feldman case that mentioned, in addition, that fraud upon the court happened, therefore the defense wasn't valid. The ruling judge stated that there was no listed or ruled exception to the doctrine. Isn't that interesting?
Sooooo....lemme see if this is correct: Fraud...probably the most serious thing to happen in a court or its proceedings doesn't even invalidate this doctrine? That's a pretty damning statement to put forth, and bad news for litigants. This means the court can alter transcripts; change, add to or delete things off things off the record, and put in, take out or change the paperwork, and you're just out of luck, i guess. Wow.
Now here's a little something I'd like to address: The defense of "Res Adjudicata", or, in English, these matters have already been dealt with, so no one is able to deal with them a 2nd time, in order to find fault with them. I got the idea that maybe this was identical in nature to the doctrine of Rooker-Feldman, but evidently there's a difference, allowing it to be claimed as an additional defense. Let's see if we can find this difference or differences.
Upon investigating the matter, it would appear that Res Adjudicata means that no two cases can address the same issues with the same litigating parties, especially if the matter has been decided already in the highest possible court.
The doctrine of Rooker-Feldman, on the other hand, appears to address the fact that the federal courts are not able to review decisions already made on the state level courts. This refers to courts LOWER than the United States Supreme court, by the way. This is something new I learned today. Should you disagree with the ruling of a state court, you are able to present a "writ of Certiorari", which, if I learned this right, is a request of a superior court over the court of the State to review their ruling. Naturally, no one has ever mentioned that this possibility existed. I thought that the only option on the State level was to submit the same to the Iowa Supreme Court, the highest level state court. Guess I was mistaken. Unfortunately, we have already found that submitting this writ to the U.S. Supreme Court is a waste of time, since they only hear around 1 out of a 1000 cases.
So...we come to the defense of Res Adjudicata. Let's discover how this applies in these matters, shall we?
Res Adjudicata literally means "a thing already decided by the court" in the Queen's English...for you commoners out there. It presents the defense, in THIS matter anyway, that because it was taken as far as it could go on the State level, it cannot be decided again, in a different court on another level. This kind of shakes hands with the whole concept of double jeopardy, I suppose, that phrase that addresses whether you can charge the same person twice with the same exact crime, but on the reverse side. It does make sense, for 2 people on the same peer level, at least it does to me; for this would protect me from having to endure more months of court paying a very expensive lawyer to handle it, when the matter already was appealed as far as it could go, and the highest court available ruled in, say, your favor. Just because the other guy was a bit miffed that he lost, shouldn't provide him an opportunity to have the matter heard again! I get that.
The reason this is not a viable defense in THESE matters, however, is that the State ruled for it's own benefit in each and every case. Not only that, but it totally did so in grave error. According to this defense, there is no option available to a claimant then to have a superior court hear the matter, unless it is the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the whole country...which is good, buuuuuut.....there's another issue with that. The highest court in the country has a bad habit of not wanting to hear each and every case; and if it stopped there, that would be acceptible...but some have said that they only hear about 1 in 1000 matters. That's not very good odds. I don't think I could possible post a bet on those odds. And for those that can afford it, such an appeal could run you up to $1000 to file. I don't have $1000 just lying around to give away....do the majority of Americans today? Not a recognizable portion.
So, then, my option is only to accept my fate, and pay the piper, since I lost...and lost...and lost. Damn. I don't like that one either, Jim. Now what?
Sorry folks, I can't answer that question for you. You're going to have to figure that one out on your own. Me? I'm taking a route few dare tread, and I can only do that because I really don't have any other way or option available to try. I have nothing else they can take from me, but my life. And I really haven't cared much about that in the last 5 years, after this crapola; added to my absolute disillusionment with my country, it's nonchalant attitude towards the rights of its citizens and THEIR CHILDREN; its government, the total disrespect by its senators, representatives and officials of ALL its founding principles; and most of all the absolute sacrilege and rape of lady Justice. So as a patriot and veteran that loves his country, but hates all that it has become; this is a chance I'M willing to take.
OK folks, it’s that time again, as we’re going to go over this attorney’s issues, in summary, and we’re going to answer his questions for him, in a nice, easy, un-dead, common language we can all understand.
This brief not only has issues, but CATEGORIES of issues. Let’s get started, then.
1. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LAWSUIT?
Just want to bring this up, before we move on…according to portion B. of this category, it serves to prove that the federal courts have NO jurisdiction where these matters are concerned…so how does it stand that they have the right to make rulings concerning them, and any judicial power to dismiss the lawsuits then? How do they have jurisdiction enough to consider and rule on these matters, if they have no jurisdiction to do so to begin with? Interesting point, eh? Not only that, but the jurisdiction of this court is GRANTED THEM BY THE SAME ATTORNEY AND IS STATED TO BE PROPER, just BEFORE THIS?? (see JURISDICTION PAGE, THIS BRIEF)
Answer: Not the first one. The 2nd one. Question answered!
2. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO DISMISSAL
We cover this pretty well in our commentary.
3. DOES THE APPELLATE COURT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE DECISIONS OF THE SEVERAL STATES?
Answer: Again, a VERY GOOD QUESTION, and one the claimants address WELL, in both the initiating brief AND the reply brief. The answer, friends, is that it does, when it’s convenient, and doesn’t, also when convenient; such as in THIS case. I believe we covered this pretty well in the intro to these sub-sections.
Problem: It should, ALL the time. And they claim to…when it’s convenient.
4. Should the federal district court have reconsidered the factual determination concerning the termination of the plaintiff’s parental rights?
Just want to bring this up, before we move on…according to portion B. of this category, it serves to prove that the federal courts have NO jurisdiction where these matters are concerned…so how does it stand that they have the right to make rulings concerning them, and any judicial power to dismiss the lawsuits then? How do they have jurisdiction enough to consider and rule on these matters, if they have no jurisdiction to do so to begin with? Interesting point, eh? Not only that, but the jurisdiction of this court is GRANTED THEM BY THE SAME ATTORNEY AND IS STATED TO BE PROPER, just BEFORE THIS?? (see JURISDICTION PAGE, THIS BRIEF)
Answer: Not the first one. The 2nd one. Question answered!
2. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO DISMISSAL
We cover this pretty well in our commentary.
3. DOES THE APPELLATE COURT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE DECISIONS OF THE SEVERAL STATES?
Answer: Again, a VERY GOOD QUESTION, and one the claimants address WELL, in both the initiating brief AND the reply brief. The answer, friends, is that it does, when it’s convenient, and doesn’t, also when convenient; such as in THIS case. I believe we covered this pretty well in the intro to these sub-sections.
Problem: It should, ALL the time. And they claim to…when it’s convenient.
4. Should the federal district court have reconsidered the factual determination concerning the termination of the plaintiff’s parental rights?
Answer: According to them? No.
Problem: They shouldn’t. And neither should those of the state, considering the fact that we ALL have an unalienable right to parent our kids as we see fit. Evidently, we do not. More so, allegations or charges of abuse or neglect should be, and, I’m sure, USED TO BE, criminal issues…not family or juvenile issues. Finally, who can lawfully TERMINATE YOUR RIGHT TO BE A PARENT TO YOUR CHILDREN?? Not us. Not your kids. Certainly NOT some idiot in a black robe. Only GOD can do this…and only by killing you, or your children.
5. Is the department of human services and the attorney general’s office immune to the plaintiff’s claims under the 11th amendment to the constitution?
Answer: I think we’ve seen this one to be a big NO.
6. Were the defendants of the attorney general’s offices and the department of human services able to claim absolute and qualified immunity to the plaintiff’s suits?
Answer: They sure were able to claim it. Should they be able to claim it? That’s the REAL question here, isn’t it?
7. Did the plaintiff Christopher have standing to challenge the placement of the child with the child’s (biological sperm donor) father?
Answer: As the NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED LEGAL FATHER, ALREADY IN PLACE AT THE CHILD’S BIRTH, AND PRESENT FOR EVERY HORRIFYING MOMENT OF THE 6 MONTHS OF TORTURE BY THE STATE EMPLOYEES AND FOR ALL OF ITS INJUSTICES SINCE? HELL YES, HE HAS/HAD/WILL FOREVER have standing.
8. Did this action qualify as barred by the statute of limitations?
Answer: Yes it is. Part B, however., should be: Does Equitable tolling apply? And the answer to that question is an answer as loud as the ocean, and a resounding YEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS.
Did the district err in dismissing the claim’s RICO allegations?
Answer: That depends on who you ask. If you ask the mafia, they would say no. If you ask the PEOPLE…THEY WOULD SAY HELL YES.
5. Is the department of human services and the attorney general’s office immune to the plaintiff’s claims under the 11th amendment to the constitution?
Answer: I think we’ve seen this one to be a big NO.
6. Were the defendants of the attorney general’s offices and the department of human services able to claim absolute and qualified immunity to the plaintiff’s suits?
Answer: They sure were able to claim it. Should they be able to claim it? That’s the REAL question here, isn’t it?
7. Did the plaintiff Christopher have standing to challenge the placement of the child with the child’s (biological sperm donor) father?
Answer: As the NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED LEGAL FATHER, ALREADY IN PLACE AT THE CHILD’S BIRTH, AND PRESENT FOR EVERY HORRIFYING MOMENT OF THE 6 MONTHS OF TORTURE BY THE STATE EMPLOYEES AND FOR ALL OF ITS INJUSTICES SINCE? HELL YES, HE HAS/HAD/WILL FOREVER have standing.
8. Did this action qualify as barred by the statute of limitations?
Answer: Yes it is. Part B, however., should be: Does Equitable tolling apply? And the answer to that question is an answer as loud as the ocean, and a resounding YEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS.
Did the district err in dismissing the claim’s RICO allegations?
Answer: That depends on who you ask. If you ask the mafia, they would say no. If you ask the PEOPLE…THEY WOULD SAY HELL YES.
Conclusion: States are corrupt. Justice is an outdated concept. Fleecing is PARAMOUNT. Judges and courts are out of control, as are lawyers, lawmakers, and each and every other public servant and official, on all levels.
SOLUTION? Tear them out of office, abolish all immunity, replace these self-serving criminals with REAL PEOPLE who actually care about our issues with what the Government is doing wrong. The end.
Now, just to show you that this batch of crap isn't just for judges and attorneys anymore, it's for EVERYONE in any official capacity, on every level you can imagine. It amazes me the people that were able to weasel out of this, using just the BASIC defenses. I even learned a few new ones that I had yet to be introduced to, including "Heck v. Humphrey" and "The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine", and my personal favorite immunity definition, QUASI-IMMUNITY. The next brief covers all the county employees that I brought into this, and following that, will show the CITY levels. After that, 2 attorney's briefs will be reviewed. Out of 64 collectively-named defending parties in BOTH cases....NONE, not even CITIZENS, remained folks. What does this tell us? Not that you can't fight city hall. That you are no longer protected against CRIMES AND VIOLATIONS OF YOUR RIGHTS by city hall. That no one will ever pay for violating your rights, as long as they were doing their jobs at the same time.
3. BRIEF - Attorney representing the County Attorneys for Polk County, Iowa.
and welcome to what is sure to be the best of my commentary, and was commentary that I PURPOSEFULLY saved for the very last. It CERTAINLY promises to be the most entertaining. Most of all, I wanted to make the man sweat...as always. Inside that big set of broad mafia-type shoulders is a skeered little child, just waiting to cry when his feelings are hurt just a little too much. See, Sarcone is, to date, my most criminal defending party, a man who is too afraid to show his criminal face; in the city where he lives and breathes, Des Moines, Iowa; more than once every 4 years in public, a man who cowers behind bulletproof glass, and hasn't had a real hair growing out of his head in 3 or 4 decades.
You should, assuming the facts afore-mentioned, know by default that this brief is the one I've REALLY been waiting to tear to shreds. The greater reason for this is because his offices have done more damage to the county of Polk than in all Iowa's counties, collectively. The lesser reason is that I hate this man more than just about anyone. Selfish. Vindictive. Malicious. Narcissistic. Condescending. Self-God status elevated. Thinks he's the shit. A Coward's coward; probably a wife beater and a child molester too. Did I miss anything? No? Then without further ado or fanfare....LET'S DO IT.
Notice first, that, because this self-serving mafia boss is most concerned about HIMSELF, thereby is the MOST IMPORTANT person to be IMMEDIATELY dismissed without accountability; he is, of course, the first person defending to be discussed in this brief. For cryin' out loud, the man even garnered his own self-monikered HEADER...as the NUMERO UNO ISSUE, in the argument section,
This attorney barely spits out the first sentence and is already lying. She states here that, upon a careful reading (something I happen to know NONE of these "attorneys"...with the exception of Mr. Phillips, who OVERLY read it 50 times or more...NOR any of the judges have done), that her defendants are only mentioned in a few paragraphs of the claim.
A few...A few paragra...A FEW PARAGRAPHS???
They only WISH it was a few paragraphs. I don't believe I have to point everyone back to the claim here, to have you realize the magnitude of THIS lie. How could the claims of these defendants of the county only take up a few paragraphs, when these criminals of official duty were INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED WITH and are the driving force of this claim; the ones mentioned most, those involved in EACH AND EVERY ONE of all 8 cases, 3 juvenile and 5 criminal...and, in the case of the head criminal, John P. Sarcone, still tortures me needlessly to this day? A few paragraphs. Best joke I've heard the entirety of this decade AND the last. If I really had to put my finger on it, I'd say these folks are on some pretty good drugs. This group of criminals were named 56 times in around 160 paragraphs, including those mentioned in the relief. I'd say MORE THAN A 3RD OF THE CLAIM is PROOOOOBABLY more than a few paragraphs. NEXT LIE PLEASE!!!
The next fairy tale appears when she mentions that some UNIDENTIFIED party forged our signatures on some documents we allegedly signed, stating that we had received a copy of the Petition to remove our daughter. We hadn't, and why should we need to mention Ms. Brown? As it is her job to prosecute the case, it would MOST benefit her and serve her case ABSOLUTELY to be able to show that we had received those petitions on the dates they were allegedly signed, in order to state, in the adjudication hearing a month and a half later, that we've known all along, why our child was kidnapped from us; and would show that we'd done absolutely nothing to try and remedy the situation as well. Bad parents...bad people...remember?
She then moves on to defendant Brownell's mentions and lists him as being mentioned only twice. At a whopping 12 paragraph mentions, Mr. Brownell came in 2nd for being mentioned in the most paragraphs in the claim; losing by just a brown nose to Ms. Lane, who came in at 13.
Next lie we get to is where we used (and USE STILL) "some unidentified computer tracking program" (which has, in our answer to the defendants in "Bruce I" and SEVERAL times in "Bruce II", and came included with several screen shots of the name 'HUBSPOT" at the top of it) to track where the emails sent directly to his MAIN EMAIL address were being opened (and on what date, and how many times, as well). Mr. Sarcone, by the way, was mentioned in 10 paragraphs, just behind Mr. Brownell.
Then, under the section for Ms. Lane, she states that that i claim she conspired with judges and with Tromblay to deny claimant ME his due process rights in "some unspecified manner"; which was, sufficiently and greatly specified. Ms. Lane, as I mentioned previously, was the winner in the mentions contest, at 13 paragraphs, though only 4 are mentioned here.
Now we see that Ms. Bassanamas has taken a rather large hit of some unidentified schedule I drug, and states that I have not mentioned Mr. Bell...at all. Mr. Bell, in the 2nd case's amended claim, was mentioned 5 times.
You should, assuming the facts afore-mentioned, know by default that this brief is the one I've REALLY been waiting to tear to shreds. The greater reason for this is because his offices have done more damage to the county of Polk than in all Iowa's counties, collectively. The lesser reason is that I hate this man more than just about anyone. Selfish. Vindictive. Malicious. Narcissistic. Condescending. Self-God status elevated. Thinks he's the shit. A Coward's coward; probably a wife beater and a child molester too. Did I miss anything? No? Then without further ado or fanfare....LET'S DO IT.
Notice first, that, because this self-serving mafia boss is most concerned about HIMSELF, thereby is the MOST IMPORTANT person to be IMMEDIATELY dismissed without accountability; he is, of course, the first person defending to be discussed in this brief. For cryin' out loud, the man even garnered his own self-monikered HEADER...as the NUMERO UNO ISSUE, in the argument section,
This attorney barely spits out the first sentence and is already lying. She states here that, upon a careful reading (something I happen to know NONE of these "attorneys"...with the exception of Mr. Phillips, who OVERLY read it 50 times or more...NOR any of the judges have done), that her defendants are only mentioned in a few paragraphs of the claim.
A few...A few paragra...A FEW PARAGRAPHS???
They only WISH it was a few paragraphs. I don't believe I have to point everyone back to the claim here, to have you realize the magnitude of THIS lie. How could the claims of these defendants of the county only take up a few paragraphs, when these criminals of official duty were INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED WITH and are the driving force of this claim; the ones mentioned most, those involved in EACH AND EVERY ONE of all 8 cases, 3 juvenile and 5 criminal...and, in the case of the head criminal, John P. Sarcone, still tortures me needlessly to this day? A few paragraphs. Best joke I've heard the entirety of this decade AND the last. If I really had to put my finger on it, I'd say these folks are on some pretty good drugs. This group of criminals were named 56 times in around 160 paragraphs, including those mentioned in the relief. I'd say MORE THAN A 3RD OF THE CLAIM is PROOOOOBABLY more than a few paragraphs. NEXT LIE PLEASE!!!
The next fairy tale appears when she mentions that some UNIDENTIFIED party forged our signatures on some documents we allegedly signed, stating that we had received a copy of the Petition to remove our daughter. We hadn't, and why should we need to mention Ms. Brown? As it is her job to prosecute the case, it would MOST benefit her and serve her case ABSOLUTELY to be able to show that we had received those petitions on the dates they were allegedly signed, in order to state, in the adjudication hearing a month and a half later, that we've known all along, why our child was kidnapped from us; and would show that we'd done absolutely nothing to try and remedy the situation as well. Bad parents...bad people...remember?
She then moves on to defendant Brownell's mentions and lists him as being mentioned only twice. At a whopping 12 paragraph mentions, Mr. Brownell came in 2nd for being mentioned in the most paragraphs in the claim; losing by just a brown nose to Ms. Lane, who came in at 13.
Next lie we get to is where we used (and USE STILL) "some unidentified computer tracking program" (which has, in our answer to the defendants in "Bruce I" and SEVERAL times in "Bruce II", and came included with several screen shots of the name 'HUBSPOT" at the top of it) to track where the emails sent directly to his MAIN EMAIL address were being opened (and on what date, and how many times, as well). Mr. Sarcone, by the way, was mentioned in 10 paragraphs, just behind Mr. Brownell.
Then, under the section for Ms. Lane, she states that that i claim she conspired with judges and with Tromblay to deny claimant ME his due process rights in "some unspecified manner"; which was, sufficiently and greatly specified. Ms. Lane, as I mentioned previously, was the winner in the mentions contest, at 13 paragraphs, though only 4 are mentioned here.
Now we see that Ms. Bassanamas has taken a rather large hit of some unidentified schedule I drug, and states that I have not mentioned Mr. Bell...at all. Mr. Bell, in the 2nd case's amended claim, was mentioned 5 times.
Ah....but then, it mentioned the motion to dismiss from "Bruce I"...so, I guess Ms. Banarama is correct about the mention occurrences...IN THAT CASE. My bad. Still, we'll leave all that stuff up, since it is relevant to further argument.
Then, its mentioned, as an additional defense for Sarcone, that he is able to be dismissed due to a little something identified as "Collateral Estoppel."
First we'll define the phrase, then show how they intend to use this to let him out of everything. Collateral Estoppel exists for the purpose of protecting a defending party from being tried using the same reasons as in another or similar action. But, as this attorney only claims that Sarcone was only mentioned in "Bruce I" twice, maybe as many as 3 times, this does NOT compare to the fact that he was mentioned 10 times in the "Bruce II" claim, meaning that the issues were, if even just a little bit, DIFFERENT; and this SHOULD throw that defense right out the window. The way they abused this defense, was that they decided Bruce I; then IMMEDIATELY decided Bruce II right after it; now saying the matter is already legally determined.
As I mentioned several times before, the only reason "Bruce II" was "rejected at its initial review", sans the defending parties, both repeated and new, even knowing about it; let alone reading it (since the court did not, at any time, send out the summons to be served in that case), was because the claim was "Perfecto"...would have required each and every defendant to hire their own personal attorneys (out of their own pockets, not at cost to Iowa's taxpayers, a naturally overflowing and neverending mound of money they can use indiscriminately and unnecessarily to prosecute you and defend against you as well); named them all as individual people and NOT corporate FICTIONS (effectively stripping them of their claimed immunities) and contained corrections to each and every defense presented by the defending attorneys to get their "VIP" clients out of "Bruce I." This is just one of MANY tricks used to excuse these judges' buddies in office from suit filed by the children of the citizenry.
The other summarized reason to let the criminal Sarcone, (Mob Boss) go is the one that I've been steadily telling you about - the fact that he was in his role as a "Prosecutor", so he is, by some contrived default, AUTOMATICALLY, AND ABSOLUTELY excused from all suit.
As we continue on to the argument section, we come now to my favorite part. Here, like all the rest, she leans heavily on the fact that what we claim is "Conclusory," and "mere statement of facts". Other words used by her and others are "Threadbare recitals of damage" and "baseless and insufficient." Remember, the claimants had begun filing a SLEW of evidence in "Bruce II" that would have blown all of these phrases right out of the water...and when we reached the evidently critical number of 42 exhibits? Both cases were then decided quickly, one right after the other...because we were in the process of RE-threading that claim, reconstructing it one damaging piece of evidence at a time...and we can't let THAT happen!!!
On this page, attention is once again BRIGHTLY FOCUSED on the narcissistic Head criminal, Sarcone. This happens a lot in this brief.
Oh, the allegations of RICO are brought in here again, and that's good; since the attorney, on the very first pages of this brief, listed the elements that we claimants must meet, in order for it to succeed. 1. We need to show the enterprise's existence. I think we did THAT in spades. 2. Defending parties association with said enterprise....again, more spades. 3...and here's the tricky bastard, the one that totally skips around Government's possible involvement in some crime, "predicate acts of racketeering." Those predicate acts, ONLY? Mail fraud...and wire fraud. If they didn't participate in either of these, well...they are free to go. Come on folks. This has got to be a 100 year old-definitive list of predicate acts of racketeering. Where's Child Trafficking? Gangstalking? Pedophile rings? Prostitution rings? Drug shipping and sales? Aren't these a little more current modes of racketeering? As far as you and me, the average Joe's and Betty's, are concerned, racketeering and organized crime simply means any engaged in activities that would commonly be known to be and OBVIOUSLY are illegal or against the law; for the strict purpose of turning a huge profit. And boy, does THIS RICO RACKET TURN A PROFIT...HANDS DOWN
Buuuut...because the activities of these officials and criminal defending parties could easily fit the bill on 2 or 3 of THOSE, we need to keep that ages-old definition right where it is, right? Then, again, more spades awarded for point 4; defendant's actions constitute a pattern of Racketeering activities...easy peasy. Damn that #3.
