Grandparents Rights Gone WRONG

Home Grown

2013-04-30T07:15:00.001-07:00

I applaud CBS for telling the story of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and trying to help us understand why he snapped, but anyone with half of a brain realizes that there is more to the story.

CBS reported that Tamerlan was the top boxer in New England, who should have been bound for the Olympics, but was denied his dream because he wasn't an American citizen. In 2010, the Massachusetts boxing commission changed it's name-and the rules for boxing in Massachusetts. Prior to the change a Legal Permanent Resident could compete in the national Golden Gloves championship. Tamerlan, had won the New England championship prior to the changes and should have been the one to represent Massachusetts for the national Golden Gloves championship. Instead, because he talked some trash, presumably to his American opponent (because the media only tells us what the government wants us to know), he was out of a championship, out of the life he could have provided for his impoverished family, and out of the American dream with no recourse and nowhere to turn- and that people, is what made him snap.

America would love to blame some jihadists overseas for grooming Tamerlan Tsarnaev. It would love to be able to prove that some new ghostly organization, implanted him here and terrorism has now taken a new turn into "Operation Get Citizenship First" and then bomb the country- anything except admitting that it snatched this man's dream away, left him adrift- and as a result people died.

I point this out to say that not everyone rises above having their life ravaged by some new law, that couldn't bring about anything else. Everyone in America would love to stand firm on the belief that this is the greatest country in the world which provides liberty and justice for all. Having served my country, but still treated like a stray dog in the judicial system, and having my child ripped away from me twice without cause, I think I can safely say that America needs some serious work. Home Grown in Tamerlan's case, meant exactly that. He didn't have to go anywhere. If America can get a grasp on that fact, then we could figure out what to do about Syria, without the fear of getting crushed in World War III.

It's a daggon shame people lost their lives and limbs because a Legal Permanent Resident, was denied his dream, in the same country that's going to pardon millions of illegal immigrants.

THE PUBLIC SAFETY DOCTRINE DOESN'T APPLY

2013-04-25T06:37:00.000-07:00

No, I don't have a JD. But, I do have extensive, practical experience practicing law for myself, courtesy of Georgia, the most corrupt state in America. So, here's my take on Boston bomber #2's Miranda Rights.

I think a play on words is happening now. Although New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) provides: "Miranda rule held not to preclude accused's interrogation prompted by concern for public safety"- that's not the end-all. Quarles, emphasizes the exigency of the circumstances and a law enforcement officer's legal ability to act within that exigency.

In Quarles, a police officer, had apprehended a suspect after a woman claimed she'd been raped. Upon frisking him, he found an empty gun holster. He then asked, "Where's the gun?", to which the suspect responded with the gun's location. After securing the gun, for his own safety and the safety of the public, the officer then, read the suspect his Miranda rights.

I think the case is going to run into two problems at this point. The decision of the officer in Quarles to act immediately, without mirandizing the suspect was a split second decision, in order to protect the public, which Quarles emphasizes: ..."The United States Supreme Court declines to place officers in the untenable position of having to consider, often in a matter of seconds, whether it best serves society for them to ask the necessary questions without the Miranda warnings and render whatever probative evidence they uncover inadmissible, or for them to give the warnings in order to preserve the admissibility of evidence they might uncover but possibly damage or destroy their ability to obtain that evidence and neutralize the volatile situation confronting them..." Minus all of the "gloobity glop" piled on top of what this is saying, the officers in Quarles had to obtain a tangible item of evidence, in order to neutralize a situation, that was confronting them at that very time, in the interest of protecting the public from the item. Once Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found bloody, with no weapons on him, the situation had been neutralized. There was no further indication that the officers needed to act, spontaneously, in order to obtain tangible evidence, which was a threat to the public's safety. I think the main problem the case is going to run into is the time element. I don't think Quarles was meant to be construed as law enforcement's right to extend the Miranda exception, to a situation that could happen in the future, but isn't happening at that very moment. Furthermore, I don't think it was meant to be used to deprive Miranda rights in the hopes of finding an indication of further evidence, that needs to be secured. In Quarles, the empty holster was a clear indication that dangerous evidence had to be secured immediately, in order to protect the public. One cannot stretch, a spontaneous moment, if there is one, over an extended period time, where there is no clear indication that further evidence needs to be secured, in order to protect the public's safety.-But that's just my take.

Beware of Virgin Mobile Advertising

2013-04-19T13:22:00.000-07:00

This is completely off topic but I thought I'd warn people. If you're thinking of buying Virgin Mobile Broadband2Go, be sure to call customer service and find out exactly whether or not your area has 4G coverage. Don't trust the "Map It" they have on their website. Even though they have 4 different options and Voice Coverage is it's own, your area may show that you are covered for 4G Lite, but 4G Lite, according to customer service, is only for phone service. 4G service customers pay $55 and enjoy unlimited service. If your area only has 3G service, you pay the same $55, but only get 5 GB of data- which will run out pretty quickly and you'll have to buy more MB. Beware. A supervisor agreed that the Map It results indeed mislead a "lay person."

SCOTUS Only For the Rich

2013-04-02T20:45:00.000-07:00

It is obvious that DOMA is unconstitutional. So why isn't it just as obvious that O.C.G.A. 19-7-1 is also unconstitutional? Maybe if I had been rich enough to lose $363,000, my constitutional rights to my child would have mattered to SCOTUS and so would those of other fit parents who have lost custodial rights. Long gone are the days of Clarence Gideon. A pro se litigant, no matter how viable his argument is, will not be heard and the common man's rights will not be protected, even if the court itself has 90 years of its own precedence to refer to. In other words, if you don't have money, your rights don't matter, and "liberty and justice for all" means all who are rich.

