Saturday, March 31, 2012

Scripture (and Capital Crime of Kidnapping)

I turned right to Psalm 88 tonight, which is about floods. I read the footnote for the title and it's "suffering of the afficted" and then it speaks so much about floods and flooding. I wouldn't know how to interpret the last part, about "darkness is my closest friend" but first I thought of it in a negative way, (of course, if I am taking out of context of you know, the psalmist and their own experience), because I saw this woman today and another person joked "Cameo saw her best friend today". I had responded with, "you know when I took this photo strip of me and Oliver at a photo booth in Wenatchee, the machine only had so many captions to choose from and it didn't allow you to leave it blank so 'best friends' was the closest one but I still felt it wasn't exactly what I wanted but I thought, well, I'm his mom and his best friend too."

So then the second time I thought about this psalm, and "darkness is my closest friend", I thought about my son, and today I am wearing pale green, a color he allegedly likes (which I can't confirm) and then black over it. Black shoes, black sweater and black jacket.

So I thought to myself, in my abstract I-know-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-me-but-still...way, "I am definitely my son's closest friend."

I guess you can read that passage different ways. It speaks of people leaving them, and horrible things and then how "darkness is my closest friend". It could be read as the closest friend not being a friend at all but darkness rather than light, or it could be read with the idea that God is in the darkness and at times, one only wants to shut out what is so horrific as to be seen in the light, to prefer the annonymity and comfort of the dark. I think it can be interpreted many ways. If darkness is the closest friend, I have no friends, or darkness is my closest friend, it is God alone (symbolic or actual).

I posted this and then stared straight ahead at this other book I have right in front of me on a shelf and it is "At Dawn We Slept: the untold story of pearl harbor". I haven't read it yet. I just thought about the title after reading this psalm and thinking about darkness as a closest friend. I haven't read the book yet so I don't know what this author intended with his title. Just noticed it.

The next section I turned to was Romans and I read Romans 9:26-33.

It was sort of random and sort of choice. I chose to open to something at random in the psalms section and then thought to do the same with Romans. So I chose the books and then the scriptures I got were random. The Romans one is talking about a remnant being saved in a multitude and how is it we approach righteousness, by faith or works.

I also think something bad happened to my Dad today maybe. I could tell because my Dad didn't come to the door when I knocked, when I got home after going to the library quickly and then I called my Mom and she sounded down or worried. Also, someone did something to my Dad or forced him to do something that changed the color of the inside of his mouth, and it looked like the inside of Chris Dabney's mouth, redder than usual or normal. I know Chris drank and who knows what else, but with my Dad there was no scent of liquor and instead it would more likely be from some form of torture. I thought possibly someone forced him to drink something but it wasn't that (liquor).

If I am tortured here, on their own property, do you think my Dad feels like he has power over anything, including the most basic forms of personal safety? I think my parents are forced to be guinea pigs for the government or they are tortured and/or forced to see their kids tortured.

So anyway, I noticed when we went out to look at the other house and it was flooded and then this woman drove by. Then we got home and were talking about it and that's when I mentioned why I chose best friend for the photo of me and my son.

Later I asked if my son was returned to me what did they think would have to be in place and they said my house had been disorganized the 2 times they saw it but I said others saw it most of the time and it was clean. It was messy before the hospital bc I was 9 mo. pregnant and then cluttered later but nothing has ever been unsanitary, ever. And I said judging me now, by conditions of how I keep my house has nothing to do with how I did when my son was with me. Of course I occasionally let things slide when he's not here. That is no evidence of how I kept my place with him, and I added I resented having people (like the FBI or anyone else) in my house without my consent, to do "home inspections" when there is no comparison. I said, "returning my son isn't on the condition of a house. When they took my son I didn't have a house."

And that's why I started thinking again about...oh yeah, subject matter jurisdiction.

If I had no house, which was true, because we left it, and had no presence in Oregon and my person was not in their jurisdiction, they illegally obtained a Protetive Order.

The Protective Order from the very start, was illegal. And they got that Protective Order and made their little shovels of paper into WA court, BEFORE I was arrested.

It's a deficiency you can't correct.

It proves kidnapping.

Even if you try to say there was later "reason", it doesn't really apply because there is already too much "motive" present which shows they knew they committed a crime and then bent over backwards to conceal it. I never even thought about the house thing before.

Bit by bit, I recognize they are guiltier and guiltier. It's bad. It is an outright kidnapping and now I realize it will not even be hard to prove. And where there is kidnapping, there are criminals that will do anything, pay any amount and hire anyone they can, to cover up for their crimes.

At first I thought, well they have this argument about later finding something, if they do, having cause. But they created their own cause to cover for their crimes.

It is one thing to make a Protective Order within the U.S. that is discovered to be weak, and then later claim there is something new to back it up, and it's something totally different to make a Protective Order to kidnap a kid out of another country with zero prior case or investigation.

It's kidnapping.

It is kidnapping in the first degree, and collusion as well, because they were working at it before they deliberately set me up on false arrest to try to cover for a kidnapping. The entire thing, on the basis of criminal activity, has to be thrown out.