Oh, and I also love that they state that Ms. Lane "requested" this claimant use his CORPORATELY IDENTIFYING, GOVERNMENT-ISSUED NAME...mainly, because she was as good as DEMANDING and FORCING me to use the name I was charged under, via judge order. To use my true Christian name in its current format would open up a literal ton or two of investigative questions, the answers to which would expose one of the biggest and successful scams every perpetrated on America's citizens to date...THE NEW DEAL; and its terms of the issuance to you of an all caps 3-part name, which they conned your parents into giving to you, via Government issued birth certificates; effectively claiming you to be DEAD AT BIRTH, and giving you the designation "U.S. CITIZEN." U.S. CITIZEN = Dead, corporate property, owned by those in alleged "representation" of us, things without a voice, things absolutely devoid of rights, Constitutional or otherwise; giving your uninformed consent to willingly participate in this mega-con by default; monetized these certificates by adding share numbers and supported banks to them; and these are then traded as commodities on the stock market and used to float loans to our government. This same scam also allows those of our treasonous government to deprive all of us of our alleged "Property" and "possessions" someday, property and possessions you do not, have not, and will not ever own...including your children....and yourself. You, America, are the granted or loaned collateral property on a pre-determined debt, at birth...a debt incurred by those of your "Government", the TRUE traitors and domestic terrorists. Someday, very very soon, they will throw up their hands, surrender their "ownership" of you and give over the title of this corporate "Property" (you and yours and everything you allegedly own) to the people that REALLY own you....the cabal; the owners, issuers and printers of our phony, worthless currency; those that intend to rule the world and enslave mankind...worse than they have already. For more CREDIBLE information, you are welcome to follow this link:
http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-whole-ball-o-wax-continued-post.html?m=0
under the subtitle of the "United States of America" where all the treachery engaged in by the mafia that is our government is described, shown and proven in living color; via a letter written by a Supreme Court Justice back in 2015, in her own words, to those of the FBI, describing this con to them, in the hopes that they would serve who they are supposed to serve; and do the right thing and arrest these con-men on behalf of those that pay their salaries. This was in reference to a $279 TRILLION dollar lawsuit filed against those of our "Government", which, obviousdly, did not succeed and, like other such actions, was swept EXPEDITIOUSLY UNDER THE RUG...nor could it succeed. There would not be enough gallows in this country available to hang each and every member of our Government of late; nor would it even come close to scratching out the names of every person involved and knowing in this scam....here...or abroad. The same scam was perpetrated on the entire world, friends, and happened at the behest of those who command the world and its wealth; those of the 1%, and their slightly less-wealthy, less powerful lackeys...those of the U.N., and those rich and successful in business, most likely businesses they fund ABUNDANTLY. the Clinton Foundation. Monsanto. Big Tobacco. Modern Medicine. Pharma giants and vaccination companies. The Bill Gates Foundation. The Bushes. The Bakers. The Candlestick Makers. These are the puppetmasters who have placed every one of our Presidents in office (as well as executed all those "For the People" presidents who wouldn't follow their agenda); and who have funded both sides of nearly every conflict since our war of 1812, and profited off the deaths of millions of our men and women (our own sons and daughters) in those conflcts...and who will, once again, kill us all, very soon...rewrite history, and start the process again...till they get it right...AS IF THEY COULD EVER GET IT RIGHT, the way they do it. These people are very easy to find, but evidently not so simple to be rid of. We find them and rid ourselves of these demonic tyrants and wealth hoarders? The world would INSTANTLY turn into a much better place. I suggest you read up on some REAL history, and get to finding out where these people are, and fast...or you may not live out the current year. I'm still pinching myself 2 years later; that Hilary DIDN'T win as planned, and that Trump won out...for under the puppet criminal con-artist Hilary, we would have been dead already; over 2 years by now; and don't you doubt it for even a moment.
What? No More Commentary?
C'mon folks....I am mentally exhausted. Just like in my initial brief on appeal, where I began listing ALL the 10's of errors the district court made in her decisions; then stopped because there wasn't any allowable room to list the rest; I think I've done enough to prove my point...don't you? Just remember, this is the LAST brief I commented on, in total...meaning there is more commentary to enjoy on the briefs that are yet to come. I did, however, summarize this brief, like I did the others, following the last page of THIS brief.
Let us summarize this attorney's logic and defense:
I. Did the district court correctly dismiss the claims against defendant Sarcone in "Bruce I?"
Yup. Shore did. How many more times do you imagine we'll have to agree with this statement?
II. Did the district court correctly dismiss the claims against county defendants in "Bruce II?"
Hale No. How many more times do you imagine that we'll need to disagree with this statement?
III. As an alternative, can the court affirm because the claims seek to invalidate Bruce's Criminal convictions though they are barred by Heck v. Humphrey?
Sure they can, and boy do they. However, this court CAN disagree because there were many rights violations that were properly claimed and alleged, and this court could and SHOULD grant us relief based on all of these that were NOT MENTIONED AT ALL OR TOTALLY EVADED, IN MENTION!
IV. As An Alternative, can the court affirm because the claims seek to overturn state parental rights rulings are barred by Rooker-Feldman?
OK, making this statement over and over to every idiot trying to use this defense is getting particularly TIRESOME. We seek no overturn of the State's decision to terminate our parental rights. We seek the court's recognition of the fact that NO COURT, JUDGE, OR MAN on this planet has the authority to terminate unalienable parental rights; nor, and that the courts of Polk County, at the very least and for many avoided reasons, had zero right to be involved in our lives AT ALL. This child did not, and does not belong to the State of Iowa; the State of Iowa ITSELF ruled that it shouldn't have been involved from the start (and though the REMOVING ENTITY ITSELF ruled that the assessment was UNFOUNDED, the courts of Iowa just ignored that and plowed ahead with determining that the termination of our rights was necessary anyway to cover the unlawful rulings made by the State and protect their subordinate in crime, DEFENDANT PRICE.) The allegations were proven to be false. The worker broke SEVERAL SERIOUS LAWS just in the removal alone. She falsified records, documents, violated rights and swore to affidavits yet got away with CONTINUOUS perjury, and did the same as she lied over 55 times in her initial assessment. She performed FORGERY 2 TIMES IN THE SAME removal that lasted 15 MINUTES, and the claimants recorded that, and the rest of this unlawful removal. There have been people in the history of this country that have HUNG FROM THEIR TOENAILS FOR A LOT LESS. It's time to quit protecting this child-stealing racket; your ponzi scheme and YOUR GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED, JUDICIALLY PROTECTED, NON-WIRE-AND-NON-MAIL-FRAUD-RELATED, REDEFINED FOR GOVERNMENT, CHILD TRAFFICKING RICO ACTIVITIES. I aim to stop you, and DON'T THINK I CAN'T or WON'T.
OK, making this statement over and over to every idiot trying to use this defense is getting particularly TIRESOME. We seek no overturn of the State's decision to terminate our parental rights. We seek the court's recognition of the fact that NO COURT, JUDGE, OR MAN on this planet has the authority to terminate unalienable parental rights; nor, and that the courts of Polk County, at the very least and for many avoided reasons, had zero right to be involved in our lives AT ALL. This child did not, and does not belong to the State of Iowa; the State of Iowa ITSELF ruled that it shouldn't have been involved from the start (and though the REMOVING ENTITY ITSELF ruled that the assessment was UNFOUNDED, the courts of Iowa just ignored that and plowed ahead with determining that the termination of our rights was necessary anyway to cover the unlawful rulings made by the State and protect their subordinate in crime, DEFENDANT PRICE.) The allegations were proven to be false. The worker broke SEVERAL SERIOUS LAWS just in the removal alone. She falsified records, documents, violated rights and swore to affidavits yet got away with CONTINUOUS perjury, and did the same as she lied over 55 times in her initial assessment. She performed FORGERY 2 TIMES IN THE SAME removal that lasted 15 MINUTES, and the claimants recorded that, and the rest of this unlawful removal. There have been people in the history of this country that have HUNG FROM THEIR TOENAILS FOR A LOT LESS. It's time to quit protecting this child-stealing racket; your ponzi scheme and YOUR GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED, JUDICIALLY PROTECTED, NON-WIRE-AND-NON-MAIL-FRAUD-RELATED, REDEFINED FOR GOVERNMENT, CHILD TRAFFICKING RICO ACTIVITIES. I aim to stop you, and DON'T THINK I CAN'T or WON'T.
One more thing...If I hear one more defending attorney attempt to evaluate our intent, and state that we are seeking to overturn state parental rights rulings or even breathes the first few syllables of "THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE" again, I may just have to go postal on them. Here's a thought...GET AN ORIGINAL DEFENSE, WILL YA, PREFERABLY ONE THAT WORKS FOR YOU? You see, folks, unless there is REAL, CHARGEABLE ABUSE OR NEGLECT, THEN THERE IS AND WAS NO NEED FOR THIS STATE PARENTAL RIGHTS RULING AT ALL. What's more, an understanding must be reached here, that AT NO TIME, DID THE STATE HAVE THE ABILITY TO EVEN USE A SINGLE LETTER OF THE WORD "JURISDICTION;" LET ALONE THE ENTIRE WORD TO CLAIM OVER THESE PARENTS OR THEIR CHILD...EVER. If this isn't enough, there's the fact that the parents WERE ABSOLUTELY EXONERATED OF THE ALLEGATIONS; MEANING THE STATE HAD NO RIGHT TO STEAL/KIDNAP OUR DAUGHTER in the FIRST PLACE. Finally, and more so than all, there's the falsely claimed jurisdiction possible ONLY because defending party Nieman SCREWED THE MOTHER OUT OF THAT POSSIBLE ALTERNATE JURISDICTION FOR 6 MONTHS by lying on a GOVERNMENT FORM. Any ONE of these three things means THERE NEVER WAS JURISDICTION, THERE NEVER WAS A NEED FOR REMOVAL, THERE NEVER WAS A NEED or a STATE RIGHT TO TERMINATE, AND THERE WAS NEVER A RIGHT TO INTERFERE IN OUR LIVES. All three things together, on the other hand, means that the state is not only liable, THEY ARE CRIMINALS, and should be JAILED FOR THEIR CRIMES...regardless of ALL of their defenses. End of STORY. End of Game...and as far as I'm concerned? End of career, and maybe even life.
Conclusion: States are corrupt. Justice is an outdated concept. Fleecing is PARAMOUNT. Judges and courts are out of control, as are lawyers, lawmakers, and each and every other public servant and official, on all levels.
SOLUTION? Tear them out of office, abolish all immunity, replace these self-serving criminals with REAL PEOPLE who actually care about our issues with what the Government is doing wrong. The end.
OK, so now let's move down the ladder to those of your city's government. Here is where we find the offering of the attorney that is defending two entire police departments in two different cities, 84 miles apart from each other, and an officer, aside from that. You're gonna love this.
Now, without directing you to that horrendously LONG and WINDY initial claim again; I’ll provide you a condensed history before tearing apart this brief.
4. Attorney's Brief in support of Carroll, iowa's PD, Gary Bellinghausen, and the Altoona PD too.
I had, once upon a time, called the Carroll Police Department; and they sent me Greg/Gary Bellinghausen once, because someone in another state had threatened to kill me. No, that’s not a lie, a man in North Carolina had threatened to beat me down with a bat. No joke.
So, I call the police, and they send me officer Gary Bellinghausen, he comes to my home, and I tell him my name is Christopher Bruce, since this is nearly 2 months before I adopted the name of Christopher the Living Man; then relate my problem, and he says he can’t do anything for me, where this guy is concerned (THIS is a very interesting point; and if you run over the brief for the Polk County Attorney, you’ll remember why.) The man who threatened me lives in North Carolina; and Gary suggests I call the police there. I do, and they ask me to send them proof of this…but as I went back to where he had done this, he had quickly managed to alter his threat to make it seem like a joke. The North Carolina police, thereby, deem it so, and say there’s nothing they can do as well. Gary then goes his way, and I’m just out of luck. A month or two goes by.
Now, on the doors on my home; both front and back, I had placed signs that said this:
I put these on the inner and outer sides of both doors, and on my bedroom wall, and in the hallway as well. These were at eye level, and on both sides of every entrance, so there was no way you could miss them. I did this due to the previous year’s actions of Jake Lancaster, and someone had given me this sign, and suggested I use it.
This year, the issue arose from an encounter with Mr. Darren Tromblay of CityView magazine. This occurred just days before my arrest for the Munson case. See, Darren had promised to do a story on all that had happened to me up to this point. But something that didn’t occur as strange to me right away came back into my head full tilt, following the arrest. He promised to do my story, and send me a reporter, Jeffrey Pitts, who is now the editor in Darren’s place. In the next sentence though, he threatened me…which, at the time, didn’t seem strange…but it sure did, following this incident. He said that, if I pushed him at all to do the story, he would feel obliged to file charges on me. A normal person would have thought this rather strange…but it didn’t occur to me, mainly because I was distracted by the fact that I had finally gotten what I wanted.
So a month goes by….and no Jeffrey. Nothing. Not a single peep. So I decide to poke Darren to remind him that this guy had not contacted me at all. He wrote me back, and said he’d have him call me A.S.A.P. Nothing. A week goes by. Still nothing. So I wrote him again, and re-stated his promise, and expressed that I was a little ticked that they were blowing me off…and whaddya know, someone is knocking at my door. Remember please, that Darren lives 84 miles away, and I have NO CAR.
Immediately, I figured out what was going on. I called Elizabeth, my wife, and told her to answer the door. She did, and with the door shut, asked the officers standing outside for a warrant. They said they didn’t have one…then mentioned that they DIDN’T HAVE TO HAVE A WARRANT TO ARREST ME. She told them they were going to have to produce a warrant, or the door would stay shut.
Obviously, the whole thing about not having to have a warrant was bull, since they left to go get it back at the station. If they didn’t have to have one, why didn’t they just break down the door, like they usually do? I took advantage of my extra time before arrest, and I ate something, smoked a couple of cigarettes and waited. 20 minutes later, they came back. Elizabeth answered the door and asked to see their warrant. They held up some piece of paper that said “warrant” at the top. Elizabeth then opened up the INNER door; leaving the LOCKED screen door shut; and walked away from it. (of course, THEY say Elizabeth let them in…a lie.)