MY TAKE ON DOMA

2013-03-28T09:55:00.000-07:00

Let's talk about what the gay marriage argument is really about, the separation of Church and State. People are against gay marriage not because they hate homosexuals, but because they believe that sleeping with the same sex is a sin- an abomination- and unfortunately, the average religious American may applaud the separation of Church and State for the majority of issues, but on this particular issue, people are quite comfortable with the combination of the two. I say, address the real issue. Should we continue to exercise this particular combination of Church and State?

Gay people would have a better chance at marriage, if they would admit that it is a sin to sleep with the same sex, and stop trying to insist that Bible-believing people accept their relationships as equal- because such will happen on the same day that peace comes about in the Middle East. Instead, gay people should insist, that if there is to be an atonement at the gates of heaven, that people concern themselves with only themselves and their own salvation. I can't account for you and you can't account me. In the end, a sin, is a sin, is a sin and God won't separate the liars, from the fornicators, the thieves, from the murders and so on. In other words, yes, it's wrong, but we all sin. There will be an atonement for us all. The question is, what will you have to answer for and is salvation the government's job?

I wish I could argue that marriage can be between one man and one man or one woman and woman, but I can't:

Genesis 2:22-24

Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Mark 10:6-9

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

I wish I could argue that homosexuality was right, but again, I can't:

Leviticus 20:13

King James Version (KJV)

¹³If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

What I can argue is that these versus are the only arguments to support DOMA, and this is the problem. The 1st Amendment clearly states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...

Since there is no legal precedence to support DOMA and only the Bible, I conclude that DOMA is an unconstitutional.

What I can also argue is I love my family and friends, gay or straight. It is a hurting thing to watch someone else in pain because someone hates them for who they are. Leviticus clearly shows us that homosexuality isn't new. It says if a man lies with a man, but it doesn't mention anything about love between a man and a man. Here's where I start to get a little fuzzy... If lying with another man is wrong, then how is love possible between the two at all and if God is love, then how is love between two people wrong and if thou shall not kill, then whose being commanded to put people to death? It just gets a little murky for me...

I Didn't Forget

2013-03-09T05:27:00.000-08:00

You know, these people think that I've forgotten what they've told me while we were on good terms. I remember the grandmother bragging that she had a "mafia friend" and a "FBI friend", whom she harkened upon to get my daughter's REAL grandmother, fired from her job. She also warned me before I filed for a divorce that when family gets involved "things could get ugly." When I reflect back on these little things, things start to make more sense. Is our judicial system really this tainted? I know one thing, it is only such a conclusion that would explain dormant police officers, magistrates that won't enforce criminal law, sheriff's deputies that don't know how to serve court papers, do-overs with no need for any appeals, ignored motions, missing transcripts and so on. This has nothing to do with my child's best interest and everything to do with people trying to prove to me how powerful they are and how much influence they have, even on a court proceeding, which should be impartial.

Make No Mistake

2013-03-08T21:01:00.000-08:00

No lawyer will touch this case, which makes me know that many lawyers know about me, especially in Georgia. It also tells me that this case is bigger than I know and involves more than I know. So people are scared, but I don't care. Sometimes you just have to stand up for yourself, when no one else will.

Make no mistake, Judge Kell bestowed a constitutional entitlement to custody, not provided by SCOTUS, to two people who had broken the law by violating a clear statute O.C.G.A. 16-5-45, Interference With Legal Custody, instead of recommending prosecution. He ordered that this stolen status of psychological parenthood, superseded my constitutional right to care, custody and control of my child so long as I am fit. He then REMOVED my child from my house.

Now folks, I'm not crazy. I'm not going to come online for the world to read and call a panel of Justices liars- without it being true. Trotter v. Ayres is a lie as reported and the record proves this. No one, not even the FBI, will do anything about the out of control state of Georgia.

LAWS DESIGNED FOR KIDNAPPERS TO GET CUSTODY IN GEORGIA

2013-02-15T04:09:00.001-08:00

For those who don't know the facts of #TrottervAyres, my daughter's paternal grandfather and step-grandmother, stole my child and hid the fact that they had her from me for two years, but were able to gain sole custody. The court declared that despite them breaking the law, during the two years that they broke the law, they had formed a "bond" with my child. The court then declared that this "bond" constituted the child's liberty interest afforded by Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Thus, regardless of the grandparents criminal action, the child's interest was paramount and "must be balanced" with my fundamental liberty interest to custody of her, so long as I am fit- which the court deemed me to be. I was then stripped of even LEGAL custody, they were awarded sole legal and physical custody and my contact with my daughter was reduced to visitation only. As the grandparents had FAILED TWICE in court over a 13 month period, my daughter was already back in my care and home. The court's THIRD COURT ORDER of custody to them, removed my child from my home. The court declared that although I was fit with a loving bond with my daughter, the grandparents had "significant, primary bond".

I wish I could see the "WTF???!" faces of the lawyers who are reading this right now, and know better.

This is a newly created "compare the bonds after a crime has been committed" doctrine.

The criminal laws in Georgia are specifically written so that a third party relative who has taken the child of a parent, will not be prosecuted for kidnapping. Even though these "grandparents" had my child in their possession for two years, WITHOUT any legal custody, the only thing they could be prosecuted for was "Interference With Legal Custody":

OFFICIAL CODE OF GEORGIA ANNOTATED
Copyright 2012 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.
*** Current Through the 2012 Regular Session ***
*** Annotations Current Through November 9, 2012 ***
TITLE 16.  CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5.  CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 3.  KIDNAPPING, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND RELATED OFFENSES

GO TO GEORGIA STATUTES ARCHIVE DIRECTORY
O.C.G.A. § 16-5-45 (2012)
§ 16-5-45.  Interference with custody

   (a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) "Child" means any individual who is under the age of 17 years or any individual who is under the age of 18 years who is alleged to be a deprived child or an unruly child as such terms are defined in Code Section 15-11-2.

