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.
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.
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, at this point, I’d like to point out a very very important point. See, all of the argument, provided by this attorney in defense of these officers…is moot. Not important. Not what the appeal was about. If you go to the INITIATING BRIEF ON APPEAL (link at the beginning of this article), all we discuss is the District Court Judge, her errors, and that’s it. It even says, in the reply brief to the defending parties’ briefs (see link, beginning of article) what the APPEAL IS ABOUT! We SPECIFY IT EVEN! We say it’s not about this, it’s not about that, it’s about the decisions made by THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE. So why is it that all this argument is presented about why the people should get out of suit? Why are they beating over the head all the same issues brought before the District Court again? Why does it state, by EVERY ATTORNEY, that because we didn’t mention them, THEIR REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS ARE WAIVED, and therefore, the appellate court should let them go? You’ll be happy to know that I have already figured out the answer. BECAUSE THEY’RE IDIOTS, AND THEY ARE CROOKS, in that they want to charge the taxpayer for as many billable hours as they can get out of you, and somehow appear to be doing their jobs so that they can then KEEP their jobs.
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.
We reach a very good portion of this woman’s brief now, as we read her defense of….wait, John P. Sarcone?? This is NOT one of this woman’s defending parties! Yes, folks, if it isn’t apparent that these “officials” don’t all protect one another in “official capacity”, it should be now! Why else wouldn’t this woman just cover her own behind and the behinds of her own clients? Why would she give a flying rat’s keister about one of the most criminal and mafia-connected assholes on the planet? And if she protects this major law-breaker, how is it so hard to believe that the Federal District Court Judge, residing in the SAME CITY as the majority of these defending parties wouldn’t do the same? These people go out to bars together, trade info, case law and strategies, (this is most apparent, as you read EACH AND EVERY one of these parroted briefs, and each attorney’s respective repetitive briefs) and probably sleep together and abuse children together as well, don’t you DARE DOUBT IT. This man ran UNOPPOSED this year. His office is behind 2” of bullet-proof glass. He has confessed on MY LEGAL PAPERWORK that his offices handle the prosecution of over 1100 criminal and juvenile cases a month in Polk County, Iowa (and, in case you’re not very good at math…that’s over 13,200 cases A YEAR); a city of roughly ½ million people in the middle of our heartland. His secretary won’t even let you leave him a message in his voicemail without asking why you want to leave him one. I think I’ve seen this man in public maybe once in my whole life. He and his crew don’t even use the courthouse doors to get to work and home, they take TUNNELS DUG UNDER THE CITY TO WHATEVER SECRET LOCATION THEY KEEP THEIR CARS IN. I should know…I used to sit outside of the ONLY entrance of the courthouse in my car just waiting for even ONE of them to cross the street; during my criminal juvenile proceedings; and never once saw a single one of the 15 people involved in those cases. I once saw the judge in my case leave the courthouse to get some coffee from Starbucks, just up the street from the courthouse. I swear the man looked over his shoulder 10 times in that ¼ block walk. Do those sound like the actions of honest law-abiding officials to you, worthy of your respect and protection? I suppose it would seem to be that, to ANOTHER criminal attorney, like Ms. Lucas here. So really, I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised at her effort to protect her official “Mate in Crime.”
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?)
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, or
causes 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.
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.
Yes, children are being forced to continue undergoing toxic treatments even when their bodies are free of any cancer.
Upon his return he was admitted to Johns Hopkins where he stayed and was examined for 2 days, kept in a crib bed (enclosed cage-like contraption meant to contain infants during hospitalization) and forced to wear diapers, despite being an active, potty-trained 3 year old. JHACH, and the hospital in Kentucky that assessed Noah prior to his return to Florida, have confirmed various times that Noah's blood tests continue to indicate that he is 