The officers that were there then yanked open the LOCKED inner door, and one said (Gary Bellinghausen), “Are you Christopher Bruce?” By this time, I had altered and rescinded my parent-duped corporate given name; and I said NO. Then Mr. Bellinghausen says “You ARE Mr. Bruce, and you’re under arrest.” I asked him what the charge was, and he said “3RD DEGREE HARASSMENT.” 2 COUNTS.
Now, I don’t care if you’ve seen someone before, if they gave you a different name; and the guy you’re trying to arrest says something else, I would believe that the first thing you might do is ask for their ID. Not this guy. No, he bursts into the house (regardless of the sign on the door), doesn’t ID me to see if I am who I once said I was (he had asked for no ID then either); and arrested me…for doing the same thing he claimed he couldn’t help me with just 2 months prior to this, via warrant issued for me in an entirely DIFFERENT county, 84 miles away.
Now, I don’t care if you’ve seen someone before, if they gave you a different name; and the guy you’re trying to arrest says something else, I would believe that the first thing you might do is ask for their ID. Not this guy. No, he bursts into the house (regardless of the sign on the door), doesn’t ID me to see if I am who I once said I was (he had asked for no ID then either); and arrested me…for doing the same thing he claimed he couldn’t help me with just 2 months prior to this, via warrant issued for me in an entirely DIFFERENT county, 84 miles away.
Later, I found out the guy had used a search warrant to do this…not an arrest warrant. Strange. He hadn’t searched for a single thing, he had just come right to me, and hadn’t touched anything else in the house. And even though I had full access to my paperwork in jail AND WHEN I GOT OUT…I can now no longer access or download that arrest warrant. Funny thing, eh?
Remember the sign? Read it. It states dead on it that, you’re supposed to show me ID showing you are who you are, and state your reason for being there, SHOW ME YOUR OATH AND BOND…NONE of which either officer had done. Then it clearly states, and I quote “IF YOU SHOULD CHOOSE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL NOT TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE AT THE TIME OF YOUR ENTRY TO THIS PROPERTY, BY CHOOSING OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL TO ENTER ANYWAY, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THIS ACTION, OF YOUR OWN DOING, CONSTITUTES YOUR CONSENT TO CONTRACT WITH THE OWNER TO PAY A LAND USE FEE OF $10,000 PER PERSON PER DAY OR ANY PART THEREOF, IN LAWFUL CURRENCY, ON DEMAND OF THE OWNERS OR INHABITANTS.”
Now, I don’t know if you folks know anything about contract law…but the courts most certainly do. The sentence, quoted above, presents as an OFFER. Whether it’s a reasonable offer or not, doesn’t matter. Gary’s entrance to the property, without consent, without doing as the “contract”….for that’s exactly what this is…said to do; is what is called ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER. PERIOD. But because this officer was in the process of “doing his job”…within the “scope of his official duties”…well, he’s immune, folks. To suit, to the contract, to the false arrest…all of it.
Now, she’s bringing a good defense…the statute of limitations….OH, but wait. Sorry, my mistake, poor defense, bad quote. See, it says, accrual (meaning, the start and stop period of time for the action) is a matter of federal law. Then she goes on to cite something from some “Wallace” case, that says, and I quote again, “a cause of action accrues “when the wrongful act or omission results in damages.””, then, “WHEN THE PLAINTIFF KNOWS OR HAS REASON TO KNOW THAT THE ACT PROVIDING THE BASIS FOR HIS INJURY HAS OCURRED….” End bad quote. To finish off this series of really poor legal cites, it now says “a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff possesses sufficient facts about the harm done to him that REASONABLE inquiry will reveal his cause of action.” This one is quoted (cited) from some idiot federal law arising from some poor decision made by some ignorant corrupt judge in Collyer v. Darling. The reason, folks, that this is such a stupid group of legal cites; and covers another one of my favorite “bad cites” at law….”that a reasonable person knew or should have known”, or “to a reasonable person would have….” Now, this is where we go off the deep end, and into “the law needs to be totally deconstructed and reconstructed” territory, because THIS statement at law begs this question….DO YOU KNOW ME? Do you have any idea how unreasonable I'm not or how knowledgeable I am? Do you know the FIRST THING about me? Then how can you go into what I knew…or what I SHOULD HAVE known…at all? And we all know that, what is reasonable to some may just be unreasonable to others; this is just a fact of humanity.
More so…this conjoins with another one of my favorites, beyond all doubt…”Ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE.” Here’s the problem with this one folks. I don’t know about you? But the things these idiots claim to be LAW, is 100% unfathomable, 100% over-described and unreasonably BORING….now, maybe you, judge, have absolutely nothing better to do with YOUR life than read all 1000 pages of the Obama-care act. Me? I got things to be and people to do. And thanks to the allowance of employers to totally deny us any benefits in our respective jobs, because they allowed them to say “no full-timers!”, and we have to now get 3-4 jobs to make it, since the Government allowed the international bankers to determine our dollar’s worth from day to day, after the Government allowed the FBI to run amuck in the country, collecting up all our gold, squandering it away paying our interest on their loans, then abolishing the gold standard; eventually contributing to today’s poor economy and unemployment rate; stealing all of our social security money and our nest eggs? I’m sorry judge, but I’m far too busy fighting Government employees in court because they keep violating my rights willy-nilly and dismissing my claims before they get to trial; too busy fighting for the rights of children, stolen from parents that also evidently have no rights, that the Government is KIDNAPPING and TRAFFICKING EVERY DAY and too busy looking for a job because our local government gave me a record I didn’t deserve, because I wouldn’t shut up about the fact that the Government was allowing the kidnapping and trafficking of children; to find and read up on the 1000’s of laws they pass every session nationwide. IGNORANCE OF THE LAW THEREFORE? Is a luxury that I most certainly CAN afford. And so, can you, America. You’re welcome to quote me, should a judge ever say this to you again….word…for truthful word.
Let’s not EVEN forget the matter of law concerning equitable tolling. This little number helps the claimant to ask the court for an extended period of time to bring their actions, since the ability of the claimant to file for this action came to run directly in the path of the oncoming train of officials, who, while violating their rights, somehow managed to divert my little cart off the tracks to justice by doing so. This is supposed to be provided the claimant when this OBVIOUSLY has occurred. All you need do is read my initiating brief, the complaint AND the reply, to understand why these claimants should be HEAPED with this tolling by the courts.
It's also important to mention, at this point, that the IOWA statute of limitations for the FEDERAL CODE of a 1983 rights violation action is 2 years...WAIT, WHAT? There is no statute of limitations on this action....and the federal government, therefore, ruled that, since THEY don't specify one, the state CAN...meaning that the states can now set a statute of limitations on a FEDERAL CODE? Something is WRONG HERE FOLKS!!!
Now, we come across something called the “Heightened Pleading Standard.” This attorney alludes to my accusations of “Fraud” and my allegations of their conspiracy against my rights, and their RICO activities in particular. OK. Let’s go over the “plaintiff’s subjection to a heightened pleading standard” then, shall we?
It states, in Fed R. Civ. P. 9(b), that “in alleging fraud or a mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Then she applies this to my allegation of RICO activities. Remember, if you will, that when this particular entry of Federal Code was invented, it only applied to criminals on the OTHER side of the fence. No one would have ever imagined, in all the years this code has been around, that it might have to be amended or re-defined to address RICO activities BY OUR OWN OFFICIALS OF GOVERNMENT!!! Therefore, this ages-old section of the fed code only addresses those activities known well as engaged in by the mafia…or criminals that aren’t those of the Governly host. Mail and wire fraud. Who knew, back then, that someday, an entire industry of CHILD STEALING AND TRAFFICKING would emerge and be practiced and participated in by those of ALL of our federal, state, county and city Governments; AS WELL AS MASSIVELY PROTECTED BY THE SAME?? Well folks, it would appear that it has, indeed, done so. You think maybe we should look into this and do something about it, before all of our children are toast? I would, if’n I were you….or at least, BEFORE YOU BECOME THE NEXT VICTIMS???? Rest assured, that just like it happened in the days of our favorite guy, Adolf Hitler, previously mentioned, that it may, in fact be YOU…regardless of how much money you have, or how many At-torn-ees you have at your personal disposal. Then, as they claim to not be able to help you retrieve YOUR stolen children, I’ll call it a “personnel” problem, and turn my head away from your cries of “Help!”, trust that.
I am, finally, happy to see that this attorney has a thesaurus available and applaud her use of the word “OVERARCHING” to describe our “conspiracy theories.” Believe this, it will be the LAST good thing I say about anything said in this woman’s brief.
Now we come to Jake Lancaster, my very favorite Des Moines Police Department Detective....or ALLEGED detective, anyway. I say alleged, because the guy couldn't find a criminal in a haystack; if he tried. This is the guy who had to call the SECRET SERVICE TO FIND ME, since I had moved, not told anyone where I'd gone, and none of my friends would turn me in for a crime they KNEW I'd never in life commit, even for as much as a $500 REWARD. Then, in his desperation, he called the President's own secret service to affect my arrest for a false allegation, which he is STILL libeling me for TO THIS DAY.
Here's that libel now....
\
5. Brief in Defense of Detective Jake
Lancaster/DMPD briefl
Thankfully, I had already addressed the attorney's brief for this one, and have the commentary already ready for you....in the form of his brief's reply, by me. So, let's put up the brief, and then I'll paste in MY reply to his BS. That will be my commentary. You may notice that a lot of this sounds like my answer to all the appellate briefs....and you would be right. They struck my brief because they said it was "TOO MANY PAGES/WORDS and made me do it again; and said that I didn't have to answer to all of them separately. There are big differences, but you may have to dig down a few paras to find them...it was just too good to not use, so I incorporated it into my brief, and made changes that were applicable to ALL the defending parties.
Christopher, the Living Man and Elizabeth, the Living Woman do submit this answer to the brief submitted concerning defendants Lancaster and the D.M.P.D., a “non-suable entity.”
Once again, the attorneys for the defendants in these cases like to focus on things that do not matter or belittle facts that are stated clearly enough. As this is their job, we the claimants expect nothing less; especially since the rope they once hung from safely just above the floor of the law has now become more of a string over a chasm. In addition to this; even WITHOUT actual proof, let’s be honest here: who could possibly make up claims like those brought by the claimants against defendant Lancaster and the other listed defendants?
More so, Mr. Lancaster’s attorney is attempting to overlook a very important issue: There are two cases here…not one. The question is not whether the Des Moines Police Department is a suable entity, or whether defendant Lancaster had been dismissed in “Bruce 1;” it is whether the District Court Judge made a proper ruling in BOTH matters; and completely avoids stating that Mr. Lancaster was re-cast as a defendant in “Bruce 2.” Therefore, as should be apparent, Mr. Lancaster was never “dismissed” at all, just let go of for a minute, legally, so that the claimants could get a better grip on him that he couldn’t weasel out of…also legally. As to the defending entity, the Des Moines Police Department as a whole? They were excused a very long time ago.
As to the whole rule 12(b) excuse the entire world is trying to use; the claimants have no need whatsoever to only rely on their “baseless threadbare recital” of these claims; as ample evidence of the defendant, Mr. Lancaster acting far outside of the role of his official duties are still able to be found just about everywhere you could possibly look, including the internet. The record of the criminal and juvenile courts of Polk County should more than suffice; but since “all you could ever want or need” is never enough for the courts when officials are being sued by this country’s citizens; the claimants will give the defendants and the courts all they could ever want or need and more.
The claimant Christopher’s face is, even to this day, STILL on the Facebook page of the Des Moines Police Department; evidence we have attached to this reply as an additional exhibit. If it would behoove this court to note, also; beside the claimant’s picture; the comments by those of his friends of 20 years or better, those highlighted for the court in yellow; all expressing their utter disbelief at what was being accused of the claimant, Christopher.
More so, it has been ruled in several court cases over the years that there is no truer evidence of the facts behind a series of events, just shy of bodies, blood and fingerprints, than a time and date stamped account of the events as they happened. The claimant, Christopher, has duly documented nearly every moment of his life since the claimants’ daughter was unlawfully removed from their care on his personal blog; and it contains more than enough references to all that occurred with Defendant Lancaster. The claimants have found the articles that refer to these events and have attached to this reply the list of their names and the dates they are stamped with; as well as the general web address. The entire blog was submitted to the Federal District Court as an exhibit, with an identifier page. Certainly, the relation of events in the blog is sure to be a bit one-sided in favor of the claimants; but more than enough pictures, court documents and evidence is shown on these posts and in reference to this event, as well as all that happened in the case, to back up all of what the claimants have stated against this defendant; as well as all the others.