It's like this: you could throw someone in jail and give them a sentence. It is one thing if it's discovered there was gross negligence or malice by a Prosecuting Attorney. It's another thing if they commit a capital crime while trying to claim the person they are prosecuting is guilty.

Here is what I found on kidnapping as a Capital Offense:

Q: Is kidnapping a capital offense?
4 years ago

A: Kidnapping by itself is not a capital offense, at least in the US. Like nearly EVERY crime, there are aggravating factors that could increase the charges. Kidnapping can BECOME a capital offense.

To the comment about being a Federal offense: It is only normally NOT a Federal offense. It becomes a Federal offense if the victim is transported across state lines, the crime happens on Federal land, or the victim is a Federal official. There may be additional triggers I am not aware of.

I am looking up aggravated kidnapping because I know this wasn't just a plain and normal kidnapping. Kidnapping is bad enough but there are other elements to what happened that made it capital crime.

This should have been corrected by the FBI. The only reason they might not, is if someone from FBI was involved. If it involves a federal official, it becomes an aggravated kidnapping I believe.

Which is why I was then tortured with no remedy, my family tortured and people trying to set me up or entrap me. It is also why they would torture my son in front of me and then use officials to back them up, and why I would be poisoned, assaulted, and deprived of housing for intimidation purposes. It is also why they would attempt to slander me as mentally ill because it is almost their only potential excuse and has been for some time. It is why I lost my singing voice.

I think it's bad enough, now that I have realized exactly how baseless it was, I think it's possible to both file for habeous corpus and also ask for a mandamus, if necessary, from the FBI to investigate...however, problem is if FBI is involved and federal officials involved in kidnapping, then it becomes a matter of not expecting they will investigate anything and that it requires extraordinary remedy by habeous corpus with the FBI as respondent as party to crime and unlawful detention and imprisonment of persons.

I was right there, in Washington D.C., right next door to their Headquarters, after they kidnapped me and my son and then allowed for our demise.

I found the federal law for simple kidnapping. (UPDATED at 1:58: and then I found the USC for hostage taking which also applies with regard to me and my son).

According to this law, my son was kidnapped and his kidnapping should have been prosecuted by an attorney for the Department of Justice.

It still applies, and a "parent" is defined as the natural parent whose parental rights have not been terminated by final order (which they have not been).

A final order is after all State appeals are exhausted and this has not been done.

From what I read of aggravated kidnapping, it applies more but I have to read about it more. I also read that it is common for kidnapping to be accompanied with other crimes and that it is sometimes concealing another crime or the reverse. There are companion crimes to kidnapping, such as conspiracy to facilitate a kidnapping.
(Black's Law on kidnapping). Some kind of reference to asportionate. Double Jeopardy is a different thing.

I wonder if a parent files for habeous corpus for kidnapping, if the U.S. tries to claim it is then "double jeopardy" to bring the same crime to federal court under RICO statutes.

Because we don't want that to happen, do we.

The FBI and Department of Justice are responsible for investigating and prosecuting kidnapping.

Since they haven't done anything about it, it is 99% probable they are involved as federal officials who were party to the conspiracy to kidnap.

All that a victim could do about the crime then, would be to file for RICO. For treble damages. So if they file for habeous corpus first, in order to just get the kid back and be free from unlawful restraint and imprisonment, then that's great.

But if a Judge works against you, what? If one loses habeous corpus and includes kidnapping and unlawful custody of parent and child, and they cause you to lose (big money there).


If you lose, does that act as an estoppel to filing for kidnapping or such damages through a RICO lawsuit. Double jeopardy?

Let's imagine FBI officials are party to conspiracy to kidnap and kidnapping. Let's say the AG of a state and state officials are also involved.

That is pretty high risk stakes there. I mean, if you want to talk about a gamble and playing with the lottery, that's it right there. Kidnapping of a child and mother and conspiracy to falsely arrest to commit the crime?

Then if the mother makes a peep about it, the ones who know HOW bad it is, get extremely nervous, paranoid, and violent.

They don't want to be tried for kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap. It's 20 years in the locker.

20 years at least, and potentially, life.

If you're a Judge that participated or friends of Judges or Judge-to-Judge, you can pretty much make bank siding with the criminal party that also happens to have the authority and security of being covered by the U.S. government.


What makes it more complicated is the fact that if this conspiracy to kidnap, and the kidnapping, occured after torture of mother and child first, as an attempt to smoke them out of the country, then you have a torture mess on your hands as well.

May as well show up on t.v. with blood right there, on your hands.

Anyone would know that if someone ascertained conspiracy to kidnap or kidnapping, those responsible for the torture are either directly involved or are in the background.

Finding out who conspired to kidnap and committed the kidnapping is going to potentially lead someone to those who commit torture too.

Which then makes sense why torture that was occuring before kidnapping would pick up again once they feel better about not getting caught or discovered on the kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping.

I've already said this before, about kidnapping, but I didn't think about how we didn't have a house, or even an investigation pending when we left and how therefore, it is very true to kidnapping.

