[Sticky] FREQUENTLY ACCESSED DOCUMENTS & REPORTS ------HERE!

kamu pasti bisa dan harus bisa 

dia pernah berkata asal kamu yakin dan percaya maka lakukanlah 

asal kamu bahagia saja sudah 

Ladies and Gentlemen,  I proudly present to you... Owens v Polk County et.al. Case No. 18-12480

Some Key pieces of Legislation found within... Please to be discussed at a Monday night meeting soon..  

in Statement of the Case:

"Larael K Owens, Petitioner, has been victimized for years by a corrupt system of judicial misconduct in
the Florida Courts. The clear conflict of interest that involves the current administrative judges of the
Bartow Florida Court. Officers of the Bartow court have perpetrated an unconscionable scheme to
criminally defraud the United States Government and willfully deprive citizens of their Constitutional
rights for the sole intent of unlawful financial gain. The Defendants named in this case have conspired to
commit fraud by and through the establishment and enforcement of fraudulent child support orders that
were created with complete disregard of evidence and fact. The bad actors within the court have devised
this scheme to inflate the incomes of obligors which in turn would increase the revenues available to the
court through Title IV-D funding. Establishment and enforcement tactics used have discriminated against
Petitioner on the basis of his gender and disabilities, the court has systematically deprived Petitioner of
his civil rights during contempt and child custody proceedings. Title IV-D is a law that has given officers
of the court the incentive to abuse their power under color of law to cause irreversible harm to countless
individuals and families. Quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law impinges on a
fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution it is presumptively unconstitutional.
If a law has no other purpose that to chill assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who
choose to exercise them, it is patently unconstitutional."

"Title 1VD is a law that has given officers of the court the incentive to abuse their power under color of
law to cause irreversible harm to countless individuals and families."

"The court must take judicial notice of precedence under federal rules of evidence 201(B) that is not
subject to reasonable dispute because the petitioner is not a legal professional who often uses the courts,
but is a natural individual seeking relief by this court and therefore must take judicial notice of
precedence "Hale v Henkel 201 U.S. 43" A plaintiff who is a natural individual is entitled to free access
of tribunals for relief. "

Title IV funds creates a conflict of interest for the state courts and the judges.

18 U.S. Code 4 1961(1)(A)(B)(2)(3)(4)(5), Racketeering activity (1) "racketeering activity" means (A)
any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion 

28 U.S. Code 455, Disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge Any justice, judge, or
magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.

42 U.S.C. 658, Title 1V-D, Section 458, Social Security. Act, INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES
Title IV-D law is being challenged as unconstitutional due to the financial incentives it creates which
have allowed for corrupt actors to proliferate and abuse the law to willfully deprive citizens of their
constitutional right under color of law for financial gain.

Deprivation of Father's parental rights is a Civil Rights violation and the willingness of the courts to give sole custody to Women 85-90% of the time is destructive to society and "the best interests of children".  Furthermore imposition of child support beyond the basic needs of children based upon father's income is a violation of privacy and the 14th amendment.

"Constitutional Rights of its citizens. The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children
is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of
justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right
protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S.
D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states has no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment
than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaifree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985). The
First Amendment has been found to include the right to religion and to raise one's children as one sees fit.
Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes
irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by
interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S
Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976). "

"Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy
hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick
Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886). Therefore any denial of parental rights based only on sex is
discriminatory. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing
irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their
parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention
into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982). . Parental rights
may not be terminated without "clear and convincing evidence. "SANTOSKY V. KRAMER, 102 SCt.
1388 [1982] "

"The current system has become driven by money of one parent for child support, which greatly exceeds
the actual cost of raising a child. It is also clear that many parents wish to inflict pain on their ex-spouse
by denying the child(ren) access to the other parent. Given the $140 million in federal annual child
support enforcement monies the state also now has a conflict of interest. "

.... there is more to be examined but I have a cluster headache and it is late... Janell please give me feedback on this as the Judge Colleen Nichols has repurposed and made reference to a dismissed CPS case to determine custody in my divorce case.  Is this not "Double Jeopardy"?

Tom F