Added to that, every fact stated in claim against this defendant is also in the blog, in nearly exact duplication. As it concerns traumatic experiences in relation to their often-unwitting victims; at least for those who do not, instead, elect to subconsciously block the experience out of their minds; it is nearly impossible for those affected by these traumas to miss even one detail; as it sometimes seems to the victims of these events that they occurred just yesterday. This court can be most assured that it has been like this for these claimants for 4 long years. As every violation of these claimants’ rights is often executed to a traumatic level; there is no one fact that is ever missed, or a single word or sentence that varies one iota, as the claimants relate these events repeatedly, for nearly every single court they have had to endure.
Therefore, concerning the facts of the claim against this defendant and all just stated; this court should consider that those who seek to mislead those of law enforcement and the courts tend to change their story a lot; and, due to the evidence of the facts provided both the District Court and this appellate court, it should be evident that the facts of damage of the claimants, as they are stated; due to the unwarranted and vindictive actions taken by this defendant, remain the same, no matter how many years it has been; and no matter how many times that story is told. Relying on ONLY the claim in “BRUCE 2” and the claimant Christopher’s blog posts; it should be the opinion of this court that defendant Lancaster did, in fact, go far outside of the scope of his duties to cause the claimants; both Christopher AND Elizabeth, to miss their Termination of Parental Rights hearing, in collusion with defendants Price, Bell, Rhinehart, Nieman, Brownell and Gosch; as he acted in his alleged official capacity as a detective for the Des Moines Department, was allegedly granted authority to exercise his jurisdiction over the claimant, Christopher while he resided 84 miles away in Carroll, Iowa, utilizing Iowa’s un-Constitutional state codes to accuse Christopher falsely of a crime that involved no real damage of any person or anything belonging to a person; using no true evidence of an event that occurred over a month and a half prior to the date of the warrant issued for the claimant’s arrest. The claimant never, per any evidence that was ever filed in the criminal case itself; or anywhere else on earth, for that matter; threatened the life of the alleged victim, Defendant Emily Nieman, or the other alleged victim, defendant Gosch. The transcripts of the statements that had been left for these workers on their voicemails were FILED ON THE RECORD OF THE POLK COUNTY JUVENILE COURT directly following the event, and neither one threatened anything save their jobs. NO EVIDENCE of the threat to Ms. Nieman’s life was EVER filed by defendant Lancaster or defendant Bell in the criminal case itself; since none EVER existed.
Finally, since the attorney representing this defendant insists on bringing up that no rights of the claimant, Constitutional or otherwise have been violated in this matter by either Mr. Lancaster or that already forgotten non-suable entity; the claimant, Christopher states that, in calling these workers, he was, on this occasion, exercising his right to speak freely, as granted him by the first Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Also, as per the facts, presented this court in ABUNDANCE, the claimant didn’t speak directly to these workers; he called and left voicemails for them instead, on purpose, as he didn’t wish to speak to either of them. As related in their claim; one worker was their ACTIVE CASEWORKER AT THE TIME, while their case was STILL OPEN (defendant Gosch); and the other he had not called or talked to since she broke several federal laws removing his daughter; 6 months prior to this event (defendant Nieman.) Following the phone calls made to both workers, in January, 2015, the claimant, Christopher, has never called or spoken to either of them or their voicemails, since.
As should be apparent, according to the evidence provided both the district and appellate courts, no threat was made; save one alluding to the possible loss of their jobs. With no argument possible, therefore, these charges were fabricated; meaning the arrest of the claimant, Christopher, all by itself, executed by those of the President’s Secret Service at the behest of defendant Lancaster and others, was unlawful; and a violation of the claimant Christopher’s rights, in total. The claimants also include the most unnecessary month-long harassment of the claimant Christopher’s mother and brother by this defendant. To further stave off the Rule 12(b) dismissal possibility, the claimants’ relatives are willing to submit affidavits to this fact, gladly. Included also is, the libel of the claimant Christopher that still occurs to this day accusing him of these fabricated crimes; as his picture and the accusations remain on the DMPD’s Facebook page; evidently for eternity. Finally, there’s the move of Mr. Lancaster in calling the PRESIDENT’S SECRET SERVICE; telling them that the claimant Christopher had allegedly “threatened the life of the President,” because he said, on his blog, “I’m going to Washington, and I’m going to camp out on Obama’s doorstep until he does something about the corruption in my state”; convincing them of this laughable “threat” in order to have them locate the claimant for him by his computer’s IP address, something the DMPD has no authority to do – not that the federal government did either, but that’s another matter.
All of this – because claimant Christopher allegedly harassed a couple of social workers? If these are routine duties for a detective of any police force, concerning someone who has allegedly committed these petty “crimes”, then someone in oversight needs to start paying attention to what these people are doing and what they should be allowed to do, and to what length; in order to affect an arrest. A rather excessive amount of taxpayer dollars went towards all the work this defendant engaged in for over a month, to find the claimant, Christopher and arrest him; to possibly find him guilty of charges of 2 simple misdemeanors and an unprovable aggravated misdemeanor of harassment. The claimant states, in truth, that the only reason Mr. Lancaster even brought these false charges against the claimant, Christopher, was at the behest of; and in collusion with defendants Gosch, Nieman, Rhinehart, Bell, Sarcone, Price and Brownell to cause the claimants to be too afraid to show up at their termination hearing, for fear Christopher, would be arrested; after which they could say (and did, quite often, in the Supreme Court cross-appeal) that the claimants had no standing to appeal, per Iowa’s unlawful juvenile code, because they did not appear for their termination hearing.
This should make it evident to this appellate panel that Mr. Lancaster not only went well outside the scope of his duties, he nearly lost his mind trying to, first, cause the claimants to miss their termination hearing; then, vindictively carried this charade out well after they had gotten what they wanted (the claimants to miss their hearing) up to the claimant’s eventual arrest a whole month later, and all the way up to just mere days before the jury trial a month after that; as well as a full month after he had plead out to the 2 lesser charges. Interestingly enough, the attorney for Mr. Lancaster neglects to mention the much more serious allegation that was dropped. Finally, when no other retribution or delay was possible, defendant Bell and his boss, Sarcone, FINALLY dismissed its primary charge; not because the claimant had “plead guilty to the two lesser charges” as they falsely claimed; but because they HAD NO EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME. Claimant Christopher states that this was done, because while the defendant hunted the claimant Christopher like a dog for these “crimes” and continually harassed his family to give them his location (that they did not ever know), claimant Christopher stated, several times in his blog, that it was not likely that Mr. Lancaster was competent enough to find out where the claimants had moved to and arrest him.
In conclusion, the claimants dismissed the defendant, Mr. Lancaster and dropped naming the other forgotten un-suable entity in “Bruce 1”; this fact they do not dispute; but they did it only to file against Mr. Lancaster as an individual in “Bruce 2”; and, since the claimants had no knowledge on how to write their first claim; it was argued that there had been no viable claims of damage in “Bruce 1”, and the district court had made it apparent that there could would be no amendment possible. Also, per the rules of court, no attorney could be expected to be appointed on the claimants’ behalf; and the claimants cannot afford to pay one. Also, in the instructions of filing a civil suit, it says that, should you be suing an official that you should also name the branch of “Government” for which they work; and the claimants did so. Their original claim in “Bruce 1” had not listed the defendants’ corporate fictions as separate defending parties; they simply did as they were instructed; and placed these entities as headers above each group of defendants. When the summons were sent to the claimants, included were separate summons for the defendants’ places of employment; much to the confusion of the claimants. When the claimant called the clerk of the District Court to find out why, they answered that they could not tell the claimants whether they should serve them or not; since that would constitute the clerk giving the claimants legal advice. Since they were included, the claimants then served these entities as well since they did not want to lose due to a technicality, an error the claimants will not soon repeat.
Concerning “Bruce 2,” a claim that names these defendants as individuals; one attorney; mistakenly, I’m sure: specifically noted in his answer to the claim in “Bruce 1” that these claimants were suing these individuals as they were operating in their official capacities, affording them all manner of immunities; and more ridiculous defenses the claimants would just as soon forget. The claimants, in “Bruce 2” omitted naming these places of employment as defending parties (the claimants restate here that they NEVER intended these entities to be defending parties) and resubmitted a new claim, corrected to include proper claims of damage and more. Since the defendants’ places of employment were not included in “Bruce 2”; all arguments of the attorney for Mr. Lancaster and the DMPD itself are essentially moot concerning whether the department itself can be sued; since the Des Moines Police Department is no longer listed as a defending party in “Bruce 2”. As to the defendant, Jake Lancaster, the individual, his actions while acting in his ALLEGED authority against the claimants cannot possibly be construed; by anyone with any sense or reason at all; as anything but conspiratorial and vindictive; as well as far outside the scope of this defendant’s duties while he acted as a police detective; as he violated the civil rights of the claimants Christopher and Elizabeth in every possible way.
Christopher (Bruce), The Living Man
All right. Now that we got all THAT crap over with, let us move on to the final 3 briefs. After those 3 briefs, we plan to link you back to the very last defending party's last filing in the District Federal Court, before the judge dismissed BOTH cases, on the same day, within an hour of each other. This guy is the BIGGEST piece of Dog-doo of the bunch....well, AFTER and WELL after Polk County, Iowa's John P. Sarcone, that is...and did NOT opt to submit a brief into this appeal, in his defense. The letter to the appellate court, concerning the absence of his attorney's brief did not state a reason for his non-appearance...but I can pretty much bet that it has to do with the fact that his defensive position was torn to shreds by....yep...ME.
Concerning the last 3 briefs, we reach the briefs of two attorneys, who, not unlike the judges and...well, everyone else, have more than enough reasons to skirt our claims. It's the last brief that I just can't wait to get up and running America. The FINAL brief, submitted in representation of defending party Ashley (Andrews) Cronbaugh is, quite simply, the finest example of the waste of billable hours I have seen to date, except for the brief for the state in defense of the Department of Human Services criminals. Here's an attorney that could have simply said - "She wasn't served per the rules of the court....defended that position a little, then bowed out gracefully; and whose client wasn't involved in our lives for longer than 4 whole months. The size of HER brief? Twenty - six pages. Let me say that again, in numerical format - 26 PAGES!!!!!
So, now we move on to two crooked attorneys, both with very different tales to tell, and who did things that most would consider reprehensible, but the courts all thought was JUUUUUUUUUUUUST fine.
6. Attorney brief in support of Dale Mays, Snake.))
Beginning with Mr. Mays, I'll preface the problem first. I really don't like continuously referencing you to exactly where the problems were stated in the claim, over 73 pages worth, so this is easier.
The story is simple; so I'll nutshell it for you. When our daughter was taken by the State, Mr. Mays was assigned to the mother as her court appointed council. This was fine with us at the time, as we didn't have a lick of knowledge of anything concerning the law, or how to proceed in court. We were like sheep, for sure. We were not able to pay an attorney, so we accepted the appointments we were assigned. I had a separate attorney. I let him go early. Mays however, remained on the case for almost the entirety of the case, though we would ask for him to get off the case 2 or 3 times.
Mr. Mays did 3 things I would consider to be totally unethical, and absolutely far below the legal limit. For one, even though there was a financial affidavit in place on the record that found that the mother could not afford an attorney, causing the appointment of Mr. Mays in the first place, she was recquired to fill out another one only a month later, simply because she had re-started work (after being mandatorily laid-off for 90 days), 24 hours part-time, at barely over minimum wage; and this was done unnecessarily, because she was staying in a homeless shelter, and they wanted to say that she had no expenses. Why? Because the judge was a crook, and went out of his way to cost us our daughter and make our lives miserable the entire time leading up to this trauma. He did a bang up job, that's for sure. A month later, he ruled that the mother was now able to pay for her attorney, though everyone in the court room knew that her focus was to find an apartment where she could take care of her daughter, at the Dept. of Human Services and the court's request. NOTE: when we DID manage to find one, we IMMEDIATELY told the Dept. AND THE JUDGE...we even submitted an address change. About another month later, the DEPARTMENT said in their reports that we told them we had one...but that they had never been there to verify that fact. Of course, they never asked or tried to come by either. The judge, over a month later, stated (upon my telling him that we filed a change of address) "I don't pay attention to things like that." Of course, in the same month, his order still listed the fact that we were homeless as their PRIMARY reason for keeping our daughter.
