Thursday, April 19, 2012

Judges To Fuck Over (who is with me) & RICO for kids

Here is a list of Judges who need to go to jail. Anyone with information about any of them, find a way to let me know.

We already know the FBI "ain't" your BF.

Oh, by the way, for my part, I have never once revealed information about people who have given me information about Judges (except for my cousin, bc I thought naively it would help and that the FBI is "the good guy". Well, they're not. They fuck babies for fun. Oh yeah, and they torture mothers of those babies and try to force them to marry their own buddies so can get a guy to work for them. Real nice group. Then they throw you into a mental hospital to try to smear you and defame you so hopefully they don't go to jail for allowing torture of a kid.)

I do not think it will be a great lawsuit bc I've been tortured and I haven't prepared or had money or time to do it. I don't even have a law library. When I filed my other complaint, I had a good year first. But I don't have time now and that's what they are fucking banking on. The fact that THEY screwed me out of time, money, and liberty.

So aside from publicly talking about my cousin knowing about some Judges (but he didn't say who), I have not told anyone about any person who has given me information in the smallest way. The following is a list of Judges who have committed crime:

1. Judge Gerald Warren (WA)
2. Judge Paul Lipscomb (OR)
3. Judge Edward Shea (WA)
4. Judge Dennis Hotchkiss (WA)
5. Judge Cynthia Imbrognio (WA)
6. Clerk for federal court (WA)
7. Clerk for federal court (OR)

Here's the difference between a judicial "crime" and a judicial ethics issue or bad decision.

Judges are "immune" from making "bad decisions" while in the course of their duties. So if a Judge says, "You don't an extension", that's bad ethics and can be appealed and they look bad, but you can't really say it's a "crime". If a Judge is rude in court, it's not a "crime". If a Judge makes a decision, like refuses to appoint a lawyer, knowing it will ruin your life, it's not a "crime"--it's an error and bad decision to appeal over. If a Judge makes a bunch of stupid red herring typos on a document, it's not a "crime".

Judges have great leeway and allowance to make horrific decisions. And, it's nearly impossible to "sue a courthouse" even if most of the employees are rotten to the core.

However, you CAN sue a Judge on a personal level, and it can be over obstruction of justice.

Making a bad decision in a case isn't called "obstruction of justice". It's called being a bad judge and maybe even trying to maliciously screw you over. But it's not a crime.

The things you can get Judges on, which are crimes, are things that have to do with court, and your case, but are outside of what is allowed a Judge. A Judge has NO "immunity" for obstructing filing of documents. A Judge and clerk have no immunity over removing documents from a case after they've been filed, or trying to conceal them. A Judge and clerk cannot refuse to make or forward a document they are required to make or forward. A Judge cannot commit extortion

(uh oh Jimmy)....


Extortion is when a property is seized that is not lawfully given up. If someone takes a child and forces the parent to agree by threats, it's coercion but also extortion, because they unlawfully gained a property. If a car is taken and sold by by threat, it's extortion. There are specific laws about what Judges can "take" or ask others to take. Committing extortion under "color of law" is a criminal felony.

That mean, if a cop, FBI agent, Department of State, Judge, or anyone, under color of law, obtains a property through an illegal act of extortion, they can be sued for RICO. To file a RICO lawsuit, you only need two counts of something that is a crime under Racketeering parameters and extortion is a sure thing.

(Which is why we've got an "uh oh Jimmy")

So basically, if Judge Warren put a suspension on my license, knowing it was false, for purposes of having my vehicle seized, that is extortion under color of law.

The cop that pulled me over for the suspension could be found innocent, if he didn't know it was illegally placed on my vehicle. But the Judge cannot be found innocent. If the Judge had said, "Oh! sorry! I didn't know!" when I approached him and asked him to fix his error, he might have claimed it was an honest accident. But that's not what happened. He knew it was illegal, admitted to such, and then maliciously refused to correct his wrongdoing. That meant he had full knowledge of what he'd done and that it was willful and intentional, which is why it amounts to extortion under color of law. He tried to make an illegal act of extortion appear "legal".

Which is what they did with my son too, but I don't think I want to address anything except for the Judges in my RICO Case #1.

I need ammo for the RICO Case #2.

Just came to mind actually. That I can file for an injunction still, for my son, but to file about him under RICO would be premature and if I lost I would have no recourse.

I know I can win a RICO over judicial felonies.

