Appendix X

Appendix X
Conclusions of Law to use in your affidavits

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately" U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F2d 297, 299-300

"Fraud: An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right." Black's 5th, 594 (emphasis added.)

"Where a party desires to rescind upon the grounds of mistake or fraud he must upon the discovery of the facts, at once announce his purpose, and adhere to it."
Grymes v. Saunders, 93 US 55, 62.

"...lf they proposed to rescind, their duty was to assert that right promptly, unconditionally, and unevasively," Richardson v. Lowe, 149 Fed Rep 625, 627-28.

"Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61. "documents"; ("Constitutions");

"Fraud may be committed by failure to speak, but a duty to speak must be imposed." Dunahay v. Struzik, 393 P.2d 930, 96 Ariz. 246 (1964).

"Fraud" may be committed by a failure to speak when the duty of speaking is imposed as much as by speaking falsely." Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 112 P.2d 870, 57 Ariz. 239. (1941)

"When one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the concealment of others, such concealment is in effect a false representation that what is disclosed is the whole truth." State v. Coddington, 662 P.2d 155, 135 Ariz. 480. (Ariz. App. 1983)

"Suppression of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith to disclose is equivalent to a false representation." Leigh v. Loyd, 244 P.2d 356, 74 Ariz. 84. (1952)

"Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth." Morrison v. Acton, 198 P.2d 590, 68 Ariz. 27 (Ariz. 1948)

"Damages will lie in proper case of negligent misrepresentation of failure to disclose." Van Buren v. Pima Community College Dist. Bd., 546 P.2d 821, 113 Ariz. 85 (Ariz.1976)

"Where one under duty to disclose facts to another fails to do so, and other is injured thereby, an action in tort lies against party whose failure to perform his duty caused injury." Regan v. First Nat. Bank, 101 P.2d 214, 55 Ariz. 320 (Ariz. 1940)

"Where relation of trust or confidence exists between two parties so that one places peculiar reliance in trustworthiness of another, latter is under duty to make full and truthful disclosure of all material facts and is liable for misrepresentation or concealment." Stewart v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 64 P.2d 101, 49 Ariz. 34. (Ariz. 1937)

"Concealing a material fact when there is duty to disclose may be actionable fraud." Universal Inv. Co. v. Sahara Motor Inn, Inc., 619 P.2d 485, 127 Ariz. 213. (Ariz. App. 1980)

"An "ex post facto law" is defined as a law which provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done which, when it was committed, was innocent; a law which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; a law that changes the punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; a law that hangs the rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than was required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender; a law which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right which, when done, was lawful; a law which deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to which they have become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of the proclamation of amnesty; every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage? Wilensky v. Fields, Fla, 267 So.2d 1,5." [Source: 6th edition, Black's Law Dictionary, p 580.]

"Qualified immunity defense fails if public officer violates clearly established right because a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct" Jones vs Counce 7-F3d—1359-8th Cir 1993; Benitez V Wolff 985·F3d 662 2nd Cir 1993

"Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability for they are deemed to know the law" Owens V Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398

"The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land, Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law." Marbury V Madison, 5 US 137

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it." Murdock v Penn, 319 US 105

"If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity" Shuttlesworth v Birmingham , 373 USs 262

The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured liberty. Boyd V US, 116 US 616

"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal comtemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed." Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425

Constitutional Parental Rights Caselaw

The following sites should be used in court as much as possible to discredit the process being used in today's courts - the Law has always been there to protect the families, but the corrupt system does not follow the Law, or enforce the Law equally. The rules being used to deprive everyone's rights in the courts are unconstitutional, and the place the agency must be challenged is at jurisdictional level. Without a crime, and charging someone with a crime, and evidence of a crime, and an injured party, lawful warrant, probable cause and due process, the judge is acting outside of his jurisdiction, and this is the case in most instances. Without jurisdiction, it is a crime for the court to take your children, and lawfully they should be returned.

You must challenge jurisdiction and once jurisdiction has been challenged, the court cannot lawfully proceed until a hearing on jurisdiction is held. It is a violation of due process to refuse this , or to bring you into any hearing without complete discovery. The court must answer all questions (motions) before the court. You must demand these things, or they will not happen.

Where is the warrant? Where is the Petition? Where is the affidavit of Probable Cause must accompany the Petition? Most often, the child stealing agencies do not have any of these things, and are not operating in a lawful court of judicial due process.

Share these sites, demand your rights, as a sovereign Natural Person, do not give your rights away by allowing a bar member to “represent” you to the court - he does not have sovereign rights in the courtroom - only you do for yourself and your minor children, full rights, sui juris, to "represent" them in the court.

"A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the 5th amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution." Metter of Gentery 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983)

"The parent child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment." Bell V City of Milwaukee, 746 f2d 1205,
1242-45; US Ct Ap 7th Cir WI (1985)

"The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the parent—child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See — Declaration of Independence · life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution - No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws)" Kelson v Springfield, 767 F2d651;US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985)

"State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights." Gross V State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257, (1963)

The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts) under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes
actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965)

"The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundaments\al principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5,9, and 14." Doe V Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. DC of Michigan (1985)

"The several states has no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States." Wallace v J affree, 105 S Ct 22479, 472 US

"Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absoluete, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government.” , Elrod v Burns, 96 S Ct 2673, 427 US 347 (1976)

"Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth A1nendment" Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1886)

"Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs; Santosky v Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388, 455 USs 745, (2982)

"Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children." Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980)

"The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and , thus, a state may not interfere with a parents custodial rights absent due process pmt€ct1°nS` Langton v Maloney, 527, F Supp 538, DC Conn (1981)

"Parents right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public in interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect." Reynold V Baby Fold, Inc, 369 NE 2d 858; 8 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL (1977)

"Parents interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection, a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection." In the interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584 (1980)

"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake." Bell V City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI (1984)

"Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of "liberty" as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment," Mabra v Schmidt, 356 R Supp 620; DC WI(1973)

"The United State Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children is an interest "far more precious" than any property right." May V Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952)

"A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution" In re; JS and C, 324 A 2d 90, supra 129 NJ Super, at 489

"The Court stressed, "the parent child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility Stanley V Illinois 405 Us 645, 651; 92S or 1208, (1972)

"Parents rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man" Meyer V Nebraska, 262 or 426 US 390 <check cite> 43 S Ct 625, (1923)

"No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the common bond between parent and child" Carson V Elrod, 411 F Supp 6445, 549 DC E>D> VA (1976)

"Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."
Palmore V Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429

"Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality"
28USCA - 24411; Plizer V Lord, 456 F 2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN (1972)

"The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah's Constitution, Article 1, Sec 1" in re U>P>, 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982)

"Santosky held that a "clear and convincing" proof standard is constitutionally required in parental termination proceedings. 455 USs, at 769-770 ..... "Few forms of state action are both so severe and irreversible" (Santosky v Kramer)

"The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land, Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law." Marbury V Madison, 5 US 137

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it." Murdockv Penn, 319 US 105

"If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity" Shuttlesworth v Birmingham , 373 USs 262

"Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the Law." " Owen V Independence, 100 S Ct 1398

The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured liberty. Boyd V US, 116 US 616

"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed." Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425