2nd, just previous to the last time we would be clients of Mr. Mays, we had asked him to leave because of this stunt, but this time, for good (we had discovered, finally, by this time, what had happened, why, and who had conspired to do it.) Mr. Mays then submitted a motion to the judge to withdraw from representing my wife on December 5th; and had listed nice, clean, lawful reasons for wanting it to happen. The problem was, that they were all lies. None of these things were true. We then filed a motion immediately that asked for the record of the court to be changed to the REAL reasons he was asked to get off our case, reasons we listed on the motion, the factual ones. In order to evade having to act on this one, he dismissed Mr. Mays FIRST on December 11th...then said our motion to correct the record was moot, since he was no longer associated with the case.
3rd, and final, we served Mr. Mays a subpoena on December 15th, 2014. He then filed a motion to quash the subpoena in the case that he was allegedly no longer associated with on the same day, and defendant Price, in assistance of Mr. Mays, then issued an order granting him the ability to withdraw from the case...AGAIN, on December 15th, even though he had already been granted that on December 11th. We also, upon being granted his withdrawal, asked Mr. Mays for our legal documents, since I had been cut off from viewing and downloading files by defendant Price earlier, and he stated he would have to charge her for that. We told him to forget about doing this, and he then sent the package of papers to us anyway, at the address no one could verify that we lived at; and billed us for the job. Needless to say, we have never paid him.
I applaud his fellow peer, his partner who chose to defend him, for being the best attorney of the lot. I'm thrilled that I only have to say a couple things, and this guy is OUTTA HERE.
He's right about the immunity. The statute of limitations is wrong, because equitable tolling should apply. NEXT!!!
7. Brief in Support of Lucas Taylor
Now we move on to the brief of another such snake, LUCAS TAYLOR. I said that Mr. Mays committed more crimes than any appointed attorney to date, but that was ONLY because Mr. Taylor wasn't appointed to me, he was FORCED on me, and not only that, was forced on me conditionally, because I didn't want him.
Mr. Taylor was in my business for the run of 1 and 3/4 cases. I say 1 and 3/4, because he wasn't around for the beginning steps of the parallel misdemeanor case that occurred around the time of the much bigger criminal case brought against me. I forgive him for that, because he had no idea what he was about to get into, in case #2, surely. He...and I, would find out much too soon.
History is very much required here, because the two cases happening at this point in time were both very much set-ups. The first happened, because a reporter working for the local "alternative" rag, CityView, was bothered by my insistence that he not only read up on all that was going on with the claimants, but also wanted him to report it. This put the editor in question in a dilemma. To report it would be to upset a very lucrative racket, (as well as piss off a lot of officials in office); and to NOT report it endangered his very ethics; and possibly, his job would follow. His journalistic integrity would come into question, and he might lose in more ways than one. What to do then? He called the very criminals responsible for all of this - namely the head county attorney, defendant Sarcone, and conspired with him to find a way to end his dilemma. The plan they decided on was well-thought, and worked wonders for them. The editor would promise to give the claimants what they had been after, a story; but included in small print that, should they push them to do it faster than they wanted to, they would not hesitate to file charges against Christopher. Considering the good part of the deal, it was easy to miss the small print.
2 months went by since the offer, and nary a word was given the claimants to hang on to. Following this, as a "poke the bear" measure, Christopher emailed the editor to ask what was going on. His answer was that he would talk to the assigned reporter, and let him know that he had yet to contact us. We took that. A week went by, and still nothing. Finally, Christopher had had enough. He got angry, and went a little overboard writing the editor, and did what he had been warned NOT to do. He pushed. The following day, the police showed up to arrest him, again, for harassment.
Parallel to this event, a woman who was evidently fighting to get her grandchildren returned to her family, was battling Christopher on a personal level. This woman and Christopher had a small disagreement a few months prior, and it had exploded into full scale virtual war. Slander flew, libel followed, and pretty soon the war was in full swing. An associate of this woman was a convicted felon, a man who had served real jail time, and who had either slept with the woman we're referring to, or wanted to. Because she asked him to, he proceeded to harass the claimant, and made his life a living hell for another 4 long months. Eventually, the harassment stopped, and things got back to normal.
Then, our claimant noticed something rather strange. People who had both him and this woman in common as associates, began dropping off his friend's list like flies...one by one, blocking him off and not speaking to him about it. Puzzled by this, it occurred to the claimant that maybe this woman had started up on him again, and decided to call her out. He then looked for her, and, even though he had been blocked from her months before, she was now visible again...meaning she had again been spying on his actions.
So he sent her a single note, that essentially stated this: I know you've been talking to our friends in common and are somehow convincing them to block me off. If you bad mouth me again, things will not go nicely for you.
And that was it. I re-blocked her, and let it go.
Then, the phone calls came in. 4 of them, right in a row, from her buddy, the convict. She had called him and told him about the message left for her on Facebook, and had asked him to call me and deal with me, and gave him my personal phone number. He did so, but took it a whole lot further than was necessary. He threatened to kill both me and my wife, and informed us as to how he intended to accomplish this. Not remembering anything about this guy, but knowing damn well it was him that called, I tried to put together something for the police...and failed miserably. I then made a mistake. I decided to call the woman, since I had HER number.
Since she wouldn't answer the phone, I naturally got more angry as calls continued to come in from the man, and she wasn't answering. Finally I just flipped. The man had threatened to kill me and my wife...I was truly livid..and in my stupidity, I then left over 25 very angry threatening messages, and said I would continue to do so until the phone calls stopped. Finally they stopped...and I stopped along with them. By that time however, I had left a lot of damaging evidence.
The problem was that this had already passed as an event for over a month. No arrest followed it. UNTIL...
On the date following the day I bailed out after my first arrest on the charges brought by the editor, I was helping out a friend who had been wronged by his state; and he was fed up. He asked for my help, and as I do things all the way in or not at all, I then found a folder containing the email addresses of every single L.A. County, CA social worker, then emailed over 8000 L.A. county social workers after writing an article on the story, telling them that I had put the story out on the web. Something tells me they didn't care for this stunt...because a day later, they arrested my friend, on no charges for 8 months, and then let him go, then two days later, I was being arrested again, this time for the harassment of the woman, aforementioned. My arrest would net me the single longest span of jail time in my life; a year. Before that, it had been just a few hours.
3 strange events occurred, all pointing to the origin of the case, and how it had happened to pop up the day it did. 1st, was the letters to the L.A. County social workers just two days prior to my arrest. 2nd, there was only a single charge at the time of arrest, and bail was only going to be $200. On my way to jail 83 miles away from there, 2 more charges were hastily added, then were immediately approved by the county attorney THE SAME DAY, while I was en route to Des Moines...another aggravated misdemeanor, and a very low level felony. The bail for all 3 should have been $9,000 bond/$900. The total bail to get me out for these 3 charges was now, at the time I arrived, at $7,000, or $70,000 bond; and would now require a house as collateral.
3rd was the magical disappearance of my motion asking for a jury trial for the smaller case. It did in fact turn up...but not until 3 days after the limit of time to file it had passed. On that note, the judge that oversaw that one? Was under the tutelage of none other than Defendant Price. Imagine that. Worse still, when I appealed the decision of that judge, guess who oversaw its appeal decision? Non-appellant judge Defendant Price...damn you're good! The first found me guilty, of course, and the 2nd backed her up.
While awaiting trial, this experienced attorney in felony cases did not suggest discovery, did not suggest for a bail reduction, and did not suggest depositions. Three business days before trial, he didn't show up for a surprise hearing where the judge, defendant Blink, dismissed over 200 pieces of filed evidence as "irrelevant", and let 29 elected officials quash their subpoenas to testify; some of those didn't even have attorneys in the court room asking for the subpoena to be quashed for their clients. On day 3 of trial, Taylor told my remaining 11 personal witnesses to go home and not come back. A Des Moines Register article, libeling me and calling me a murderous lawless domestic terrorist came out 2 days before the jury would retire; then find me guilty; and Mr. Taylor did not seek out a mistrial. Finally, he promised to file my appeal, and didn't. Then, as if all of that weren't plenty, he would then testify against me, his own client, in my post-conviction relief case.
The result of THAT case, nearly a year later? They found that Mr. Taylor had adequately represented me, and that NONE of my rights had been violated; by him, or by anyone else.
So anything this attorney might say in Mr. Taylor's defense? Has GOT to be absolute malarkey. The end.
Now...the moment you have all been waiting for. Now, we're defending a CHILD VISITATION SUPERVISOR, Ashley Andrews (Cronbaugh); who works for an INDEPENDENT company, not for the State, who got out of this using an improper service of documents claim; and simply because the Statute of limitations had already run its course. And yet, her attorney submits 27 pages of defense; even though this defendant hadn't been in our lives more than 4 whole months. Oh, and she was dismissed too. Let's see if we can find where this waste of billable hours went.
We'll start where we usually do, the "Summary of the Case." Most of it is correct, although I would love to point out that sentence that states "Although it's not apparent from Appellant's brief, CFI and Coronbaught believe that Appellant takes issue with the District Court's decision to grant the dismissal oF" ALL the appellant's defending parties. This of course, includes her and her corporate entity and her client, Ashley Andrews, now Cronbaugh. Well first of all, if it's not apparent, you made a damn good guess, lady...and got it right. I would have to venture that this issue is MOST CERTAINLY correct, was absolutely the issue; and that it is MOST apparent...especially since I say what the issue is about 10000 times in both the initial brief and the reply brief. I really love that she goes on to waste the court's valuable time, stating that the appellantS have "purported" to appeal such decision...what, you didn't get the notice of appeal? I'd say it's a damn fact that we appealled...or, I wouldn't be going through all of this bullshit, would I? But you know, if all else fails, blame it on the other people. They're at fault. They don't make their issues apparent. They write too big a brief. They don't serve properly. They state no claims for relief to be granted. They don't follow the "Rules." Whatever works for you pal. "Tear down the other guy" is tried and true, and a very reliable method of attack/defense.
There is another parrotted statement made, in this brief and almost every other one as well; that the appellees, in total, believe that oral argument is not necessary, because "it (the case) does not involve any novel facts or law" Oh, I don't know. I'd say that it most certainly does. For one, there are the countless facts that state violations of our UNALIENABLE, HUMAN, LIFE AND LIBERTY, DUE PROCESS, CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS by people in office that are counting on getting away with it all. I don't know about you folks, but I consider these to be some rather novel facts. As to the novel law? How about the novel laws that ALLOW YOU ALL TO GET OUT OF THESE SUITS? I'd say the word "novel" describes those laws rather well. And those are just two quick examples that both rolled right off of my tongue. Novel facts, around 73 pages worth; and laws abound here, as there are around 90 mentioned just in the 2nd state brief, related and shown far above this one. So many in fact, we could almost call this a NOVEL CASE, as a whole, without putting in any real effort.
On page ix, we see more bile-producing statements made, in the Jurisdictional statement. Now, if you'll notice, back on page...oh, what one do we want...oh yeah, page vi, where it said that the cases were dismissed utilizing some stupid rules of court, that addressed insufficient service, and also THE DISTRICT COURT'S LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. This attorney's only issue, then, as stated in her statement, is that, had the appellants (she means appellees. Sheesh. Can't even get her role right, how do we expect she'll do the for the rest of her brief?) been served correctly, the District Court would have had proper jurisdiction. Isn't that special. So how is it that none of these others complained about the mode of service? Then they wouldn't have had ANY jurisdiction over anyone, right? I did not serve, personally, any of these defending parties; nor could I or would I have. This is just as ridiculous as expecting me to list this defending party's correct married name...like I'm supposed to somehow keep up with everything that happens in their lives, such as their getting married (who on earth would marry such a person, to begin with...someone that participates in a collusion to steal and keep other people's children, and lies constantly on the stand...just 2 hearings of mild observation by myself of my girlfriend in any one of these juvenile cases would have been enough for me to turn her in for kidnapping and conspiracy to commit the same, not make me hot to marry her and have a family.} I'm certain that Mr. Cronbaugh is bamboozled about her activities on the job, plenty, or there wouldn't have ever been a Mr. Cronbaugh. All in all, it's not MY job to keep track of what idiot she married. She'll always be "Andrews" to me, the woman who complained CONTINUOUSLY that we wouldn't be good at parenting, and wasn't even engaged as yet; let alone had she had a single experience with a single child by this time; and the same that contributed to an easy 33% of the loss of my daughter. I once asked her 20-24 year old self if she was a mother; as a question of her on the stand...and the objection from the prosecution couldn't have flowed fast enough; nor could the judge have flown off the bench any higher in shutting down that line of questioning. To allow it to go on would have ruined EVERYTHING.