(2) "Committed person" means any child or other person whose custody is entrusted to another individual by authority of law.

(3) "Lawful custody" means that custody inherent in the natural parents, that custody awarded by proper authority as provided in Code Section 15-11-45, or that custody awarded to a parent, guardian, or other person by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(4) "Service provider" means an entity that is registered with the Department of Human Services pursuant to Article 7 of Chapter 5 of Title 49 or a child welfare agency as defined in Code Section 49-5-12 or an agent or employee acting on behalf of such entity or child welfare agency.

(b) (1) A person commits the offense of interference with custody when without lawful authority to do so, the person:

(A) Knowingly or recklessly takes or entices any child or committed person away from the individual who has lawful custody of such child or committed person;

(B) Knowingly harbors any child or committed person who has absconded; provided, however, that this subparagraph shall not apply to a service provider that notifies the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian of the child's location and general state of well being as soon as possible but not later than 72 hours after the child's acceptance of services; provided, further, that such notification shall not be required if:

(i) The service provider has reasonable cause to believe that the minor has been abused or neglected and makes a child abuse report pursuant to Code Section 19-7-5;

(ii) The child will not disclose the name of the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian, and the Division of Family and Children Services within the Department of Human Services is notified within 72 hours of the child's acceptance of services; or

(iii) The child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian cannot be reached, and the Division of Family and Children Services within the Department of Human Services is notified within 72 hours of the child's acceptance of services; or

(C) Intentionally and willfully retains possession within this state of the child or committed person upon the expiration of a lawful period of visitation with the child or committed person.

(2) A person convicted of the offense of interference with custody shall be punished as follows:

(A) Upon conviction of the first offense, the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $200.00 nor more than $500.00 or shall be imprisoned for not less than one month nor more than five months, or both fined and imprisoned;

(B) Upon conviction of the second offense, the defendant shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $400.00 nor more than $1,000.00 or shall be imprisoned for not less than three months nor more than 12 months, or both fined and imprisoned; and

(C) Upon the conviction of the third or subsequent offense, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

Georgia, what's the law for those who have illegally retained a child in their home for TWO WHOLE YEARS?- My bad, this is where the parens patriae adopts authority over the situation...

Will continue later.

OTHER MOMS AND DADS DENIED RIGHTS IN GA CONTACT ME

2013-01-29T15:54:00.000-08:00

If you have lost custody or you know of any other moms or dads who've had their parental rights terminated or were denied custody, pursuant to O.C.G.A 19-7-1 or O.C.G.A. 15-11-37or 38, the so-called "Private Deprivation" statutes, contact me at kyunglt2@gmail.com. All of these statutes are unconstitutional. NO ONE has a right to tell you IF and WHEN you are entitled your constitutional, fundamental rights to your child if you are FIT. It is one thing to want an amendment to the Constitution; it is another to enact and enforce statutes before you get one. An unconstitutional "law" isn't a law at all.

Thanks.

GIVE UP ON THE CONSTITUTION??!!!

2013-01-28T04:01:00.000-08:00

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold the motherf@cking phone! Did this dude really say, "Let's give up on the Constitution?????" I usually watch the CBS Sunday Morning show, but yesterday, I happened to get up from my couch and begin to write a short story- about constitutional rights. So ironically, I of all people, missed this idiotic suggestion first hand. YES- let's forget the Constitution. Let's start with his rights. How about if we all go and take our pick of his property, because he sees no need for the 14th Amendment; right? Then, let's forbid him from giving his dumb-ass opinion altogether, because he obviously doesn't believe in free speech- and he obviously being a liberal- should really appreciate the end of the fight to uphold Roe v. Wade and all the other couple of centuries of precedence that derived from the Constitution. This is why we need to stand for the Constitution as a whole and not just the 2A. I didn't think anyone would be bold enough to throw the idea out on the table like this, but now we know for sure, that there are actually people out there who really just want the Constitution- and all of the case law that goes with it- to disappear! There would be no more pesky checks and balances and people who believe like he does, could just do whatever the hell the want to do! We must stop this dangerous idea and threat to our freedoms and right to protect ourselves.

#Obama's Recess Appointments Unconstitutional

2013-01-26T07:21:00.000-08:00

Check this out: http://on.wsj.com/VdXykO

I'm glad this article suggests that decades of provisions should go untouched. I just said this yesterday concerning SCOTUS reaffirming the constitutional rights of fit parents for nearly ninety years, but declining to expound on Troxel v. Granville. This article says that the Constitution grants the president the power to make recess appoints. Here's what it actually says: USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 3

Sec. 2, Cl 3. Appointments during recess of Senate.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Ok... Now here's when Congress meets: USCS Const. Art. I, § 4, Cl 2

Sec. 4, Cl 2. Meetings.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the [first Monday in December], unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

This was modified by the 20th Amendment: USCS Const. Amend. 20, § 2

Sec. 2. [Annual meeting of Congress--Date.]

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Soooo... Doesn't January 4 clearly fall outside of the recess window?

The writers claim that this is a "practice" of nearly 150 years, but only cites a particular president's attorney general's opinion. (???, insert extremely confused emoticon face here) Of course the president's attorney would say that. In 1921, did the Attorney General have the same authority as the U.S. Supreme Court? Is this the only interpretation? What the heck is a "real and genuine recess?"

