JUDGE PAMELA ELIZABETH LOZA HAS A HEART OF POISONOUS VENOM SHE IS FULL OF HATE!
SHE HAS BULLIED AND INTIMIDATED MANY ATTORNEYS MANY MEN HAVE BROKE DOWN IN TEARS PROFUSELY AS SHE SEPARATED THEM FROM THEIR CHILDREN NOW SHE IS TAKING CHILDREN FROM MOTHERS ALLEGEDLY FOR A NICE KICK BACK NOT FEARING ANY REPRISALS FROM ANY BLACK OFFICIAL IN AUTHORITY DUE TO HER UNTOUCHABLE PERSONA IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
DEMOCRATIC FEDERAL JUDGE SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN (BLACK WOMAN) CLOSED HER EYES TO THE PLETHORA OF CRIMINAL ACTS LEVIED BY THIS JUDGE AND OTHERS AS THEY VIOLATED LEE'S CIVIL RIGHTS AS THEY TRESPASSED UPON THE LAWS CORROBORATED THEIR ROLES ENGAGING IN TREASON DENIED HIS MOTIONS CLAIMING SHE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION.
BUT A REPUBLICAN JUDGE VIRGINIA KENDALL ACCEPTED JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER WOMEN'S CASE EXPERIENCING THE SAME TYPE OF CORRUPTION AND TRESPASSING OF THE LAWS BY COOK COUNTY JUDGES. (CASE #17-CV-08060).
COOK COUNTY JUDGES IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND CHANCERY IS BY FAR SOME OF THE WORSE UNQUALIFIED CORRUPT RACIST SEXIST JUDGES IN AMERICA.
LEE OTIES LOVE, JR. @Redbilla HAS BEEN THROUGH HELL WITH THIS JUDGE BUT BECAUSE OF PRAYER AND ALL OF THE SUPPORT FROM THE TWITTER FAMILY +Linda Lee King @LisaMRomano AND SO MANY OTHERS HAVE MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR LEE TO GET WITH HIS DAUGHTER.
LET'S HELP THIS MOM GET REUNITED WITH HER SON.
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Carlen Colbert Civil Action #17-cv-08467
Hon: Charles R. Norgle, Sr.
Plaintiff
Magistrate: Judge Susan E. Cox
V
Pamela E. Loza, Michael I. Bender, Timothy
C. Evans, Grace Dickler, Anton Colbert, Debra B. Walker
Defendants
NOTICE OF
PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE REMANDING PAMELA E. LOZA et. al. & ATTORNEYS “TRESPASSING
UPON THE LAWS” CORROBORATION IN AN ORGANIZED CHAIN CONSPIRACY “TREASON” “FRAUD OF ALL SORTS” /CONTEMPT
OF COURT OTHER IRREGULARITIES
REMAND/BODY ATTACHMENT INSTANTER
MANDATORY INJUNCTION PROHIBITING STATE
AND COUNTY COURTS FROM ENTERING ANY JUDGMENTS INSTANTER AND VACATE ALL ORDERS
VOID IN NATURE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF
To the most Honorable Judge of the United States District
Court for the Northern District:
Moving Party, Carlen Colbert, hereby respectfully represents
as Pro Se shows this court with an affidavit the noted reasons why this matter
should be entertained within this courts Jurisdiction; {Pursuant to the
provisions of the United States Constitution}
That on
Dec. 01, 2017, Plaintiff shall present this Motion at 9:30 am before
Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr. in room 2338A, 219 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, IL. 60604;
To To:
Pamela E. Loza 50 West Washington, Chicago, IL 60601 Room 3009;
Michael I. Bender, 70 West Madison,
Suite 2222 Chg. IL 60602,
Timothy C. Evans 50 West Washington,
Chg. IL. 60601 Room 2600;
Anton Colbert, 140 Percy Julian Sq., Oak
Park, IL. 60302-2619
Grace Dickler 50 West Washington, Chg,
IL 60601 Room 1905;
Debra B. Walker, 50 West Washington,
Chg. Il 60601 Room 2108
PLEASE BE ADVISED that on November 27, 2017 A Petition for Rule to
Show Cause et al have been filed with all attachments before the United
States District Courts.
Respectfully
Submitted
_______________________
Carlen Colbert
1805
Jamestown Cir.
Hoffman Estates, IL. 60169
Certificate of Service
The
undersigned hereby certifies that the above Petition with attachments was
caused to be delivered by regular mail to the above named parties.