I don't even have to lump all of them together right now either. What I would do, which I'm explaining for the benefit of others who might be able to sue Judges and take RICO under their wing, is avoid estoppel and double jeopardy and collateral confusion. Basically, there are some rules about litigating a matter more than once. So, for example, if you file a RICO case against Judges committing crimes, and you lose, you can't then file another case down the road, including those Judges for the same thing. You get barred. And, there are a few rules about which counts of crime you can mix together. For example, you could allege false imprisonment or kidnapping but sometimes you can't use both because if the kidnapping already refers to a form of false imprisonment, you can't repeat the thing.

So you want to be careful, when you file a lawsuit, to make sure the timing is right and necessary.

For me it's never been right because that's why I filed for habeas corpus.

I cannot possibly exercise my right to "appeal" for my son when I'm being restrained and tortured as well. I have lost appeals and hearings over my son because of being illegally restrained and tortured.

So for someone to say I need to "exhaust" appeals first, or that the system works, it fucking does NOT. Because if FBI assholes are allowing you to be tortured and are directly involved in restraining your freedom of movement, they are obstructing justice and your access to the courts and to appeal.

Which is why I was forced to focus on filing for habeas corpus instead of focusing on filing an appeal for Discretionary Review with the Washington Supreme Court.

(Sorry I couldn't file in time assholes, because your ugly Milk Mother Laughlin is a bona fide terrorist and runs a mafia.)

So where I am losing to default wins to the State, because the FBI can't pick up the slack of the Department of Justice and State, and where they are allowing torture, and restraining my freedom of travel, I am being held hostage essentially and my son has been hostage, but it's been made to appear "legal". It's extortion under color of law. I haven't heard of a case where extortion has been used to refer to people, but it would most likely apply to children. Children are the only "people" considered, in legal terms, to be "property".

Women used to be considered, legally, the "property" of their husbands. I think if you join the military, you are legally considered to be "U.S. property" (not positive, but I think so). And children are considered to be "property" of their parents until they are independent of parents and "free".

Get it? Emmancipated. Emmancipation is a term once used for the freedom of slaves. A slave freed was called "emmancipated." Women being freed from legally being called property of their husbands, were "emmancipated." A teenager who wants to be free of their parent's guardianship, who wishes to be free and independent before their 18th birthday, can file for "emmancipation" when they are at least 15 or 16 years of age.

It's about "property" and who has the rights to that "property".

So the explanation about children as property then follows with the crime of extortion. They have other laws for taking children unlawfully, like human trafficking, or abuse or kidnapping, but extortion should also be applicable. Again, extortion is where a property is seized and the party that owned it is forced to agree, through threats, intimidation, or other means, even under color of law.

If a parent is forced to sign away parental rights, that is extortion. It means a lawyer or some party forced that parent, through threats or intimidation, to sign away their rights and then make it appear voluntary that they gave up this right. It is extortion under color of law.

I am not sure, but I think that if someone is forced to give up a property, or "agree" to it by being told not to fight for its return, or to allow another to retain control without defending that child in self-defense with a gun or other weapon, this is also extortion under color of law.

Look at this way:

You own a house and know the law is that you have a right to defend that property. So someone sets foot inside your house without your consent and you yell, "Get off my property, leave now or I'll shoot!" If they do not leave, you have a right to shoot them on-sight. Your right to defend your property is absolute. So if someone comes into your house and says, holding a gun against you, "Get out of your house--I'm going to live here now." Let's say they are an FBI agent. That agent goes to the courthouse and files papers for ownership claiming you gave up rights to your house. Now they have legal papers that prove the FBI have ownership of your house. You can dispute it, but how? They tell the Judge, "We own the house." They don't own it if they extorted it from the rightful owner. It looks legal, but it's not. So it was extortion under color of law.

Same thing with a kid. My child is my property and in my guardianship. I have a legal right to use arms or a weapon against anyone who attempts to take my child from me, without my consent. If someone takes my kid from me and they're a police officer, and a public official, and if they first hold me hostage and then take my kid while they have me tied up, that's a kidnapping. To then continue to hold my child from me, while claiming to have legal papers, is extortion under color of law. They have taken my property from me and then refused to return it and tried to make it look legal. Then they violate my right to go after my child with a gun, and liberate my child from the hostage situation, how? because they used extortion to seize a property and try to make it look legal.

"Give me your stereo or I'll make sure your kid doesn't go to school this year." The man gives the other the stereo. That's extortion.

"Give me your car and car keys or you're going to jail." The woman gives up her car keys and can't fight for her car when she knows it's unlawfully seized, but it appears legal. That's extortion under color of law.