The difference between this instance and my case, is there are actual SCOTUS decisions to back up the nearly ninety years:

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551, 92 S. Ct. 1208 (1972);Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 98 S. Ct. 549 (1978); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101, 99 S. Ct. 2493 (1979); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 117 S. Ct. 2258 (1997) and Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

So, is the point of the article really that the appointments weren't unconstitutional, or is it that partisan courts make partisan decisions, or maybe it's because it's been "practiced" for 150 years, then it should be ok? We shouldn't be "practicing" anything. That's why we have a Constitution.

#liberalstryagain.

Corruption to Save an Unconstitutional Statute

2013-01-23T20:07:00.000-08:00

I know some people like President Obama would like to abolish the Constitution altogether, but until that happens- and I don't foresee such a success without a civil war- the Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land, and a "law" not in compliance with it, isn't a law at all.

I had an attorney tell me last week that appellate courts often look for an "easy way out" to avoid review. Well, it's one thing to find an "easy way out." It's a whole other to make transcripts disappear in order to avoid review. I was denied due process in so many different ways but the collusion to withhold and "misplace" 3 sets of transcripts takes the cake.

Today one of my professors told me that the President appoints commissions to enforce the law. Where's the commission for the rogue appellate courts who are more concerned with protecting unconstitutional statutes, than doing their jobs? So much for checks and balances.

I WONDER IF THOSE WHO LIKE TO PLAY WITH THE CONSTITUTION HAVE READ THIS

2013-01-19T07:50:00.000-08:00

http://bit.ly/WOg8j0

Laws that are not constitutional are not laws indeed. That Marine was right.

BRIEF TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CITATIONS TO THE "26 PAGE ORDER"

2013-01-12T14:41:00.000-08:00

Here is my brief to the Georgia Court of Appeals. When one files an appeal, one has to send all of the papers from the trial court to the reviewing court, in this case the Court of Appeals. This is called the record. The record is every single piece of paper from start to finish of the case. The "26 page" final order began with Volume I, Page 350 and ended with page 376. All of the highlighted citations below in my brief are to the very the same order that the GA COA affirms as true fact, with the corresponding enumerations of error that the COA deliberated disregarded:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/120093414/In-the-Court-of-Appeals

THE SAME 26 PAGE ORDER

2013-01-12T13:31:00.001-08:00

My main argument of my appeal, was that Judge Kell had removed my child FROM MY HOME, without finding me unfit. The remaining 16 enumerations of error that the GA Court of Appeals deliberately did not review, are all shown in my brief with citations to the very same 26 page order that the COA confirms itself as true. If the Final Order alone was enough for the COA and it confirms that it is "true", then how did it miss, that the order says more than once that my daughter was in fact back in my care? If it could find from the order that at one time the grandparents were "raising" my child, it too clearly saw that my daughter was back in my care, utilizing the very same order and made a conscious decision to ignore this fact. As such, my remaining enumerations, which all concerned this very fact and cited to the same order, could and should have been reviewed as to how the trial court applied the law- or didn't- to this fact. Instead, this court chose what it would review using the order for a favorable outcome for Judge Kell. In other words, the order was sufficient for them to affirm the trial court's order, but not sufficient to utilize for review for error. Which one is it? It can't validate the order and disregard it at the same time.

One can even see the the deliberateness of this court when reading its order to affirm, specifically the wording "At the onset" of the case, a deliberate intent to mislead anyone to only concentrate on the time spent with the grandparents and that no other time would be considered- including the entire year she was settled back into my home and care. Moreover, if the judge "expressly denied" anything, how did they know that- without transcripts? You could put a footnote on all 26 pages; it doesn't prove what was said in court! To suggest that the entire order was the denial of the motion- almost two months later- is ludicrous and a deliberate disregard for the proper way to dispose of motion- which is with a separate order. O.C.G.A. 15-6-21.

This kind of deliberate bias, denial of due process and corruption simple can not continue.

GA COURT OF APPEALS USED TRANSCRIPTS AS "EASY WAY OUT" DESPITE THEIR OWN RULE

2013-01-11T08:24:00.001-08:00

Rule 25. Structure and Content.

(a) Appellant.

The brief of appellant shall consist of three parts:

Part One shall contain a succinct and accurate statement of the proceedings below and the material facts relevant to the appeal and the citation of such parts of the record or transcript essential to a consideration of the errors complained of, and a statement of the method by which each enumeration of error was preserved for consideration. Record and transcript citations shall be to the volume or part of the record or transcript and the page numbers that appear on the appellate record or transcript as sent from the trial court.

I gave the GA Court of Appeals 57 FIFTY SEVEN citations to the record to support the enumerations of error. They didn't need the transcripts and my brief was in compliance with what was necessary to review. They didn't need the transcripts to see that my daughter was living in my home, the order awarding me physical custody was clear. Thus the burden of proof was much higher than the best interest standard, in order to sever my custodial relationship with my daughter.

ENUMERATIONS OF ERROR- TROTTER V. AYRES AS REPORTED IS A LIE

2013-01-10T19:51:00.001-08:00

Here are the enumerations of error as promised. The GA Court of Appeals only reviewed the first two. It made up an extra one claiming I enumerated that the GAL had no right to request an evaluation which as you can see- is a lie. I know the law and the Superior Court Rule that says she could, another attempt to try to make me look like I couldn't understand the law. The GA COA then rolled all the rest of them into one answer- O.C.G.A. 19-7-1 was constitutional not because it could argue such with U.S. Supreme Court precedence or the U.S. Constitution- but because their Supreme Court said so. Yet, at the same time, it claimed it couldn't address anything else, because it didn't have the transcripts. These were a prelude to arguments concerning HOW the trial court applied Clark v. Wade. It wasn't an attack on O.C.G.A.19-7-1 at the time. I made the point that the statute didn't apply to me as Clark v. Wade bases whether a parent may enjoy his/her constitutional rights to his/her child, on whether or not the parent has a "parent-child relationship" with the child. I argued that I had not only a parent-child relationship, but a custodial relationship- which is why you will not find exactly where Kiara was living when the judge ruled and was living an entire year before he removed her.