______________________
Carlen Colbert
IN THE
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Carlen Colbert Civil Action #17-cv-08467
Hon: Charles R. Norgle, Sr.
Plaintiff
Magistrate: Judge Susan E. Cox
V
Pamela E. Loza, Michael I. Bender, Timothy
C. Evans, Grace Dickler, Anton Colbert, Debra B. Walker
Defendants
PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
REMANDING PAMELA E. LOZA et. al. &
ATTORNEYS “TRESPASSING UPON THE LAWS” CORROBORATION IN AN ORGANIZED CHAIN
CONSPIRACY “TREASON” “FRAUD OF ALL
SORTS” /CONTEMPT OF COURT OTHER
IRREGULARITIES
REMAND/BODY ATTACHMENT INSTANTER
MANDATORY INJUNCTION PROHIBITING STATE
AND COUNTY COURTS FROM ENTERING ANY JUDGMENTS INSTANTER AND VACATE ALL ORDERS
VOID IN NATURE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF
Now comes Carlen Colbert., Pro Se in this
cause respectfully represents to this court her Petition for Rule to Show Cause
Remanding Pamela E. Loza et al. & Attorneys “Trespassing upon the Laws” Corroboration in an Organized Chain
Conspiracy “Treason” “Fraud of all
sorts” Contempt of Court other Irregularities, Remand/Body Attachment Instanter
Mandatory Injunction prohibiting State County courts from entering any
judgments Instanter and Vacate all orders Void in nature against the Plaintiff.
Said reasons are recorded in the attached
affidavit;
Respectfully Submitted
_______________________
Carlen Colbert
1805 Jamestown Cir.
Hoffman Estates, IL. 60169
AFFIDAVIT
{Pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. 1446 (a)}
I Carlen Colbert. being first duly sworn on oath
depose and states in support of Petition for Rule to Show Cause Remanding Judge
Elizabeth E. Loza et al. & Attorneys “Trespassing upon the Laws”
Corroboration in an Organized Chain Conspiracy “Treason” “Fraud of all sorts”
Contempt of Court other Irregularities, Remand/Body Attachment Instanter
Mandatory Injunction prohibiting State County courts from entering any
judgments Instanter and Vacate all orders Void in nature against the Plaintiff.
{Pursuant to the Rules of Federal
Civil Procedure & U.S. Constitution}
Section 1983 of U.S.C.S., S.H.A. Criminal Ch.
38, 33-3, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Canon 3D (1) Reporting Judicial Misconduct,
3D (2) Reporting Lawyer Misconduct;
1.) The 7th Cir. Held that the Cook County Courts were a
Criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy,
768 F. 2d 1518, 1531 where precedent was enacted by Judges Frank H.
Easterbrook, Richard D. Cudahy and former Chief judge Luther Merritt Swygert;
TRESPASSERS
OF THE LAW
The Illinois Supreme Court
has held that "if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and
those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are
trespassers." Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, - it had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928).
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, - it had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928).
A-
In addition, when judges act when they do not have
jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge
without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in
treason (see below).
The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... It is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse." When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.
The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... It is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse." When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.
That Pursuant to Sup Ct. Rule 272 “if at the time of announcing final judgment the judge requires the submission of a form of written judgment to be signed by the judge et al” the judgment becomes final only when the signed judgment is filed— Judges are bound by this rule before their court orders are valid;
Under Section 4 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871:
The President had additional
power in case of rebellion within a state to suspend the writ of habeas corpus
and to declare and enforce marital law. Cong.
Globe, supra note 1, at 317. With respect to a definition of rebellion,
Section 4 provided;
“Whenever
in any State or part of a State……unlawful combinations……..shall be organized
and armed, and so numerous and powerful as to be able, by violence, to either
overthrow or set at defiance the constituted authorities of such State, or when
the constituted authorities are in complicity with or shall connive at the
unlawful purposes of such powerful and armed combinations; and whenever, by
reason of either or all of the causes aforesaid, the conviction of such
offenders and the preservation of the public safety shall become….
Impracticable, in every such case such combinations shall be deemed a rebellion
against the Government of the United States….”
1.) Said Judge aided and assisted attorneys
and in an elaborate criminal conspiracy “Trespassing
upon the Laws” using the laws unjustly in which to advance her criminal
agenda;
2.)