"If you would quit blogging Cameo, you would get to visit your son more. Your blogging isn't helping you get your son back. If you want to see your again, stop blogging." The state telling me they will return the child they kidnapped from me, only if I quit blogging, and withholding my son from me as I continue to blog, or don't, is extortion under color of law.

"We have guardianship of Oliver and Ms. Garrett cannot take him back by use of a weapon to protect her right to her property." That is extortion under color of law.

So I could file for kidnapping and/or extortion of my son.

And this explains how children are viewed as "property" which is why the habeas corpus claim that a woman filed with the U.S. Supreme Court didn't go over, because they claimed she couldn't "free" or liberate her "property" if it was no longer her "property" and property rights had been transfered to other hands and finalized.

This is why, in my opinion, to not get hinged up on whether you are fighting for your own property or not, in habeas corpus, you should file for habeas corpus before court appeals are final and then any adoption is final. It makes it harder.

The only way to pursue a lawsuit to get your kid back after exhausting appeals, or habeas corpus, is to file a RICO lawsuit.

And to file for RICO for your child, you not only have to be able to claim your child is wrongfully taken or restrained under color of law, you must be prepared to show evidence of crimes.

With RICO, it addresses how to handle "innocent parties" in possession of stolen properties. You want to file a restraining order to block finalization of the "sale" of your child to another party. That's what they did. They sold your kid, as a piece of property. So if the stolen property is taken by criminal agents and then tranfered or sold to another party, if that other party is also guilty, even if the sale was finalized, there is no question about forfeiture of property. The stolen property, or, property obtained or gained "through commission of a crime" (must be 2 or more counts of crimes under RICO, see 18 U.S.C. 1961), is returned to owner or person bringing the lawsuit.

If the property is transfered or sold to an innocent party, it is still possible to request forfeiture of that property.

So even if a child gets sold to another family, i.e., your property is "sold" through deed of "adoption" into new ownership, it is still possible to get that property back.

What they do with monetary goods or property of a value, is sometimes return the property to the original owner it was stolen from and then compensate the innocent party with a sum of money.

It's like when the government says, "We need your land for our Nuclear Plant." They can go in and force people to forfeit their property and then they have to pay them for it. Or say a new highway goes in, "We are going to cut into your property by 4 feet," if they reduce the value of your property or take it from you, the government usually compensates for it in some way (even if it's not full price).

So let's say I win RICO, forgetting the Judges, and going to RICO #2 about my son...If I allege my son was property stolen through commission of crime, then the party who obtained that property, The Avilas, may be considered innocent or guilty (party to the criminal actions that took place to remove the property from rightful owner). If they are guilty in any way, or complicit, the forfeiture of the property is automatic. They don't get to keep Oliver and they don't have any right to complain about their loss. If the Avila's are innocent, and received stolen property from criminal agents working for the State, FBI, or in a government capacity, under color of law, if they're innocent, it is possible for them to be compensated in some way for their loss.

So if I ask for the return of my property and let's say the property rights are finalized and sealed over to the Avilas...Let's say there are no more appeals, and no stays and it's over, and the adoption is final and the termination of parental rights is final. According to RICO, even in this situation, it is possible to get the property back.

You are the owner of a nice BMW?

FBI says, when prosecuting for RICO, "We'll take that."

You argue, "But I bought it and the sale was final."

If you're guilty, and you took part in the transaction, knowing it was a fraudulent or criminal transfer of goods, you just lost your rights to that property. It's as good as gone.

What if someone stole the car, and then sold it to an innocent person? Can the FBI take the car from you? not unless there are exception and in that case, they'd reimburse the innocent party for the loss.

There are different rules to different kinds of property. How they treat land or intellectual property, is different from how they might treat cars or jewelry that changes hands.

What I might propose, is that since my son is my property and he was taken from in the commission of crime, is that the adoption is null and void. The Avila's have also never been "unaware" that his return to me was possible and they are also aware of the circumstances leading to his seizure from me.

CPS and the State didn't want to hold onto their dirty laundry and their dirty money, my son, who was only "dirtied" by their illegal transactions. He is not dirty, they are. But since they knew they had "hot goods", when they heard of my talking about habeas corpus and property this-and-that, they wanted to dispose of their hot goods and try to keep it from being seized back to the original owner by transfering the property to other hands, The Avilas, as an attempt to "wash up".

"Get rid of it now."
"What do you mean?"
"I mean, drop it."
"You mean?"
"Yeah. It's hot. Get rid of it."
"Hey, you wanna adopt our slave?"

They had my son adopted out like the Mafia trying to move assets into new accounts. They had my son adopted out like the Mafia trying to clean up a counterfeit business to make proceeds look honest and legal.

So, if the Avila's knew what was coming down the crooked pipeline, they've always known it was an unjust and illegal transfer of assets.

He wasn't like a house that got sent back to the bank for non-payment of mortgage. He wasn't a foreclosure or a "repo". I did not fail in my duties to provide for my son or give away rights, or subject myself to investigation and my parental rights were always intact.

He was, is, and will be my property until he is of age or emmancipates himself.

What the government did was illegal, period, and anyone assisting, aided and encouraged the crime.

Even if the Avila's had no idea where the property was coming from, or that the owner was claiming it was stolen goods, even if they believed they were not buying (adopting) a "hot" property, even if they are angels with zero knowledge of any kind of wrongdoing and innocent, the property can still be taken from them, and returned to me.

In the event this happens, I am sure the FBI and U.S. governmnet can work out some kind of nice compensation package for their damages or loss.

I am not going to be the one filing a civil suit to get money for the loss of my son, who can never be replaced by money. I am the mother.

If the guardians who adopted a hot property feel misled by the FBI and CPS "realtors", they can file a lawsuit and get monetary satisfaction. And, I believe they could even receive a portion of monies I receive as compensation, as I would be the "stand-in" for the AG or FBI that would ordinarily handle distribution negotiations with a Judge about who gets what and how much as compensation to victims.

The Avilas are the victims. I am also a victim. But since I have the full and complete right to my son, aside from harm incurred as a result of going through this MAFIA set-up, I would think it is just to compensate for emotional damages for the Avilas, or whatever else they believe they could claim in damages for being recipients of "hot" goods.

They were asked to hold the hot property for criminals and then to buy it out, and no one ever had a right to negotiate ANYTHING over my son.

That's explaining how RICO works for getting kids back.

As for Judges committing felonies, they have committed felonies. They've all been part of the Mafia and tried to profit off of stolen goods.

How much did Laura Laughlin make? Did she share her profits with Gregoire and the AG? I find it really interesting that she's so familiar with Mob activity and RICO and then allows this to happen to kids. She knew all along.


Anonymous said...

Oliver Avila is the son of Holly & Pablo. You are nothing. Legally and in reality. Oliver calls Holly "Momma," not you. You will never, ever get him back. He is not yours. Period.

Reality Check.

Mama said...

Adoptions are not legal or final until all appeals are exhausted. That's not been done yet.

Furthermore, if the Avila's adopted him knowing he was subject to "forfeiture" as they've admitted to knowing in writing, they are buyers (according to the law) of a property they knew was not free to take and was/is in dispute.

Look up your RICO rules for a reality check.

That's where you might actually make money.

Anonymous said...

A child is not property... Where on earth is it ok to refer to children as property? What year was Oliver born in? I have been reading your blog for almost 3 years an he seems to have been 5 years old the entire time... Maybe I just don't understand your writing style? But you talk about the tourture you two were submitted to in 2004, when it says in the post he was an infant... I'm not at all trying to say it did not happen, I'm just curious as to his age so I can keep up with the timeline.

Mama said...

Anonymous A Child Is Not:

Hi, I understand exactly what you are saying ("a child is not property").

It doesn't sound right because that's not how we speak or refer to kids, but as a "corporation" has been determined by law to be a "person", so is a "child" determined by law to be "property". The child is treated as legal property of the parents until emancipation (freedom from being 'owned' or under cover of) or until they attain legal age of independence.

Women were once determined by law to be property of their husbands until they fought for emancipation and won.

Does calling a "corporation" a "person" sound right to you? Of course it sounds odd. How is a corporation, a company, a "person"? but if you look it up online, you'll find this is true. If you want to find where women are viewed as property, look up women's rights and "coverture". Coverture is the law that determined women were property of their husbands.

If you want to find children referred to as property, examine laws of emancipation for children and parent's rights. Children as property follows coverture. Both women and children were once called property of the husband. If a woman divorced her husband, she automatically lost all rights to her children because he "owned them".

Oliver was born May 11, 2006. He is now 6 years old. He was 1 1/2 when he was kidnapped and before that he was tortured by the same state that then coordinated his kidnapping with Canadians.

My parents have been used by the U.S. government for years as MK-Ultra victims who were picked out in the 1950s when the program first began.

I don't know where it says 2004, because my son wasn't born then. It is possible someone edited the date because I have never written such a thing. I was tortured before my son was born, but not by the same methods that my son experienced with me 7 months into pregnancy and after his birth.

Thank you for your good questions.