II. ENUMERATION OF ERRORS

1. The court allowed the Appellees to counterclaim for custody of the child, in response to a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

2. The court failed to rule on the Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss and attempted to dispose of the motion by way of a footnote on the Final Order on Custody.

3. The court erred in applying the best interest standard instead of the termination standard.

4. The court applied a balance of constitutional rights legal theory.

5. The court erred in finding that hostility towards the Appellees was parental misconduct.

6. The court erred by finding the Mother fit and abusive.

7. The court erred in deeming the child demonstrating secretive behavior as evidence of harm to the child.

8. The court erred in not considering the ruling of the first trier of fact and specific finding that the Appellees kept the child without legal custody.

9. The court violated the Appellant’s constitutional rights to care, custody and control of her child.

10. The court asserted that the child began living with the Appellees between 2004 and 2005.

11.The court erred in finding that the Father was awarded primary custody on 4 March 2004.

12.The court erred in finding that the Mother lost custody of the child because she moved to Germany with the child.

13. The court erred in finding that best interest standard completely replaced the fitness standard.

14. The court erred in going beyond the presumption of fitness.

15. The court applied a legal formula where one element of the formula has been overruled.

16.The court replaced the Appellant’s fundamental right with a significant right.

17. The court found a significant risk of long term harm.

18. The court denied the Appellant Due Process.

An Appellate Court Should Not Be Able to Shrug Off a Viable Appeal

2013-01-10T14:50:00.000-08:00

Pursuant to the Georgia Court of Appeals Rule 25(a)(1), they may review enumerations of error with the record OR transcripts. Not having the transcripts was not a legal reason to deny review of my case. It asserted that the decision was constitutional, but deliberately didn't mention any of my remaining errors verbatim. Also had the GA COA had not been so busy trying to find a way to avoid reviewing my substantive, constitutional enumerations, it would have seen that although the Evaluator recommended Joint Legal and Physical Custody, Judge Kell went against the recommendations of the Evaluator AND the Guardian Ad Litem with his suggestion of SOLE custody to the grandparents' attorney in open court. Courts of appeal should be bound by their OWN RULES of procedure. They had FIFTY SEVEN citations to the record but still did not review. An appellate court shouldn't get away with denying due process.
I will be posting all of my enumerations of error later on tonight. See for yourself what the court avoided because they knew this judge was wrong- and so is OCGA 19-7-1.

Grandparents' Revenge Not Grandparents' Rights

2013-01-09T06:34:00.003-08:00

If any body of legislation wanted to make the point that grandparents matter in the upbringing of a child's life Trotter v. Ayres wasn't the case to do it with. Before certain people decided to collude for a victorious outcome for the grandparents, they should have looked into the true history of this case, instead of listening to the habitual lies of the "grandparents" lies that can be impeached with the actual court record and witnesses.

Nearly eleven years ago, after a disagreement with the grandparents, this grandfather vowed that he would seek revenge. He wrote a three page email to me assuring that they were "not amused" dot dot dot. He told me that his wife had already called my commanding officer and explained their colorful version of the occurrence, which happened while they, Field Grade, Air Force Reserve Officers- who were not on duty at the time, in the hopes of drawing a military charge of conduct unbecoming of a Noncommissioned Officer. This was a family spat- off duty- which had absolutely nothing to do with the military. I ask you, if this is just about them loving my daughter, what did calling my commander have anything to do with anything? These people CONTINUED to call each of my commands- everywhere I went- from Virginia, to Germany.They're first attorney in Virginia, Amy Pohorence Van-Fossen, also called my commanders daily and even made a personal visit to my unit to speak with my commander. Before I was supposed to deploy to the Middle East, the grandparents kept my daughter after a visitation and told me that they were "aware of my connecting flight" to my deployment, that they would not be returning my daughter and that they would be happy to meet me at the connecting flight for me to say goodbye to her. They stayed in hiding with her until my orders were cancelled and their attorney urged them to return her, as they had violated the court order in place. At the first hearing as I was Pro Se, their attorney advised me that basically now that my career was in the toilet, and I had no money to defend myself, that I should concede to the grandparents' demands. I agreed to the visitation, but the harassment and abuse of the judicial system to punish me didn't stop there- obviously. In the end my career was severely impacted with a denial of promotion to Staff Sergeant at the time and a terminated application to become a Warrant Officer. I am just scratching the surface of the continued chutzpah of these people and the many times the police have had to get involved to include a time that they denied MY PARENTS- her other GRANDPARENTS- access to my child. The only reason my parents have refrained from filing for visitation themselves is to spare my child from being further divided up like a pie and further subjected to unnecessary litigation. So they too just dealt with being alienated from her the best way they could.

I have had to deal with their attorneys strutting into court, scoping me over as if I was the scum of the earth, making their intentions to harm me very clear with their glares. I have had to listen to the other side erupt into victorious laughter as I sat battered and broken, watching my rights to my child be systematically eroded.