That former
judge (Michael I Bender) filed
a "Fraudulent Emergency
Ex Parte Motion et al., hereto attached, as Ex A Gr Ex C from Motion to Disqualify et al.;
A- That Par 4 states "In May of 2012 DCFS opened an investigation et a!"., this is an egregious falsehood, in that there was never an investigation opened against the Respondent
for any reason;
3.)
That the
aforementioned parties colluded in an “Organized
Conspiracy” and abducted Plaintiffs child and giving him to her brother in
an unlawful bizarre manner!
4.)
That Gr Ex B, hereto attached, Motion to
Return Minor back into Custody of Mother (Defendant) Instanter Due to “Fraud”
“Kidnapping” et al. That no one DENIED or objected to any of the
pleadings properly asserted thereby admitting to the veracity of every
pleading.
5.)
Hereto attached as Gr
Ex A, In Re The Parentage of Clarence Parker v. April Redeaux, Motion for
Disqualification of judge for “Cause” Due to “Fraud” (Civil Rights Violations)
and or Prejudice pursuant to S.H.A. 735 ILCS 5/2--- 1001 (a) (2,3) and to
Vacate all Orders due to “Trespassing upon the Laws” Court never had
jurisdiction et al. Page 10, Par 10,
states “That
judge Karen J. Bowes satisfied the Preponderance of Evidence Standard by taking
part in an “Organized Conspiracy” by interfering and unlawfully
obstructing with Respondents parental responsibility keeping her from having
custody per judge Walker’s order, in an attempt to keep black families stressed
oppressed exercising terrorist tactics thereby, validating the veracity of
colluding with said parties in said conspiracy where “Fraud” and “Perjury” was
apparent in reference to all attachments; “
6.) That
in addition to the aforementioned acts of “Treason
Offenses” former judge now Child Rep (Michael I. Bender) attorney is
now trying to EXTORT money from the Plaintiff hereto attached, Gr Ex C Petition for Rule to Show Cause for Indirect Civil Contempt (Filed September 14 and Motioned for
September 15, 2017)
A- Plaintiff
had her fees waived but Michael Bender being a former judge knew how to “Trespass upon the Laws” by
colluding with Judge Loza, she became a law unto herself by acting as a Private
citizen and not as a Judicial Officer of the State of Illinois violating her
oath in every way.
B- Because
the dad did not want to pay child support he stood by passively and allowed
these diabolical events to manifest;
C- That
out of alleged desperation and fear said father (Robert Strattford)
mysteriously filed for custody only after this matter had been filed in Federal
court;
7.)
Plaintiff has not seen her child due to this
sophisticated operation of child abduction and extortion, hereto attached, Gr Ex D Nov. 15. 2017 court order not
signed seeking to have Plaintiff in Contempt hearing set for Dec. 6, 2017 at
2pm;
A-
That
to further validate the verity of “Jim
Crow” laws still being enforced and judges “Trespassing upon the Laws” in Chicago courts by members of
the Democratic Machine.
B-
The Law is CLEAR: Properly alleged facts within an affidavit that are not
contradicted by counter affidavit are taken as true, despite the existence of
contrary averments in the adverse
party’s pleadings. Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v.
Professional Seminar Consultants Inc., 136 ILL App 3d 1084, 483 N.E. 2d 1291;
Buzzard v. Bolger, 117 ILL App 3d 887, 453 N.E. 2d 1129 et al.
C- That
allegedly Plaintiff’s son’s father Robert Stratford has colluded with the
Defendants so as to receive favor by not paying the Plaintiff any child support
for the minor and because of the judges ability to “trespass upon the laws and
Deny every legally sufficient Motion with Affidavits filed in the courts
validates their removal from the bench; Scott, 377
Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218, 220 (1979) See Lopez-Alexander, Unreported Order
No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985) (Judge removed for, inter alia, a persistent
pattern of abuse of the contempt power. The Mayor of Denver accepted the
findings of the Denver County Court Judicial Qualification Commission that the
judge’s conduct could not be characterized as mere mistakes or errors of law
and that the conduct constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office
into disrepute). Canon Ethics where there is a pattern of disregard or
indifference, which warrant discipline.
D- Plaintiff has not seen her son or attended
his 8th grade graduation due to judges engaging in Terrorist Acts
committing Treason on the bench.