In the federal code, however, it looks more like kidnapping within the U.S, not international kidnapping. I guess it does mention foreign commerce. Okay, I just read it again so it states the act would take place in the U.S. It doesn't say it has to be kidnapping in the U.S. (location A) to another country (location B). It can include kidnapping from point B (Canada) to point A (U.S.). The act of kidnapping is before (premeditation and conspiracy), during (in transit), and after (place person is dropped).

I think aggravated kidnapping is the same as above, but with the element of conspiracy to commit, arrange for, or facilitate the kidnapping.

Aggravated kidnapping has other special features and must fall into certain categories. It increases the level of guilt and is related to taking bribes, for purposes of harming through physical injury, and that kind of thing and also applies to a form of obstruction of justice (interference with any governmental or political process, i.e., application for political asylum).

What happened to me and my son is aggravated kidnapping. I could imagine it was to create harm but can't prove that. It is true, though, that we were moved back into harm's way, where we were both tortured. The other context that would be easier to prove, if evidence of torture is unavailable, is interference with a governmental or political process. So that one fits.

It would be aggravated kidnapping rather than simple kidnapping. Aggravated kidnapping also shows more of the motive for collusion or conspiracy to fabricate conditions for the crime.

I looked up false imprisonment and kidnapping and I think it can be a double jeopardy thing but I also think it's possible they are separate sometimes.

I think they're very closely connected in most cases.

I did find something that says if you lose a case with kidnapping allegations, subsequent attempts are permitted and don't violate double jeopardy.

What I really want, is to have my son back and not be tortured. I would only think of filing RICO and go for money if someone persisted in the crime of holding us hostage or continued to torture us.

Hostage Taking. I just found the USC for this as well. This one also fits. Hostage taking is the same as kidnapping but continues to hold the persons kidnapped in order to extort something from them. It is kidnapping and then detaining someone and telling them in order to be released or reunited, you have to do ____ (THIS) for us. You have to pay us money, or you have to "forgive the Catholic church", or "if you want to be free from torture you have to marry ___", or you have to work for us, or, your parents have to work for us, or "you have to make a false confession and admit you are paranoid schitzophrenic or whatever we tell you to be to conceal our crimes of torture and kidnapping."

"Do you believe you have any mental problems Ms. Garrett? Ms. Garrett does not believe she is paranoid schitzophrenic as we slandered her to be and now need her be to sufficiently mask and cover for our crimes. Therefore, if Ms. Garrett is unwilling to 'cooperate' and lie along with us, she and her son will continue to be tortured and we will do it in her face."

If they had not first kidnapped us and conspired to do so, anyone would think doing what they say are not demands made on freeing hostages but just part of remedying a problem that interferes with parenting. However, since it can be proven they literally kidnapped us and conspired to do so in an aggravated kidnapping, it does not follow that they were only asking for completion of services or believed there was a parental problem. What follows is that then the State made demands on citizens and allowed torture and continued detention if these demands were not met. I would add, federal and state demands.

It's one thing to say there is a mental issue, and to start an investigation and offer services and file court documents before a parent leaves the country. It is a kidnapping to pursue and conspire to entrap a mother who left the country with her child to file for political asylum with no records of mental illness, proof that she had been found by mental professionals to not be ill, and no pending investigation or court documents filed and no residence to base jurisdiction upon.

It IS AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. What was the purpose of the kidnapping? Was it done without thinking? someone could make that claim until you realize these people anticipated my leaving for some time beforehand. They also knew that I was trying to get medical care for both of us and was applying for political asylum. The minute they understood we had applied for PA, they knew they were interfering with a governmental and political process, whether they were Canadian colluding to entrap me, or American.

While I wrote the first part of this post, I was not being tortured and then I got to aggravated kidnapping rather than simple kidnapping, and I was being tortured again. My guess is that the group torturing to begin with doesn't like the idea of being held accountable to aggravated kidnapping which alleges the kidnapping was done to interfere with political asylum or to return a mother and child into conditions were torture was allowed.

Just because the FBI IS government, doesn't mean they cannot be held responsible for interfering with government processes and rights a mother was trying to secure for herself and child.

Back to Patty Otterbach. I found out today she lives where my parents used to live, at their other house. I didn't know this. I brought it up because I commented as we were looking at the flooded house, "Patty Otterbach again. She just wants to be around wherever I am." My Dad said that wasn't true and I said, "Dad, whenever she knows I will be out somewhere, she happens to come along at that time." My Dad said, "Cameo! She LIVES out here. She's on her way home from work."

I said, "She does?"

Which is really comforting to know. Especially since I was told there were about SIX (6) sexual offenders on that road.

Given the fact not that many people even live along that road, and knowing now that Patty is one of the residents, I feel so much better. Uh, anyone want some "Shiitake Slices" from my 6 oz jug of mushrooms? I am still wondering who sliced my mother's face up.

I reviewed the hostage taking law again and I guess if it's done in the U.S. and all parties are U.S. nationals, supposedly it is only then hostage taking if the party compelled is the Government. So otherwise, it can be the exact same thing but it's called "aggravated kidnapping".

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

You have written a fantastic resource.
Look into my weblog ... Remove Stickers