Getting back to the whole "insufficient service" issue...I just have to say this folks. For one, just like it isn't my job to ensure that the defendants didn't get married while I wasn't looking, it's CERTAINLY not my job...NOR IS IT POSSIBLE to find any of these people either; in order to serve them where they live. No no, they make very sure of that. it took me nearly 2 years just to find a usable picture of my judge...let alone did I not find a single property the man owned anywhere in the county, and never saw him even once in the 42 years I lived in Des Moines, outside of his job. So...serving these people at their houses is out, since to even tell one person where they live would be to bring down the wrath of scores of families pouring into their lawn; thereby, these are secrets not told to anything or anyone public, for to do so, would be not unlike inviting Death over for a nice brunch.
So? Let's move on to serving them on their persons. The same arguments apply.
So what option then, to serve these people, remains? Well, you could always hire a P.I...who would then proceed to charge you hundreds of dollars to do so, then, they would have all the OTHER methods to get out of it anyway, and the case would get dismissed, leaving you hundreds of dollars in the hole. There's also the Sheriffs, who are obviously privy to these official's whereabouts, evidently. Even though they're doing their job, serving you with summons, this also costs you extra money, whether it's you doing the serving or the officials against you. Regardless, the same result would ensue.
The final method is certified mail...which the claimants used for everyone. Yet no one, but Katherine Walker, Tony Reed, and Ashley whatever her name is, complained about it. After the claimants provided the receipts for certified mail to the court, Tony Reed was the only smart one who finally gave in and defended himself. Ashley you know about. Katherine Walker skated out of the entire thing with nary a peep in defense, in either the cases OR THIS APPEAL. She has vanished entirely.
I suppose what I'm saying, America, is that these rules of service are IMPOSSIBLE for We The People to abide by, by any shake of the tail. Should the court find that they were served right, well, every other excuse in the book to go home would follow. The way these claimants...as well as every other reasonable person on the planet would see it, is that if you are filing to be dismissed because you weren't served right, according to the "RULES", you know about the case, you have your summons and copy of the claim, or you woulnd't be trying to get out of it. Case closed.
Now we move on to CFI's summons. Now folks, we never wanted these corporations to be served, or to present for themselves as defending parties, the claimants only served summons because this fact was alluded to (but never actually SAID was needing to be done, for to do so would be to give you legal advice, and only the gods of the BAR are allowed to utter such words yannow...) Soooo....the entire defense of CFI itself is a waste of paper and the court's time. The claimants also find it laughable that the summons for CFI are needing to be served in the same manner, using the same rules as an individual. They also state here, a 2nd time that just because these people knew about the case's existence, is meritless, when considering sufficiency of service. Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated and downright smelly.
Equally smelly, on page 11 in section b., Argument, it states that the district court concluded that affording the appellants...the claimants, US, an opportunity to re-serve properly would be FUTILE. I ask you...how does this court come to this conclusion? Would it possibly be futile, because maybe the court already knows what it intends to decide on the case? We claimants believe this is most certainly so. Because we know that we're gonna help all our criminal buddies escape every claim made, we conclude that re-serving chances are FUTILE. Why bother? We're gonna let everyone out of this anyway...are you seeing this too America?
And to prove that these attorneys most certainly copy each other's answers? We go right back into the tired repertoire of reasons they should be dismissed, not considering everything we proved on the lighter side of the case; showing full well the NOT NECESSARY-ness for including everything that everyone else is using for THEIR defenses.
So kids...what have we learned here, with just this visitation worker? We learn that it doesn't matter what you do, who you take orders from, or who you associate with, for which purpose; whether you're a state worker or not, whether you're served right or not...if you're part of the racket, you're getting away with everything.
And, since we've analyzed this on just Ashley's part, let's give a great big summary for everything:
Conclusion: States are corrupt. Justice is an outdated concept. Fleecing is PARAMOUNT. Judges and courts are out of control, as are lawyers, lawmakers, and each and every other public servant and official, on all levels.
SOLUTION? Tear them out of office, abolish all immunity, replace these self-serving criminals with REAL PEOPLE who actually care about our issues with what the Government is doing wrong. The end. Funny how this works for just about everyone, isn't it? I knew there was a reason I kept using it. :D
8. Attorney presenting brief for defendant Ashley Cronbaugh (Andrews)
9. Brief of Anthony Reed
Anthony Reed did not submit a defending brief in this appeal.
Allow me INSTEAD to link you back to the last thing filed by the attorney for Tony Reed, the biggest slime-ball con-artist working in Iowa...nay the nation, today.
This is the guy who came in with Quasi-immunity. I know you're gonna love it. Following his last action, you'll find everything I submitted in reply. This was to his attorney's motion to the District Court Fed Judge to dismiss Mr. Reed in a summary judgement..
IN SUMMARY
Had enough yet?
I want you to know, America, that this article was shipped off to those offices of my U.S. Senators of Iowa, and to EVERY...SINGLE...Senator, Representative, Governor, and corrupt official in my state; and to all the local news stations in the surrounding areas. Not a peep in response, sans the usual form letters shot back at me upon their sending.
I would, however, love to say something about the corporately owned media. Now, I just got done reading an article by a guy who seriously believes that these corporate clowns in the media are, in actuality...Demons. Folks, I'm going to write in a little quote from that article, and tell you why I believe this guy just might be right. This is actually someone HE'S quoting, and I'll follow that up with a quote of his:
"They first cropped up seemingly out of nowhere about 6 years ago, adorned in black capes with curved devil horns affixed to their heads, holding posters and black American flags as they shouted "hail Satan" on the steps of our Government's institutions", reports the UK Daily Mail, in a story documenting the rise of Satanism in America."
"And they were growing exponentially. Since "The Satanic Temple's founding in 2012, the organization has increased from a handful of members to tens of thousands; with chapters all over the globe and the U.S. from Stockholm to London and Los Angeles to Texas." - Natural News (dot com).
Now, I just wrote 3 emails to a news station that, over the period of 5 years, I've sent these stories of court corruption to; over and over again, with UNDENIABLE proof of the same...and have been greeted in return with.....................................................silence. Right. So then, one day, on a radio show I used to do that exposed what parents all over the state were going through, I called this station's NEWS DIRECTOR, ROD PETERSON...and asked him why his station wouldn't cover news concerning child stealing and corruption in our courts. He replied that he would most CERTAINLY be interested in those stories, promised on the air to help a woman with her story....and neither she, nor I ever heard from him again.
Since that time, Mr. Peterson's news team was contacted by me again, but not for another 2 years and only twice...and, as many of you know, I have an email program that tells me every time someone opens my mail, where they are, what date and time, and how many times. So I sent them ONLY the last 2 articles, in 2 emails, with a short description of their value to the news....and this happened. You ready? I'll explain this after you look:
What you're seeing here are 2 screen shots taken of my email program as it tells me that this email was opened 44 times, on one day...and that it was opened by the station in Des Moines, Iowa at one time; and 5 minutes later, the same news team then opened that same email...in Omaha NE. Then, in Chicago Illinois. So are you trying to tell me that the news guy opened his email at 9:05 in DM Iowa, then flew to to Chicago and 5 minutes later, opened it again? I think we all know better than that, now don't we. Folks, what has happened here has happened before, at the hand of the Polk County Attorney, defending in this matter, John P. Criminal County Attorney, and for 3 whole years. The FBI was called when I submitted THIS article to them...by this news station for Iowa. That news station is: WHO-TV 13, one of the most watched and trusted news stations in Iowa. I wouldn't much be trusting them to tell you another damn thing, if I were you. Unfortunately, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in KCCI or the ABC affiliate, Channel 5 giving you any real news either, since they were also delivered this same story, several times.
The question you have to ask here is WHY? Why would this news station do this, upon me submitting nothing more than a news tip??? The answer may be more shocking than we know; and one I think I'd rather not know the answer to. Considering the THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES that have endured this; and after we have told our Governor and COUNTLESS senators and representatives, including CHUCK (ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE) GRASSLEY, the very man in oversight of our judiciary NATIONWIDE, currently about this, we have met the same eerie silence. More so than any of the aforementioned, however, is why wouldn't your trusted news stations relate to you, not only the corruption of the courts...but of officials of office? And the target our CHILDREN??? 50 years ago, that would be THE TOP STORY OF THE YEAR...this year, it's not even worth a mention, unless kids DIE (e.g., Sabrina Ray?)
Now that we're at the end of this legal travesty, let's run over the facts. Every person and corporate entity listed in "Bruce I", our first action, has been excused here, in these 9-1 briefs on the District Federal Court Level. In "Bruce II,", the 2nd case, the claimants deleted out all the corporate entities, called the repeats from "Bruce I" INDIVIDUALS (not acting for their jobs, in their official capacities, but INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE)...and these were ALSO released in the order for "Bruce II." Even more amazing however, is, that even though the court had NOT issued the claimants summons for Bruce II, meaning none of the NEW defendants listed...as well as the REPEATED individuals had even SEEN the claim, ALL....WERE EXCUSED FROM IT???? I would have to say, if this does NOT show a deprivation of justice? NOTHING DOES. I guess all we can do now? Is wait for the appellate court to make its decisions. I think this will be very interesting, at the very LEAST. As soon as those orders come in, you had best believe they will go up immediately.
Keeping in mind that your tax-dollars are paying for these attorneys to represent their respective officials in office, these attorneys could have saved the taxpayer COUNTLESS amounts of money, had they only said 2 things: The Statute of Limitations has run out on all of the allegations made, and equitable tolling does not apply...and they would have gotten their dismissals, hands down. We claimants would like to thank, in particular, the attorney for the State of Iowa Mr. Charles Phillips, Esq., for being SO VERY thorough in his defense, and covering every...possible....legal angle of his defending position; for in that thoroughness, you have hung yourself by your toenails, and rights groups everywhere now have all they need to cry FOUL.
Keeping in mind that your tax-dollars are paying for these attorneys to represent their respective officials in office, these attorneys could have saved the taxpayer COUNTLESS amounts of money, had they only said 2 things: The Statute of Limitations has run out on all of the allegations made, and equitable tolling does not apply...and they would have gotten their dismissals, hands down. We claimants would like to thank, in particular, the attorney for the State of Iowa Mr. Charles Phillips, Esq., for being SO VERY thorough in his defense, and covering every...possible....legal angle of his defending position; for in that thoroughness, you have hung yourself by your toenails, and rights groups everywhere now have all they need to cry FOUL.
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND EQUITABLE TOLLING.
Let's review the facts of this case as defended, using the only concern that makes valid legal sense - The Statute of Limitations, and Equitable tolling.
First, we'll review right from the first occurrence of the violations of the rights of the claimants. Now, you'll remember when we first talked about this; and we CLAIMED that efforts were made to push us behind those limits. We also talked about how the federal court inists that final rulings on these matters be taken as far as they can go on the state level before they'll even LOOK at a matter on theirs. We also talked about the absolute corruption going on in the State's courts, and how this can affect a person's attitude while they consider appealing a matter; and how the courts fleece you for all the money they can get, while you wait for justice you may NEVER, and most likely WON'T ever receive. Finally, we discussed the defense that stated "You didn't take this as far as it could go with the state, therefore, you have no right or standing to bring these matters to the feds;" and that "You should have known" or, "a reasonable person would know"; and how these imaginary people made legal standards have NO place in the courts, as they serve the court and the officials that defend more than they do an injured party.
For those of you that may not know, a Statute of Limitations is a set period of time allowing a person to bring charges against another. A good portion of these "Statutes" make good sense. How is someone who witnessed an accident, for example, going to remember every detail of an accident 5 years down the way? There's a certain logic behind these sorts of situations.
I am sorry, however, because I see a lot of this, when going against officials of Governing bodies, as detrimental to the very CONCEPT of justice. Thus, EQUITABLE TOLLING appeared, and states that, if you were somehow hindered from making a reasonable appeal, or if someone just got in your way, well, this should apply, and give you a longer period of time to do what you have to do.
OK, great. So. How was justice denied in this case, and how SHOULD equitable tolling apply? Why were these claimants denied even a day of equitable tolling, in total? Let's go over the very start of the claimants timeline a little bit, shall we?
The best way to do this is to list the rights violations, the offender, and the dates that were applicable, and why a period of tolling should most certainly be applied. We plan to ONLY cover, JUST the first occurring violations; back 5 years to 2014.