Section
1983 of U.S.C.S.
contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the Unconstitutional
Application of a Law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell v. Saunders (CA
5 F 1A) 372 F 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into
effect, where an action is for a conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights
under 42 U.S.C.S. 1985 (3), or for the depravation of such rights under 42
U.S.C.S. 1983, if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff
was thereby deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
United States Constitution and Laws, the gist of the action maybe treated as
one for the depravation of rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, Lewis v. Brautigam
(CA 5 F 1a) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505, John W. Strong, 185, 777-78 (4 the
ed. 1992).
E- That
said Judges in the Democratic party and the likes of their kinds cowardly prey
on the helpless, the indigent, and has
legally demonstrated the extent they are willing to exhaust criminalizing
innocent men of color to achieve their goals not respecting any person of color
with authority;
F- In
Furtherance to the above, said individuals that can best be described as “Organized Terrorists” have used
their positions and authority to oppress and destroy other persons lives
recorded in said complaint by stealing homes in the guise of foreclosure,
extort monies from men of color in the guise of child support, and take babies
from the mom’s unlawfully, due in part to the many components of this facet of
Domestic Terrorism.
G-
In that, Judge Pamela Elizabeth Loza, Michael I.
Bender, Timothy C. Evans, Grace Dickler, Anton Colbert and Debra Walker has
admitted engaging in “Trespassing
upon the Laws” committing “Treason”
when they received Notice and Knowledge of the Motion for Disqualification
of judge for “Cause” et al. hereto attached, as Gr Ex A, when they colluded with one another and Denied said
Motion.
Supreme
Court Rule [137] provides in pertinent part:
If a pleading, motion, or other
paper is signed in violation of this Rule, the court, upon motion or upon its
own initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it , a represented party,
or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the
other party or parties the amount of reasonable expenses incurred because of
the filling of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable
attorney fee. Not only will the courts consider an award of sanctions for
active false statements: failures to disclose material facts to the court can
also justify an award of sanctions. BRUBAKKEN v. Morrison, No. 1-9-1670, 1992
Ill App. LEXIS 2144 (1st Dist. Dec. 30, 1992). Additionally, the
fact that a false statement or omission is the result of an honest mistake is
no defense to entry of a sanction. ID. To the extent that an individual lawyer
has engaged in sanction able conduct, that lawyer’s firm can also be jointly
and severally liable with the lawyer.
H- That
because Judge Pamela Elizabeth Loza and
a plethora of other Democratic Terrorist judges in the political machine are
exercising laws outside of their immunity (oath) and jurisdiction and in
accordance to other Political/Fraternal laws makes every Court order signed by all
Judges in this matter, State levels Void Orders a “Nullity” due to “Treason”;
That because of the above; Fraud admissibility great latitude is permitted in proving fraud C.J.S. Fraud
104 ET Seg. Fraud 51-57. where a question of fraud and deceit is the issue
involved in a case, great latitude is
ordinarily permitted in the introduction of evidence, and courts allow the
greatest liberality in the method of examination and in the scope of inquiry Vigus
V. O’Bannon, 1886 8 N.E 788, 118 ILL 334. Hazelton V. Carolus, 1907 132 ILL.
App. 512.
INDUCING RELIANCE
To prevail in a cause of action for
fraud, plaintiff must prove that defendant made statement of material nature
which was relied on by victim and was made for purposes of inducing reliance,
and that victim’s reliance led to his injury. Parsons V. Winter, 1986, 1 Dist., 491 N.E.
2d 1236, 96 ILL
In Carter V. Mueller 457
N.E. 2d 1335 ILL. App. 1 Dist. 1983 The Supreme
Court has held that: “The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent
misrepresentation (sometimes referred to as “fraud and deceit” or deceit) are:
(1) False statement of material fact; (2) known or believed to be false by the
party making it; (3) intent to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the
other party in reliance on the truth of the statement; and (5) damage to the other
party resulting from such reliance.
I-
That said Judges
and the related conspirators have corroborated/admitted beyond all legal
standards of the law engaging in an “Organized Criminal Conspiracy”
“Trespassing upon the Laws” engaging in “Treason” closing their eyes to the
plethora of “terrorist acts” of many judges engaging in destroying families
removing children from homes unlawfully as they pad the pockets of child rep
attorneys via extortion, stealing homes and in the guise of foreclosure.
A-
That the defendants have met and
fulfilled the requirements of the aforementioned for the relief being sought;
Agreement to commit an unlawful act, which
constitutes the essence of a conspiracy, is a distinct evil that exist and be
punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues,-id.
Conspiracy poses a threat to the public over
and above the threat of the commission of the relevant substantive crime, both
because the combination in crime makes more likely the commission of other
crimes and because it decreases the part from their path of criminality-id;
J- REPORTING JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
CANON 3D (1)
Under Section 3D (1), a judge who receives information that indicates “a
substantial likelihood that another judge “ has violated the Code of Judicial
“should take appropriate action”. The Canon does not require the judge to hold
a hearing and make a definitive decision that a violation has occurred before
the reporting requirement is triggered and at least one state’s judicial ethics
committee has advised that the reporting requirement is triggered when the
judge has “sufficient information” to conclude that a “substantial issue” has
been raised that a violation has occurred, Mass. Comm. On Judicial Ethics, Op.
2002-04 (2002)
“Appropriate action” may include direct
communication with the judge who has committed the violation and reporting the
violation to the appropriate or other agency or body. See Commentary to Canon
3D (1). “Appropriate authority” is the authority with responsibility for
initiation of disciplinary proceedings with respect to the violation reported.
Some jurisdictions’ rules specify to whom a judge must report misconduct. For
instance, Massachusetts Rule 3D (1) provides that if a judge becomes aware of
another judge’s unprofessional conduct he must report his knowledge to the
Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the court of which the
judge in question is a member.
Note that the term “knowledge”, as defined
in the Terminology Section, denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question
and as such, a person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. In
drafting Section 3D (1), the Committee rejected the suggestion that the
criteria of raising substantial question as to honesty or trustworthiness be
applied in the context of reporting judicial misconduct as well, on the grounds
that those criteria are implicit in the present criterion of raising a
substantial question as to a judge’s fitness for office.
U. S Sup Court
Agreement to commit an unlawful act, which
constitutes the essence of a conspiracy, is a distinct evil that exist and be
punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.-Id.
Conspiracy poses a threat to the public
over and above the threat of the commission of the relevant substantive crime,
both because the combination in crime makes more likely the commission of other
crimes and because it decreases the part from their path of criminality.-Id.
CONSPIRACY
Fraud maybe inferred from nature of acts complained of, individual and
collective interest of alleged conspirators, situation, intimacy, and relation
of parties at time of commission of acts, and generally all circumstances
preceding and attending culmination of claimed conspiracy Illinois Rockford Corp. V. Kulp,
1968, 242 N.E. 2d 228, 41 ILL. 2d 215.
Conspirators to be guilty of
offense need not have entered into conspiracy at same time or have taken part
in all its actions. People V. Hardison, 1985, 911 Dec. 162, 108.
Requisite mens rea elements of conspiracy are satisfied upon showings of
agreement of offense with intent that offense be committed; Actus reas element is satisfied of act in furtherance of agreement People
V. Mordick, 1981, 50 ILL
A judge’s disrespect for the rules of court
demonstrates disrespect for the law. Judges are disciplined under Canon 2 A for
violating court rules and procedures. Judged ignored mandated witness order in
attempt to accommodate witnesses’ schedules; Citing Canon 2A the court noted,
“[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for and
discontent with our justice system. Government can not demand respect of the
laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)
Civil
Rights Act of 1866- first section, enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United
States of America
Wherefore the foregoing stated
within Plaintiff Respectfully Prays for the Relief:
1.) That
this Most Honorable Court Remand Judge Pamela E. Loza et al, attorneys and all conspirators into custody Instanter
for “Trespassing upon the Laws”;
2.) Order
that minor child be returned to the Plaintiff Instanter;
3.) Order
the Grand Jury to investigate and Indict all other parties associated in said
Conspiracy and the persons responsible for additional charges;
4.) Order
the Removal of every Public Official named and ignored the Oath and
Constitution of their duties as an elected/appointed official in this matter,
who has “trespassed upon the laws”;
5.) Issue
an Injunction Prohibiting the County judges, City or State Officials from
issuing any judgments against the Plaintiff;
6.) Order
Sanctions against all parties and have them to absorb all legal expenses and
costs for the enforcement of this matter;
7.) Order
a Moratorium on all Child Support’ Custody matters ascertaining other men or
women victimized by the same unjust matters;
8.) Let
the Gavel and Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court Invoke any other remedy this
courts deems just;
FURTHER AFFIANTH SAYETH NAUGHT
Respectfully Submitted
_______________________
Carlen Colbert
No comments:
Post a Comment