There are no words to describe the emotional pain I've endured, which started with the first removal of my daughter from my home in Germany when she was only four years old. I started my fight then with about a hundred letters to churches hoping for support and if nothing else, prayer. My baby girl, who didn't understand why I was sitting on my living floor sobbing and stuffing letters into envelopes, sat down next to me and said, "I'll help you, Mommy." Those of you who know me personally know that getting me to share my feelings isn't an easy thing to do, but as the grandparents have aired out all of my personal life in court to humiliate me, what's the sense in not sharing just how much harm they've actually caused me. After my daughter was first taken and while I was four months pregnant with my son in 2005, the stress of the perpetual litigation finally broke me. As I was having thoughts of suicide I spent three weeks in a mental hospital. I walked in myself out of fear of losing my baby due to uncontrollable crying spells. This particular command was very loving and supportive, the battalion commander even ordering the grandparents to stop calling. He outranked them both. I was diagnosed with Major Depressive Order. I am also still receiving treatment for Temporo Mandibular Disorder, uncontrollable clenching and locking of the jaw due to stress. This is what the record won't tell you. Every day I struggle to smile and continue to live a normal life asking myself, why? I have to remain strong in order to raise my other two children.

I tell all this to make the point that the judicial system shouldn't be a means for angry people to utilize for revenge only and certainly shouldn't be a means for individuals to cause emotional, professional and financial harm to others, under the guise of the best interest of a child. How do you compensate for nearly eleven years of alienation from your child even though you're fit? How do you compensate for an ultimate final achievement of revenge- SOLE CUSTODY to these malicious people- an indescribable slap in the face. To this day, every ninety days that I get to see my daughter, no matter how many times I tell them not to communicate with me as it is like having your rapist call you up and ask how you're doing, I still have to deal with them insisting that I inform them of my daughter's arrival. The emails are supposedly cordial communication, but I know that it is really smug "we won" reminders that I now hold no power over my own child. This is not what grandparents' rights to visitation were created for. Spread the word about me even you only tell one person.

EVALUATOR NEVER RECOMMENDED SOLE CUSTODY!!!

2013-01-07T20:51:00.000-08:00

You know, it may be just me, but, I thought that once you have a closing argument you sit down. I didn't think that you get to jump up again and speak again. That's what Judge Kell allowed Debbie Pelerose to do. I also didn't know that judges suggest to parties what they should be asking for. Well, that's another thing Judge Kell did. AGAINST THE REPORT OF THE EVALUATOR JUDGE KELL recommended- after Ms. Pelerose had already sat down and concluded her closing argument, "Shouldn't this be SOLE custody?", and even cited a case for her to look up! Ms. Pelerose then sat down, looked up the case and then stood back up and said oh "Yes Judge. It should be SOLE custody."

Here is the Evaluator's ultimate conclusion/report as promised along with an excerpt of the "Final Order"- entered after two other final hearings. As you can see the Evaluator made NO recommendation that the grandparents have SOLE custody, but primary physical custody and made NO recommendation that I be stripped of LEGAL custody- NOT THAT THEY HAVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL ENTITLEMENT TO CUSTODY AT ALL.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/119413099/Harm-1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/119413365/Harm-2

The third set of transcripts would clearly show Judge Kell suggesting to the grandparents, against the recommendations of the Evaluator, sole custody. If this isn't bias, I don't know what is.

JUDGE LANE STEPPED DOWN IN FULTON COUNTY GA 17 DEC 12

2013-01-07T07:17:00.000-08:00

Judge Lane, the judge who presided over the Usher Raymond case and was accused of not disclosing her special relationship with Usher's attorney, stepped down from the the case on 17 Dec 2012- nearly a month ago. My question is; why didn't we hear about it on the news? See hear: http://bit.ly/13dKPEa

NO JUSTICE OR REMEDY FOR CORRUPTION OR MALICE IN AMERICA

2013-01-06T08:48:00.001-08:00

Over the ten years I have experienced being pummeled by an obsessive grandfather with no other motive but to harm me, I have written many organizations that are supposedly in operation to investigate and hold accountable those who are corrupt, who make money from and enable such malicious, abusive litigants. I complained to two Senators in Georgia to which the response was a new unconstitutional law that grandparents no longer had to prove harm in order to get visitation of a grandchild. I complained to the Internal Affairs over the Sheriff's office in Cobb County over a year ago. I've heard nothing, not even a letter saying they found no impropriety of the deputies who failed to serve that Habeas Corpus. I' ve complained to the Judicial Qualifications Commission of the state of Georgia concerning Judge Kell' s failure to rule on 5 due process motions, O.C.G.A. 15-6-21, and ultimately removing my child from my home without finding me unfit. Although the statute on motions and the constitutional precedence is clear, such actions are grounds for impeachment, the commission found no wrong doing. I went to the magistrate in Cobb County twice to take out formal charges against the grandparents for illegally detaining my child and a judge actually brought me into his chambers and told me, "If you think I' m going to put two grandparents in jail, you've got another thing coming." I went to the Cobb County police with my court order IN HAND, asking assistance to enforce the court order and make the grandparents hand over my daughter. The apparent senior officer went into the grandparents home, talked to the grandfather for a little while, and came back out to tell me they would do nothing- after the grandfather slammed the door. The officer refused to look at the court order and when I asked if I could see my child- whom I still had legal custody over- he nastily replied- "No." I submitted an official complaint against the so- called Evaluator who defamed my character and offered no actual scientific evidence against me to the American Psychological Association- I've heard absolutely nothing. To top things off, I utilized the system of review- all the way to the top- and nothing.

I think in light of the above, I believe I can safely declare that the so-called overseeing entities which are supposed to ensure that officials only perform with the utmost integrity- don't work in America- and are only in place to give us the illusion that our government cares about ethics and the inherent rights of its people. It even created 42 U.S.C.1983 to make us feel comfortable that if we are wronged constitutionally we can hold somebody liable to which precedence was promptly added to give immunity to officials who act with malice or corruptly. One could argue that there are criminal remedies, but I've complained to the FBI as well. They won't get involved in the South unless the corrupt judge is a black female who acted in collusion with an attorney who represented a rich black man. Yes, I said that. Those of you who think you're going to the Grand Jury, it has been made inaccessible to the citizen.

Corruption has been carefully shielded and protected by our own country. There ARE NO avenues of remedy when those who are entrusted to act within and enforce the law fail to do so. So where do we go? I propose that the specific verbiage of Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) to wit, "even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly" id. at 356, be completely omitted and that ANY allegations of malice or corruption should commence an immediate review of a court record, not by another set of judges who will only cover each other's backsides, but by a group of ordinary citizens. If Congress doesn't agree with this, we should DEMAND that it promptly propose its own solution. There are much more problems in America than taxes and Social Security and it is time that the government stop ignoring the problem with judicial ethics- or lack thereof and do something about it.

CORRUPTION IS LEGAL FOR A JUDGE IN AMERICA

2013-01-05T19:07:00.000-08:00

... The governing principle of law is well established and is not questioned by the parties. As early as 1872, the Court recognized that it was "a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, [should] be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself." Bradley v. Fisher, supra, at 347.^[5] For that reason the Court held that "judges 356 *356 of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly."^[6] 13 Wall., at 351. Later we held that this doctrine of judicial immunity was applicable in suits under § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, for the legislative record gave no indication that Congress intended to abolish this long-established principle. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967)...Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978).

(Scratching my head). Tell me something. How can there be a "proper administration of justice" if an action by a judge was done maliciously or corruptly?

Definition of malicious (adj)

bing.com · Bing Dictionary
ma·li·cious

[ mə líshəss ]

deliberately harmful: motivated by or resulting from a desire to cause harm or pain to another...

Now look at the definition of corrupt:

Definition of CORRUPT

transitive verb

a : to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; also : bribe

b : to degrade with unsound principles or moral values

: rot, spoil

: to subject (a person) to corruption of blood

: to alter from the original or correct form or version <the file was corrupted>

intransitive verb

a : to become tainted or rotten

b : to become morally debased

: to cause disintegration or ruin

— cor·rupt·er also cor·rup·tor noun

— cor·rupt·ibil·i·ty noun

— cor·rupt·ible adjective

— cor·rupt·ibly adverb

See corrupt defined for English-language learners »

See corrupt defined for kids »

Examples of CORRUPT

a politician corrupted by greed
music that corrupts the morals of children
corrupting the country's legal system
the corrupting influence of power...

I'm confused... How, in the name of THE LAW, can a judge administer justice-properly- but be corrupt and malicious at the same time? The above is the problem people. Judicial immunity- EVEN FOR THE CORRUPT AND MALICIOUS. I don't know about you, but to me there's something very illogical about the concept and to make matters worse, the aforementioned case fixes it so anyone who brings a 1983 case- will automatically lose- just by citing this case- even if the judge is CORRUPT OR ACTED WITH MALICE. Want to do something about this? Asking yourself where you go when the system is designed to violate your constitutional rights and fix it so you can't do anything about it? Go here and sign this petition. Say NO. It's not ok for ANYBODY, INCLUDING A JUDGE, to violate ANYONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. We must have an independent commission to address judicial corruption! Relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 is impractical if all a corrupt judge has to do is cite this case!!!

SIGN HERE:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/establish-commission-executive-order-investigate-widespread-corruption-and-about-us-legal-system/ypCjjRWK

LET'S PLAY WITH EMAILS; SHALL WE?

2013-01-04T18:44:00.001-08:00

The other side likes to play with emails. So, let's play with them; shall we? For those of you who read this blog but are skeptical as to whether or not I'm telling the truth, get a gander at this email. Before you read it, let me clarify the participants. Grantbrantley is the Senior judge who first rightfully returned my daughter to me. Davis, Thomas is the clerk of the Cobb County Superior Court. A Habeas Corpus is a hearing at which a party who has a person in their possession, i.e. a child- without a court order for custody- must produce that person IMMEDIATELY before the court and answer to the court. A person MAY NOT answer a Habeas Corpus about a child by filing for custody of that child! It's kind of like robbing a bank and then asking to explain that you did it because you needed to pay your bills. It is a clear statute of the state of Georgia, O.C.G.A. 19-9-23. Go back and read Trotter v. Ayres again and see that the Court of Appeals denies that the grandparents answered the Habeas Corpus with a file for custody-but here it is right here, with everybody's name on it! This court was FULLY aware of the pending Habeas Corpus and didn't address it until TWO MONTHS, after it removed my daughter my home.

I've got plenty more where this came from, emails dating back from 2002- how long these people have been on a ruthless, relentless campaign to do nothing other than to harm me, by taking my child- a clear argument I made in my Motion to Dismiss- the one Judge Kell purposely didn't rule on. They've been at this for over ten years and when they couldn't succeed in Virginia- they just took her. Now a judge has gone behind them and given them full custody on the basis of breaking the law. Here's an email of another judge trying to clean up the mess. Thanks Judge Brantley, but too little too late. The first order should have been FINAL- just as it was set on the docket- not temporary, as there were no other parties remaining besides myself, with a constitutional entitlement to custody of my daughter:

RE: 11/14/11 Specially Set Calendar in CAFN 10-1-3097-49, Trotter v. Ayers, Pos. 79, Writ of Habeas Corpus‏

To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.

10/05/11

Cochran, Rhonda

Add to contacts

To KYUNG TROTTER, grantbrantley@comcast.net, Davis, Thomas

Ms. Trotter,

Thank you for your response to the November 14, 2011 Specially Set Calendar before Senior Judge G. Grant Brantley.

After reviewing your file, the status of the above-styled case is set forth below:

I am not sure if the Deputy Sheriff was confused as to which Michael Ayers to serve, “Jr.” or “Sr.” The Sheriff’s entry of service for Defendant Michael Ayers states that Michael Ayers moved to Louisiana. The Sheriff’s entry of service for Defendant Teresa Ayers states multiple attempts were made, but service was not obtained.

If you believe the Defendant’s in the above-styled case reside in Cobb County, Georgia, you still have time to have a private process server serve them.

If there is no service after all this time, the Court may dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of diligent action.

If there is service by November 14, 2011, and you fail to appear, the above styled case will most likely be dismissed.

If there is service by November 14, 2011, and you appear, the Court will hear the case.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Rhonda L. Cochran

Judicial Administrative Assistant to the

Senior Judges of Cobb Superior Court

30 Waddell Street

Marietta, GA 30090-9642

Telephone: 770-528-1880

Fax: 770-528-8103

E-Mail Address:

rhonda.cochran@cobbcounty.org

My daughter was taken from me in August 2011. As you can see the Habeas Corpus to the grandparents wasn't addressed until 14 November 2011. As for the sheriff's deputies not knowing who to serve or how to serve pleadings, that is pure bullshit. The statute clearly states that if the person to be served is not at their home to LEAVE the summons or papers AT THE HOME. "Multiple attempts" were made by more than one person and nobody knew the statute? Come on. Come on. Jerk somebody else off. O.C.G.A. §9-14-8. This was done deliberately to aid the grandparents with proceeding for custody.

What Really Happened in Trotter v. Ayres- Email Between Me and My Attorney

2013-01-04T18:25:00.001-08:00

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Diana Young <dyoungatty@bellsouth.net>
To: amy.bentsen@cobbcounty.org
Cc: Diane Woods <dianewoods@hwhlawfirm.com>; lawpelerosepc@msn.com; dyoungatty@bellsouth.net
Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 1:50:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kyung Trotter vs. Michael Ayres, Sr. and Teresa Ayres CAFN 09-1-12594-49

Dear Amy,

I am in receipt of the proposed interim order sent by email in the above-styled case. I had previously emailed my proposed order to Natalie Bloodworth's email address as instructed by Judge Kell. I am enclosing a copy of my proposed order in case you do not have a copy. I believe my order more accurately reflects what the Judge said and which he asked me to include in the order.

As to the proposed order from Debbie Pelerose, I have several objections. Judge Kell did not ask that the order state that there had been some delay on the part of thePlaintiff complying with the requests ofthe custody evaluator. The appointment with the custody evaluator had not been scheduled with the custody evaluator by our client, Ms. Trotter, as we were waiting on the hearing which was scheduled on this same date as to whether Judge Kell would order the paternal grandparents, the Ayres' to pay for my client's transportation costs to come to Georgia to meet with the custody evaluator. The GAL had already said after visiting with my client and her daughter in New York, where they live,that she did not see any need for a custody evaluation. However, since the Ayres' were insisting on one, I filed a request that they be responsible for my client's transportation costs. Judge Kell ordered that they be responsible for one-half of those transportation costs. My client has scheduled her appointment with Dr. McGarrah and had it. My understanding was that when my client scheduled her appointment that the Ayres' had not yet scheduled their appointment. In any event, I believe that Dr. McGarrah has now met with and done her testing as to my client and as to the Ayres. The next step is to meet with the child, Kiara. This is scheduled for this Friday. Then the Ayres are to exercise their one per quarter weekend visitation. This was what was ordered as their visitation after a lengthy hearing before Judge Brantley, assisting Judge Kell, in the temporary order from May, 2010. This hearing for an emergency change in temporary custody was placed on the August 27, 2010, calendar by the Ayres' with full knowledge that the custody evaluation had not been completed. According to Dr. McGarrah's office they usually take several months to complete.

Further, my client is strongly opposed to the Court modifying the Temporary Order at this time to give the paternal grandparents (Ayres') additional visitation rights. The custody evaluation should be completed soon. After the lengthy hearing in front of Judge Brantley in May, he awarded the paternal grandparents(Ayres) visitation for very specific reasons. He found that the paternal grandparents (Ayres) had done a lot to avoid the minor child having bonding opportunities with the Plaintiff,her mother, Kyung Trotter. Further,the Court found that throughout the approximate four year period the Ayres' had custody of the child pursuantto a power of attorney given to them by their son,the child's father. The evidence was that the child's father,who had been living with his parents, the Ayres', had been arrested in Cobb County, Georgia, for Violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, had failed to appear for court, had a bench warrant for his arrest, was a fugitive from justice, and was making pornographic movies with his whereabouts being unknown to his parents. The Ayres' failed to inform my client of any of this information, choosing instead to keep my client's child and carry on as if their son was still there. As the Court ruled, the Ayres' did not have any custody order allowing them to have custody of their granddaughter nor to keep her from my client, the child's mother. Now the Ayres' have set about a mass campaign of phone calls, letters, cards and such to help their cause. My client is the child's mother. There has never been any finding of my client being unfit in any way, nor even any allegations of such. She is opposed to the child spending Christmas with the Ayres. She is opposed to granting any additonal time to the Ayres' at this time. Judge Kell had merely stated that he would consider the Ayres' request for additonal time on August 27, 2010. However, since the custody evaluation should be completed soon, on behalf of the Plaintiff, we request that no change be made to the Temporary Order to allow any additional visitation for the paternal grandparents with my client's daughter at this time and that my client be allowed to limit the receipt of the email, skype communications, and other communications of the Ayres' with her daughter to the telephone visitation as set out in the Temporary Order.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Diana W. Young

Attorney for Kyung Trotter

---This is what really happened in Trotter v. Ayres. Now, the grandparents have sole custody of my child. I've got a lot more where this came from and I'm going to keep divulging the truth until justice is served.