1. The denial of the possibility of another jurisdiction for EVERY PORTION OF THE JUVENILE CASES, Emily Nieman, July 2014. Technically, the ripple effect of these actions of Ms. Niemans not only carried through the entirety of both the cases themselves; but also carry on into the period until the Supreme Court of Iowa's final ruling on this matter; taking us up to June of 2016. This was the final decision date of the termination of our parental rights. This is not actually a listed or statute covered crime, in that this EXACT action is not defined in any code that we have ever found. It is actually a combination of several smaller crimes, listed below. Ones that could, as a result of these actions as a whole are also listed (i.e., kidnapping.)
2. Forgery. Emily Nieman, July 2014.
3. Falsification of Government documents. Emily Nieman, July 2014.
4. Fraud. Emily Nieman, July 2014.
5. Fraud upon the court. July-September, 2014. NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES.
6. Perjury. July-September, 2014.
7. Forging a judge's signature onto a court document. Emily Nieman, July 2014.
8. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Emily Nieman, July 2014.
9. Conspiracy to deprive civil rights. Emily Nieman, July 2014.
10. KIDNAPPING
Now, let's consider for all of these, our "reasonable person" and "Should have known" defenses as they apply to these codes, and to the violation of your rights of all types, to start with. Consider first, that, as far as the world as we know it is concerned, THESE THINGS COULD NOT, AND DO NOT HAPPEN. So, upon an inquiry of people we know, the majority are going to say "They can't do that", and then, as a logical conclusion, they assume these things: A. This didn't happen. B. There's more to the story than these people are putting forth; and C. Something happened, or these people wouldn't be involved. So, reasonable inquiry of your social circle and family is out. More so, because of the conditioning of this state agency of "The Department of Child Protective Services", this is the deductive reasoning most people will follow...and CPS KNOWS this; and takes FULL ADVANTAGE of this way of most people's thinking. "What are the chances that these people are going to do things this unlawfully?" they think to themselves, to someone they know? Pretty unlikely. There has to be more to it, then, is the logical and reasonable conclusion.
Then, you have to also consider the person that this is happening to, THEMSELVES. First, the target is a person who, because of low income, sorry education, and little truck with the law, is going to have little knowledge concerning: The law, the Constitution, lawyers, court proceedings in general, their rights; what these state employees CAN, and CANNOT do, etc. You must also consider that the majority of these kinds of people cannot afford their own attorneys, and the majority of the ones they do try to hire: a. Do not involve themselves in family law matters (because the majority know what's happening in those matters already; and also know that to go against those of government is a LOSING BATTLE, before the battle even begins;) or want outrageous retainer prices...mostly because they know that they won't win, and want their money BEFORE they remove themselves from your case. Equitable tolling, friends, should be given THESE KINDS OF PEOPLE, without question, and in abundance.
Let's assume that the Iowa Statutes of limitations runs just 2 years ON ALL of these listed violations, above. Now lets look at the fact that State courts are ABSOLUTELY corrupted; and that to take most violations of your rights through them first, will eat up all the time necessary to push the violations right behind any defined statutes of limitations. A good example is the most available...so let's go with all that happened from July 2014, until July of 2016, the end of the Statute for some of these particular violations and criminal actions, listed at the start of this section. June 2016 was the final decision date made by the Supreme Court of Iowa, concerning the Termination of our parental rights, a matter that could have been stated to begin as soon as the removal of our child happened. WHAT DO YOU KNOW...this is one month shy of the two year period that these actions could be appealled to a higher court, those of the Federal Government. OK, so what about that extra month? Well, not only that...but I received this decision while I was jailed for the falsely brought charges of the State of Iowa; and had no viable means to bring that suit, although I sure tried to. I was dismissed in that action as well, imagine that; very nearly IMMEDIATELY. I got out...at exactly the time that Statute had run its course, in July of 2016.
This is easily the best example of how violations of your rights, and suit addressing those violations, can be denied you. We have oh so many more, but at the risk of losing your immediate attention, I won't put them all down. I will only give you one more.
You already know about the first deprivation. Another occurred when FALSE CHARGES were fabricated against only me, and caused me to be incarcerated for a year. More importantly, however, is how long it took for these state courts to make decisions, and how they all seem to take JUST LONG ENOUGH for the statute to run out on the violations that would occur. A PRIME example is the Post-Conviction case, a case I plan to take full advantage of; where this Statute of Limitations/Equitable tolling thing is concerned.
The case was INITIATED, in its ORIGINAL FORM in October of 2016, WHILE I WAS IN JAIL. The number of this case is PCCE080717 (Iowa, 2017). It concerned the entire matter of case FECR292312 (Iowa, 2016), which contained 3 charges, a FELONY, Threats, and two misdemeanor charges, aggravated - Harassment 1st Degree and Stalking (had this crime ever been charged me again on a state level, it would be considered a felony). It involved the period where I emailed 8000 L.A. county social workers, and only occurred because of their insistance to the County Attorney, JOHN P. CRIMINAL SARCONE. It also involved several rights violations, MOST CONCERNING CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS; on all levels; and showed EASILY a conspiracy against my civil and life and liberty rights; without thought. These charges were not brought because of L.A. County, as they couldn't possibly do so, but involved another matter that had happened almost a month prior to this, and had NOT BEEN CHARGED, nor was I arrested for this crime at any time IN THAT PERIOD. This arrest, in fact, happened just 2 days after the email incident, and only 1 day following the unlawful arrest of my friend in L.A., Theodore Booker, who had given me all the information that I had written about on my blog, then included the link to that in my email to these social workers. A logical and reasonable person, therefore, would and could come to the conclusion that the involvement of the L.A. County Department of social services was (and of course, still IS), by default, 100% responsible for my arrest on these charges, as well as my 1 year time in jail. Period.
Folks, I MUST stop at this point to re-point out that this "Department" of "Government", essentially a FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS, stupidly and ingorantly enacted for its ORIGINAL purpose, THE PROTECTION OF OUR CHILDREN, wields UNBELIEVABLE power and authority that it simply DOES NOT HAVE, AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED, either by it's complete and total protection through immunity granted, not by THE PEOPLE, but by LAWMAKERS, for the sole purpose of TRAFFICKING A RATHER STAGGERING AMOUNT of America's Children. They have of late, involved themselves EXTRICABLY in ALL matters involving children - Child Support, Divorce, Custody, abuse, neglect...YOU NAME IT, they're involved, and have UNREAL extended immunity and bulletproof defences, backed up by the courts AND JUDGES EVERYWHERE. These people are charged with the ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL DECIMATION of the concept of FAMILY, and have the ability to bring charges and steal children from STATES AWAY. They receive BILLIONS IN FUNDING, in one state, in one county, in 2012, in Orange County California, they received 2.2 BILLION dollars...975 million of that was OPERATING COST ALONE, from those of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. These people and this "agency of Government" MUST BE STOPPED...YESTERDAY.
The arrest for this happened in January, 2016. The ruling on it happened in April 2016. The appeal never happened, because my "Stand-by Attorney, who promised he would file it didn't file it; and by the time this was realized, it was too late to appeal it. The case for post-conviction relief was filed by me, while in jail, in October, 2016. The application was finally revised to its current version in January, 2017. It was decided, finally in October, 2017; a full year and 6 months after the conviction; and an appeal to that matter, an appeal I decided was useless to file (remember when I appealed the termination to them, and what happened there? Tell me why again, I should pay them $150 to just back up their buddies on the District Court level and all they did, AGAIN? No way, Hosee.) Instead, I opted to simply file for the violation of my rights on the Fed Court level, using the 42 U.S.C. 1942 rights code. That one, on the district court level didn't move for all of 8 months, and when it finally did, it was only at the insistance of the higher appellate court. Can you guess how long it might have sat still, had I not done that? Now, ALL the violations of my rights by EVERYONE; are ALL behind those same limitations statutes.
So you see, folks, that if you aren't behind those limitational guidelines? You will be, by the time the "State" courts get finished with you, and this will make you unable to bring suit against the same on the federal level, should the judge decide to NOT grant you "Equitable tolling."...a citizen oriented privelege I guarantee you will NEVER be granted.
AMERICA, it's SERIOUSLY important to realize that the net of corruption is only going to be cast wider and wider. As more of us die or become barren because of the 5G Active Denial Cell Phone Network; as others of us are limited by law to bear children; as more schemes and destructive decisions by immune lawmakers and judges and ALL OTHER OFFICIALS turn their noses towards you and yours...the less chance there will be that you will be able to do anything to stop it! Just how long do you believe it will be before your overpaid attorneys turn on YOU, even AFTER just paying them? This sort of thing happens a LOT. Ask around. How long do you think it will be before a greedy or corrupt court rules that that the property you thought you held title to now belongs to the Government? It happens A LOT. Ask around. How long do you believe it might be before the range of children they steal today gets big enough to include yours too? The trafficking of our children happens every day, and it happens a LOT...and it also happens to more unlikely people every day. One day, you're secure in your life, have money and a nice nest-egg saved back; and are making money hand over fist; the next, your money is gone or worthless, your property is taken, your homes are repossessed, your kids are stolen from you without viable cause, and you can't scrape two cents together to start a fire. It happens daily, over and over and over again, to hundreds, thousands, and even millions of Americans. You may be next. Please, rememember that you, THE PEOPLE, have a power that those in Government HAVE SEEN, and have been forced to recognize. It's time that we USE IT, and stop this rape of our country by our Government and its judiciary; as well as by corporate America....or there will no longer be a country; there will no longer be freedom and rights; there may no longer be a human race as we know it today, and there may just be no one left to give your legacy to, leaving no one but Government to inherit it. Wake up YESTERDAY, and take your country back from these psychopaths and evil corporations. I've said this many times, and I believe it's worth repeating: Folks, the mafia was never dismantled. It got smart instead, and got elected to official positions. It's time they go to jail for all they've done; and for all their peers in silent conspiracy HAVEN'T done, as they essentially facilitate the actions of the first bunch by standing idly by. I hope that this article will rouse and awaken our country's citizens to the realization that their Government is out of control, and no one can, will be, or IS BEING HELD responsible.
To wrap up this legal travesty, I say this: The purpose of this article is to show Americans everywhere that the current defining character of JUSTICE is DEAD, and in bad need of burying. I will rub it into the faces of each and every American until the bigger picture is finally realized. If it involves someone in elected office, we the people will NEVER see this matter reach the ears of a fair and impartial jury, but will be dismissed AGES before it goes to trial nearly 100% of the time, due mostly to a. Crooked lying officials, judges and courts, in collusion; b. the blissful ignorance of The People; c. strict and impossible to follow rules of court that favor these officials; e. legislation that is 100 percent self-serving under the title of and in support of "Continuity of Government"; and f. by using laws, rules, ordinances, codes and caselaw that have no benefit or viable merit to you, the plaintiff, nor do any of these laws serve to protect YOU or the the "rights" that you allegedly have; but that are more like deniable priveleges that are slowly but surely being phased out of your existence.
Sometimes, you have to show people the dead body of their loved one for them to finally accept the truth of things. THIS ARTICLE, and its accompanying ***(premise, JUSTICE, IS that dead mangled and raped body. We need to band together for the funeral and BURY IT, so that change can truly and FINALLY happen. It's been said that the best way to get over losing your last best friend, your dog of 16 years, is to go out and adopt a new puppy. Once we realize that the system is not only broken, it's broken beyond all recognition or repair; then, and ONLY then can we truly fix things, and move on to a new way to get our deserved justice instead. :D
*************************************************************************************
As promised, the federal code and description for a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, and the immunities that are used to counter it, when you turn the spotlight onto those of elected office.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, orcauses to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
By the way...the last sentence of this statute is a big hint concerning that scam I mentioned.
Now, we'll go through those immunities again:
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY: Absolute immunity immunizes officials from suit for all official acts without regard to motive. This one almost seems to completely contradict the immunity provided above, doesn't it? It also provides, in almost the same breath, that, as long as someone is acting in a position of alleged 'authority', that they can do pretty much anything they want to anyone, even commit felony and federal crimes, without any consequences, "regardless of motive." Is this what you intended for those in authority America? I was pretty convinced that you didn't.
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: Sovereign immunity was derived from British common law doctrine based on the idea that the King could do no wrong. In the United States, sovereign immunity typically applies to the federal government and state government, but not to municipalities.
Now folks, all of these immunities can only be for one purpose...for the criminals to be able to commit whatever crimes they see fit, without consequence. Why would you need immunities to protect you, if what you're doing is right? The answer, of course, is that you DON'T. If you do, then you are as good as admitting that what you're doing is wrong, you're doing wrong often, and that you're getting awfully tired of being sued for it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete