Saturday, January 7, 2012

Violation of Attainder: U.S. vs Cameo and Oliver Garrett

I definitely have right to have case thrown out for lack of jurisdiction, but also, what happened to me and my son, aside from fitting the shoe for crime, fits for unlawful attainder of my person and my son.


Anonymous said...

Nope. Bill of attainder doesn't help you. For it to fit you would need to be a part of a group to which the legislature imposes criminal liability without the benefit of a trial. Sorry. Bill of attainder sounds really cool but it doesn't fit. You are not part of a group. You are unique. Mentally ill but unique. And you aren't charged with a crime. And you aren't deprived of a trial. Nice try.

Mama said...

Like I said, I haven't had time to research anything for reasons stated elsewhere.

I don't think you have to be part of a group. I read about the Nixon "one" but I'm quite sure there is a loophole and I'm also sure I'm not the only one this has happened to. As to charged with crime, the law mandates parents be given a lawyer because it's like criminal trial which imposes the loss of substantial right of "property" (ie children). And I was deprived of a trial.

Making this one work would take more creativity whereas jurisdiction is a given. It's mainly needing criminal investigation for collusion and obstruction of justice. But since I am not yet prepared to file a RICO case and because no one in the U.S. wants to investigate yet and press charges and promptly return my son, and because they continue to allow torture of my entire family, I think it will not be hard to find other grounds for dismissal. I'm wondering if my son is really a citizen of the U.S. afterall. Might be able to throw out the whole "citizenship" idea by proving the U.S. has deprived my family of all rights afforded citizens, or maybe there is something else.

Mama said...

Preliminary glance, probably a good argument that he wasn't a citizen of the U.S.

Birth creates right to citizenship but you don't acquire full citizenship until 18th birthday.

I didn't even want my son to have a U.S. social number, so maybe the U.S. was peeved. I asked to have the number retracted, he was being tortured in this country, and then I showed up in Canada and asked for political asylum for him and myself.

I think the United States decided he wasn't a citizen of this country all on their own.

The law states this country shall not torture its own citizens.

Torturing my son, pretty much nullifies the idea that the U.S. ever considered him to be a citizen or treated him as such, and I had his social security number retracted.

I then went to Canada and asked for political asylum. I think the main point is that the U.S. lost all jurisdiction, including subject matter.

They can't propose an Order of Protection and initiate a case with subject matter that is for the U.S. when a parent removed themself and their child from the country and was fleeing from it. After I was in the U.S., there was more of a subject matter jurisdiction, but they started their case without jurisdiction.

But I would bet an argument as to how the U.S. never treated me as a citizen is interesting. I think they'd like to have me focus on that rather than violating international law. I could argue we are not treated as citizens and that it's questionable my son was a citizen but they'd just point to all the immigrant kids with claimed citizenship and would state that just because the government commits crimes against a citizen doesn't mean the citizen is not a citizen.

If we're not citizens, how do we sue through RICO as well anyway.

IF we're still here.

I want my son back.

I could go through the whole case, point by point about how they lied and withheld evidence and obstructed justice and tortured us, but the main thing is they don't have jurisdiction.

Corruption of blood is another interesting thing. There is no group test for that.