Saturday, March 31, 2012

No "Temple of Justice" & Habeus Corpus

I sent a request for correction of deadline to my granted motion to extend time but I'm still filing for habeus corpus.

There is no remedy possible at the Washington State Supreme Court.

According to case law, a person can file for habeus corpus at any time.

There is a standard of trying to "exhaust" state remedies first, but what isn't well known is that there is also a provision for proving that it is impossible to find any state remedy. If at any time, it is impossible to acquire a remedy of greivious violations of constitutional law or freedom from illegal restraint or imprisonment, one may file for habeus corpus relief.

There is no possible remedy through the Washington State Supreme Court when my son and I have been illegally detained since we tried to leave for political asylum in Canada. And since federal action preceded any state case, there is zero state subject matter with regard to jurisdiction. The only argument that could be made at State is by removing the case from Supreme Court to federal court.

I have no intention of fighting for anything at The Washington Supreme Court i.e., "Temple of Justice". It would be moot to try. So while I filed something regarding their calculation of time, which they will deny anyway if I do not put something in a Motion by the 5th, there is no intention of finding remedy there.

Which is why I am allowed to proceed with habeus corpus now.

Their plan is to acquire my request for their honoring calculation of time, deny it, and then celebrate.

What could be resolved through them? Do they have jurisdiction over torture of U.S. citizens, unlawful detainment, obstruction of freedom of movement, interference with an attorney's attempt to avoid default judgment, false arrest, a kidnapping of my son? What about the fact that I didn't get anything from the FBI until a day ago? They don't care about FBI records and will say it has nothing to do with my case.

I just got this mail from the FBI where they put 3 little pieces of tape across the back of the envelope and I have to send 3 notices to the WA court whenever I file (the AG, the court, and Seattle firm). It just made me think about how much these parties have all gotten away with, by help FROM the FBI.

How is it possible to obtain remedy through any state court when we are tortured to be obstructed from court and from proving torture and kidnapping and being held hostage?

I saw that package from the FBI and thought of one thing.

That I am naming them as respondents to my petition for habeus corpus.

Not once was I fooled into thinking it was something to use for State appeals. So yeah, I sent a request to correct the deadline calculated for extension of time, because that request and motion had already been made and granted.

Before they ever respond to this, or even receive it, I am filing habeus corpus, not just for me but for my son.

Imagine trying to appeal the termination of parental rights. So then once appealed, what? I am expected to get "services" in Wenatchee where they tortured me and still torture my son? Services for what? Their criminal allegations against me?

The only appropriate "services" would be counseling and remedy for PTSD. You know what's going to clear up my PTSD?


And that justice is not at the Washington Supreme Court.

So for anyone who wants to know about filing for habeus corpus while not in jail, you can file for it if you are held hostage (in a sense) through probation, if you are a lawyer who is not able to win cases because of obstruction of freedom of movement by government officials, if you are a parent whose child was not taken first through normal CPS procedure but by illegal federal interference,...

And if there are already cases at state level pending, if you addressing or making a petition for habeus corpus from STATE officials, there is burden of proof that you have exhausted all appeals, unless you can prove there is immediate harm that is not prevented by immediate petition for habeus corpus which state cannot remedy. Also, if you can't prove this, you are typical required to go through discretionary review requests but not all the time. If you can prove it's pointless to try anything by discretionary review, you can proceed. Typically, people petition for habeus corpus and have a statute of limitations of 1 yr. from time discretionary review is either denied or fails.

If one can prove immediate harm there is no requirement to waste one's time with it.

I think my situation is unique and stronger in argument bc we left the country and were hauled back and held hostage. But for other parents who are interested in the idea and want to research options for custody of their children through habeus corpus, do not be fooled and think you have to exhaust all state remedies and appeals first. If you wait to exhaust all appeals, by then your parental rights are terminated.

You should try to petition for habeus corpus before anyone gives you an order for termination of your parental rights.

So that means, you do this before you ever have to go to court of appeals in your state. It means there are some circumstances where you do NOT trust the state to correct anything especially if they've already been so corrupt as to violate your fundamental rights and in some cases, substantial rights.

The case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court where a mother applied for habeus corpus, was lost on one technical idea that maybe she wasn't the proper party to apply for freedom for her child because she had no right to do so when her rights were terminated. She waited to go through all State appeals first.

She was arguing habeus corpus for her child, not herself. The idea was that she was not held hostage then, from rescuing herself and her son from a hostage situation. So if she wasn't a hostage, but her child was, and yet her child was no longer hers but rights to that child had been transfered to another party, then the other party was the one with a right to 'rescue' the child.

She applied as "next friend", which is a term you use, but there were fine points on why she didn't win. It wasn't because you "can't" file habeus corpus for unlawful government custody of a child.

Also, had someone known, there is other case law where a party with no parental rights petitions for a child and they have prevailed, with the idea that there isn't a "bond" or not a strong bond with the party that has the right to guardianship.

WA knew this and knew there was no bond between themselves, the "guardian" and my son and that I could argue this point so they then pushed for a hasty adoption of my son by the Avilas to protect themselves, not the child. That way they could claim my son was "bonded" to them, and avoid the sticky problem of a mother petitioning as "next friend" and winning.

For parents, I believe there is room for habeus if you can petition for your child before any movement for adoption or transfer of guardianship has been made because you can prove to the court that there is no essential "bond" between the State and the child that is stronger than a parent's right or even non-parent's right to petition for a child.

In my case, I still have room to win even though they tried to cover all their bases.

Even though they attempted to remove the bond loophole, my case is different and unique. So again, you are distinguishing on fine points when you look at precedent and analyze how it may or may not apply to you or to a new case. It is not one-size-fits-all.

My case is different because it is not just the child that is hostage but the mother as well.

I do have a question about double jeopardy. I had that question a couple of nights ago...if I lose on habeus corpus points may I relitigate these same points in federal court with removed case (no prob.) or civil case. Not sure about the full double jeopardy dilemna.

And I have another question. How much money do I need to pay if it's for both me and my son when I file? 5 dollars or 10.

The facts are such that whereas the other mother who filed for habeus corpus for her child had exhausted state appeal first, she was free. She was a free person and never alleged that her own freedom of movement was violated. She alleged her children's freedom of movement was violated but not her own. Therefore, if she was a free parent, free to communicate with lawyers, free to raise money, free to obtain records and evidence for her case, free to travel to find other assistance and resources, then she was also free to try to find a defense for state appeal. She said her kids prisoners, but not herself.

If a parent is alleging their own freedom of movement is violated, it is impossible to appeal through any state process, especially where the state has forced that parent to represent themself or has interfered with a parent's ability to secure dependable counsel. Not only that, the entire basis for removal of the child was by violating both the child and the mother's freedom of movement at the very start, before any protection order was filed.

So what about parents that are in jail?

I think it's harder for parents who are in jail because there is the assumption that they are in jail for good cause or that their case has proven them guilty. For a parent not in jail but held hostage or where freedom of movement is obstructed, there is weaker argument by the government that the imprisonment is legal.

Someone who is in jail for long periods of time has the need to file habeus corpus for themselves and their children as well but their argument about being held prisoner to keep them from their children is harder to prove.

However, you see, this is why I believe someone told Obama to sign the NDAA. This law supposedly allows the military or government to hold U.S. citizens hostage or in their custody and not tell them why.

I still think, this law cannot undermine habeus corpus because the NDAA is unconstitutional on its face.

You cannot have both habeus corpus and the NDAA. They cancel eachother out. It's impossible and was one of the dumbest laws anyone has signed in recent history.

I should add, you cannot have both habeus corpus and the newest "addition" to the NDAA which was signed in December 2011, to allow detention of U.S. citizens without any charges or rights.

This is an incredible violation of the right to be charged, and the right to attorney and to jury trial. It's questionable enough with regard to non-citizens, but it's not American for citizens. I am very suprised someone has not already filed a big lawsuit over it.

I also don't know why anyone is waiting for someone to first file a lawsuit and claim damages when it's obvious on the face of it, that it's illegal.

I was just thinking too, the entire state argument about "messy house" is a ruse. We had left the house and had no house. It wasn't our house anymore and we had left residence and country of residence.

No one should even be making any kind of argument about what living conditions do I have now when, at the time we left, we left all for application of political asylum and in political asylum, initially, you might not have a house (except for our habitual residence in Canada).

It's like when I was leaving Oregon to move to TN in 1995. The insurance lawyers gave me the money, partially on the basis of the idea that we had left the State and it was no longer our residence. There was an argument about where we had residence because we were driving at the time and inbetween places. My last residence had been Oregon but my intention (and having made contact with people in TN) was to live in TN. So even if we had the collision in NV, the presumption was that since we had left OR, even if we didn't arrive in TN, that's what the intent had been.

It wasn't my house. It wasn't Oliver's house either. We had already left the house, left the state, and left the country with no intention to return.

They lacked subject matter jurisdiction when they based their claims on a house that was no longer considered to be our residence, and person that were no longer within that state or country and in fact were attempting to divorce it, and location that no longer applied either. Paul Cassle said all they had was a "messy house" and that's not even true. They didn't have even a messy house for a residence. They had nothing. They had an abandoned messy house and a cat staring at them through the window. The cat was waiting to be adopted. They could have filed a Protective Order for the cat. Not for Oliver. I mean, if the cat had been a person, yeah, that was the residence for the cat and it was already assumed the cat would be found and had food so it wasn't even animal abuse. If they had a right to have any concern, they could have been concerned about the cat. My son, was none of their business.

CPS "inspected" a house that had nothing to do with me or my son and even if it had, when they inspected, it was weeks later and condition had changed, and aside from that, they made their order for protection on a house we had already left for good, and they knew this to be true upon hearing I'd applied for political asylum.

As for Canada, they can't claim I was legally imprisoned when I can prove they tried to conceal my political asylum claim in order to put me in jail so the U.S. could kidnap my son.

Since my son and I have been in the U.S. and even before (for me, on basis of obstruction of freedom of travel) we have been held hostage and we have the right to habeus corpus.

I can prove the federal government obstructed my freedom of movement before the state had anything to do with it. So where feds are before state, or got involved ahead of the state, the state lacks something.

CPS made a complaint about persons that they had no personal or territorial jurisdiction over, whom they lacked subject matter jurisdiction as well. The house they included for their complaint was not a house they could use. The location wasn't something they could use. The persons were no longer there.

They didn't have just "a messy house". They had nothing.

Which is why they knew they should drop the whole thing. The only reason they found to hold onto it was when I mentioned marijuana later, but still, I could have proven medical permit and I was held hostage and my federal mail obstructed to prevent me from proving this.

There is some idea that if CPS doesn't have any evidence at first but acquires it later, they can use this to keep a kid. However, I don't think that works retroactively to a different country and malicious interference with a claim for political asylum.

Then they tried to claim it had nothing to do with a couple times of trying marijuana (later) but that it was mental illness. So take mental illness. They had no evidence at the beginning but later tried to create evidence for themselves. So then they claimed that was their excuse.

It still does not forgive a kidnapping of a child and mother which was from the start. It then shows motive for holding mother hostage and obstructing freedom of movement, housing, unemployment monies, or refusal to investigate crimes.

They can make their "crazy" claim all they like. They can say it's "crazy" for me to file for habeus corpus. All I have to do is show they had no jurisdiction AT ALL for maliciously prosecuting me in Canada and colluding with officials to do this and then holding me hostage by various means to prevent me from proving motive.

If they had NO cause of action, i.e., no grounds for going after me, and if I PROVE this is true, and then show their subsequent malicious harassment and obstruction of justice, it first shows motive for what they had to cover for and then makes their claim that I am mentally ill, weak.

It makes people like Josh Gatov feel good about themselves. It helps them to feel secure and safe from prosecution. It helps criminals to feel they can get away with anything. It is a relief to organizations that have liability in some way and are worried about being sued. FBI for example. They knew, on the basis of my stated facts and not how they rewrote facts, that it was possible for me to sue them. The medical professionals knew I had grounds for a medical malpractice suit against them. Anyone who improperly went after me and my son, in the U.S. OR in Canada, had motive for torturing us and holding us hostage to prevent our ability to bring forth the truth.

Am I being illegally restrained now? or held hostage? or are my rights violated. Yes. I have been tortured and I am being tortured and no, I cannot leave this country and have been blocked from freedom of travel. If I tried to leave now, without my son, that is not possible.

My son goes with me.

If I decide to stay in the U.S. after getting my son back, if we are not tortured, that's my business. If I leave, or choose to leave, that's my business. It was my business to take my son out of this country and it continues to be my business if I want to move with my son, travel with him, or relocate. It is MY business, not the business of the federal or state government. Why ask how can I support him or what kind of house do I have when, when we left, we had no house?

I didn't have a house then, and it was my right to leave.

So don't squirm in questions about "houses". It is none of your business. That is what I would say to the government. It is illegal to take kids from parents just because they don't have a house or make a political asylum claim.

I read a case, or footnote to a case, about a licensed lawyer who filed a habeus corpus claim. He won. His argument was that he was being and had had his freedom of movement obstructed by government officials which resulted in another party winning against him by "default".

Holding someone hostage, blocking their freedom of travel, putting out false citations, false arrest, blocking reception of U.S. mail,...all of these things, if they are constantly accruing incidents, can be used to show a party has been or is being detained against their will. When I had a false citation put out on my car, and then an "alert" going out to officers to take my car from me, or false arrests, these things go to show need for habeus corpus. Preventing unemployment monies, refusal of work or forced labor, colluding to put someone out of housing to force them to live with others in a state of constant disarray, can be used to prove hostage status and need for habeus corpus. Throwing someone in a psych ward, and then in a detention center to be experimented on, refusal to process passport timely, can be used to prove need for habeus corpus. Interference with attempts to apply for college, improperly closing bank accounts without notice to client, can be used, with other things, like torture, to prove need for habeus corpus.

Perpetual slander in internal records and the refusal of FBI to release these records which would have allowed for correction and added to my safety as to how my son and I were treated, indicates further records will be found that show collusion to: put out the "alert" on my car and organize a false arrest with Canadian officials; and coercion to sign false statement between U.S. and Canadian border patrol. This can be used to show two state parties were involved in holding me and my son hostage to prevent our freedom of travel and right to apply for protection in another state. (they can countries "states" for UN purposes).

I had already acquired "habitual residence" in Canada. My son was too young to have a concept of residence and if I'd applied for Hague, it would have followed me, and not the child's perception. They would have construed a kidnapping had taken place. We were U.S. citizens but my son had no contractual nexus and we were not residents of Washington.

I was not free to even appeal a wrongful default judgment on custody because the AG restrained me from doing so by refusing to mail documents I needed. I was prevented from even returning to Washington state because the AG refused to provide tickets on a train, or for airfare, which cost as much as a bus, when they knew I needed accomodations for medical problems. I was unlawfully detained in Washington D.C. from the moment I attempted to leave and was restrained because of their refusal to abide by laws which state CPS and the AG are required to pay for any and all travel of a parent to visits, regardless of distance. They already knew I had medical problems from childbirth and had refused to accomodate for this, when I was still in WA and then they knew I was still bleeding from miscarriage on top of everything else and they illegally restrained me from travel and cut off my right to speak to my son over the phone at the same time. When I went to Washington D.C. CPS to try to coordinate psych eval and other services, they refused, restraining me from obeying any court order put forth by the Judge.

All they did, to me and my son, was hold us hostage after they committed a kidnapping.

They illegally restrained me from documenting torture of my son.

They cut off my right to speak to my son at the same time they unlawfully detained me in Washington D.C.

ithin a few weeks of being restrained in D.C. and prevented from returning to Washington State, and cutting off my communications to my son, I was fired from my place of employment as well, while I was pregnant. All of these things took place after I went to the Washington D.C. CPS offices for the first time.

I have had my freedom of travel obstructed and been held hostage in Oregon, Washington, Washington D.C., Maryland, Tennessee, and British Colombia.

I've been unlawfully restrained from additional things:
filing legal documents,
receiving mail,
receiving mail for appointment for permit of medical marijuana,
making and receiving psychological evaluations,
following court orders,
counseling of any kind,
making an SSI claim for temporary physical disability,
communications with my son,
filing FAFSA on government website,
housing including federally funded housing,
medical care,
legally documenting evidence of crime,
keeping evidence of crime in my possession,
making reports of crime,
reviewing FBI FOIA to make any corrections to prevent harm,
accessing law library without being tortured,
accessing legal records and my own property,
freedom of speech,
driving with valid driver's license bc of some false citations,

And I've been subjected to:
illegal administration of medications without my consent (assault),
torture by use of DOD technology (assault),
torture by use of black market technology (assault),
experimentation for mind control and government psi purposes (psychological torture),
use of my blood and other samples for research (violation of dignity),
sexual assault by government officials/employees (assault),
witnessing evidence of torture of family members incl. experimentation of my son (psychological torture)

as well as:
multiple false arrests,
forced to sign false statement of confession inbetween U.S. and Canada, by Canadian officials.



Um, I don't think The Supreme Court of Washington is appropriate.

Okay, so back to writing about a few things that other parents might want to know about (should you feel so inclined as to examine whether or not you have a basis for asserting a habeus corpus claim):

One of the reasons, just reviewed it again, you probably do NOT want to wait until all state court appeals are "final" is because there is limited retroactivity (since 1989 and I'm wondering now when that woman filed...before or after?). It cannot be said there is none, but it is limited (see Teague v. Lane).

So it's confusing because on one hand they tell you to exhaust all state remedies and then on the other hand they say it's too late once an order becomes final. I might find out what the difference is in a while but that's something I thought I'd add.

Also, you can make more than one habeus corpus claim, as in you try once and then try again, but it's limited because if you lose the first time you typically have to apply for permission to proceed if you are going to file in federal U.S. district federal court again. However, you can always send your habeus straight to the U.S. Supreme Court, and there are pros and cons to that.

No comments: