I'm a former Army Staff Sergeant whose child was originally taken due to my military service. I have been fighting for over ten years now for my daughter's permanent return. I had actually regained her custody, but she was removed again and awarded to her paternal grandparents, the very people who had harbored her illegally for two years, after throwing her father who had physical custody into the street. The grandparents paid a Guardian Ad Litem nearly $23,000. The GAL and the grandparents' attorney also contributed money to the judges campaign, but he did not step down from the case. My rights were terminated after the GAL's hand-picked custody evaluator recommended that as I was "hostile" towards my daughter's grandparents- for basically kidnapping her- that I was not able to do what was best for my daughter. The GAL stated whether the grandparents' crime was "right or wrong", that they had formed a "bond" with my child. She said that although I too had a bond with my own child, the grandparents within their crime had established a "significant primary bond". I was found by the court based upon the said findings as fit but emotionally abusive, as my "hostility" was "depriving" my daughter of her "primary bond", needed to sustain her emotional health. I was stripped of even legal custody. I now have a "parenting plan" which consists of very little visitation for me as my daughter lives 1,099 miles away from me.
I now have three federal cases pending Pro Se, a Motion to Vacate under FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) pointing out that the Final Order On "Custody" is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, another Rule 60(d)(3) as several methods of Fraud Upon the Court were undertaken in order to take my child away from me permanently, such as:
--a lawyer representing the grandparents in the state without a license and communicating ex parte with the judge
--Sheriff's deputies deliberately failing to serve my Habeas Corpus on the grandparents so that they could intervene into the case
--Police refusing to enforce or bring charges against the grandparents
--procedural laws of Habeas Corpus deliberated averted so that the grandparents could intervene
--five motions asserting my constitutional rights deliberately ignored by the judge
--two sets of transcripts lost by the trial court on appeal and the third not filed by the court reporter at the grandparents' attorney's instructions
--as a result, seventeen constitutional enumerations purposely not reviewed by the Court of Appeals for lack of the transcripts
and finally,
-- a lawyer from a million-dollar law firm, for which the judge used to work, representing the grandparents at the United States Supreme Court level and filing a fraudulent waiver to influence the Court.
The third matter I have filed in federal court is a Section 1983 for a total of $96,000,000 in damages for the numerous deprivations of my constitutional rights, so that the judge could rule in the grandparents favor- the paying parties. The twenty three defendants include the judge and the three justices who deliberately refused to conduct an adequate review for the convenient reason of the missing transcripts.
I have never been found unfit or investigated by any Child Protective Services.
I am an honorably discharged veteran.
My two younger children, ages eight and thirteen months, are still in my care.
The statute by which the grandparents were able to take my daughter is O.C.G.A. § 19-7-1. This law provides third parties relatives with the right to challenge a fit parent for custody of their children. As interpreted in Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587 (2001), it was to be originally used to deprive fathers who would try to come to collect their children after a mother has failed in her care-taking abilities. It was interpreted that the parent had to be single and non-custodial and had to have had abandoned their child. Now the state of Georgia is applying this law and case law any which way it sees fit including in my case, against fit, custodial parents.
I now have three federal cases pending Pro Se, a Motion to Vacate under FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) pointing out that the Final Order On "Custody" is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, another Rule 60(d)(3) as several methods of Fraud Upon the Court were undertaken in order to take my child away from me permanently, such as:
--a lawyer representing the grandparents in the state without a license and communicating ex parte with the judge
--Sheriff's deputies deliberately failing to serve my Habeas Corpus on the grandparents so that they could intervene into the case
--Police refusing to enforce or bring charges against the grandparents
--procedural laws of Habeas Corpus deliberated averted so that the grandparents could intervene
--five motions asserting my constitutional rights deliberately ignored by the judge
--two sets of transcripts lost by the trial court on appeal and the third not filed by the court reporter at the grandparents' attorney's instructions
--as a result, seventeen constitutional enumerations purposely not reviewed by the Court of Appeals for lack of the transcripts
and finally,
-- a lawyer from a million-dollar law firm, for which the judge used to work, representing the grandparents at the United States Supreme Court level and filing a fraudulent waiver to influence the Court.
The third matter I have filed in federal court is a Section 1983 for a total of $96,000,000 in damages for the numerous deprivations of my constitutional rights, so that the judge could rule in the grandparents favor- the paying parties. The twenty three defendants include the judge and the three justices who deliberately refused to conduct an adequate review for the convenient reason of the missing transcripts.
I have never been found unfit or investigated by any Child Protective Services.
I am an honorably discharged veteran.
My two younger children, ages eight and thirteen months, are still in my care.
The statute by which the grandparents were able to take my daughter is O.C.G.A. § 19-7-1. This law provides third parties relatives with the right to challenge a fit parent for custody of their children. As interpreted in Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587 (2001), it was to be originally used to deprive fathers who would try to come to collect their children after a mother has failed in her care-taking abilities. It was interpreted that the parent had to be single and non-custodial and had to have had abandoned their child. Now the state of Georgia is applying this law and case law any which way it sees fit including in my case, against fit, custodial parents.