FOC Haveman and Carpenter violated inocent parties first amendment right

July 22, 2009 court order
Parenting Time Coordinator must establish a regular review of each parties complaints about the other, create a rational, safe place for each party to discuss joint legal issues or any other changes necessary in their parenting time and empower parties to handle their own communication without dependency upon a third party.
The parties must, prior to bringing any problems concerning joint legal custody, communication with the minor child, and other similar complaints to the courts attention, first seek the assistance of FOC Haveman through this process, who will attempt to facilitate a mutual resolution of these matters.
FOC Haveman shall set a schedule, regularly meet with the parties to review complaints, help the parties to develop buffers and boundaries and assist the parties to development of effective communication.
The Kent County FOC shall review each report of FOC Haveman when submitted and make appropriated recommendations as to any modifications of order, or other measures that need to be taken by the Court, as needed.
It is the Courts intention and the understanding of the parties, that the parenting coordination with FOC Haveman as set forth above shall supersede, until further order of the Court, any further motions to the court to resolve the issues facing the parenting time coordinator, and that each of the parties must utilize this process for their dispute resolution in this regards.

FOC HAVEMAN: IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE JULY 22, 2009 ORDER OF JUDGE CARPENTERS. FOC HAVEMAN HAS BEEN PROVIDED Plaintiff BRUNS HISTORY OF ABUSE AND HAS TODAY IGNORED THE FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT WHICH CLEARLY STATES THE PARTY WITH A HISTORY OF ABUSE IS NOT TO HAVE CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD. FOC HAVEMAN AS A MANDATED REPORTER OF CHILD ABUSE AND A LICENSES SOCIAL WORKER IS NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. FOC HAVEMAN IS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF Plaintiff BRUNS. FOC HAVEMAN IS IGNORING THE JUDGES ORDER FOR JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY. FOC HAVEMAN ATTACKS Defendant BRUNS. FOC HAVEMAN ATTACKS Defendant BRUNS ABILITY TO READ, FOC HAVMAN ATTACKS DENISE BRUNS INTELLEGENCE. JULIE HAVEMAN IGNORES THE CPS NYELA BOLDEN'S TESTIMONY HER REPORT OF ABUSE TO THE MINOR CHILD BY Defendant BRUNS WAS FALSE. FOC HAVEMAN IS MANDATED TO REMOVE MY GIRL FROM THE ABUSERS HOUSE AND RETURN HER TO THE HOME WHERE SHE HAS REPEATED ASKED TO LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remove Corrupt Chief Justices through out America

Remove Chief Justice Margaret Marshall

WEB NEWS RELEASE -- December 2004

A Bill of Address (click for sample) to remove Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall from office was submitted today to the state legislature.

The Bill of Address is sponsored by Massachusetts State Representative Philip Travis of the Fourth District Bristol County, State Representative Emile Goguen of the Third District Worcester County and Mr. Edward "Zed" McLarnon of Malden.

Mr. McLarnon, a forensic investigator with 23 years experience, has been investigating the Massachusetts judiciary for nine years. His investigation revealed evidence that discloses that Chief Justice Marshall and her judiciary have unconstitutionally "legislated from the bench" laws and legal precedents that benefit judges and are used by "legal industries" such as the divorce and abuse industries to separate children from their fathers and seniors from their families - for money.

McLarnon has physical evidence that several Massachusetts courts illegally edit court-hearing tapes, doctor dockets, alter court files and hide court files. McLarnon has complained of these illegal acts by judges and court personnel to the Superior Court, the Judicial Conduct Committee and Margaret Marshall's Supreme Judicial Court where his complaints were covered up by judicial fraud, misrepresentations and stonewalling.

When challenged as to what "laws" the Massachusetts judiciary legislated from the bench, McLarnon responded "judges have legislated their own Absolute Immunity to the point where they are immune from civil suits even when they knowingly and willfully base their judicial rulings on fraud." McLarnon alleges that this "law" allows judges to operate 'above the law' as an aristocracy and makes second-class citizens of the rest of us. The judiciary hides this law under the title "public policy."

McLarnon further stated "Margaret Marshall and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court re-wrote the Anti-SLAPP Law to immunize social workers who submit fraudulent clinical evaluations that condemn people they have never met or interviewed, and mothers who lie in court to unlawfully gain custody of children. "State representative Philip Travis, a co-sponsor of this bill, is one of the authors of the Anti-SLAPP Law and understands how Marshall's SJC stood the original intent of the Anti-SLAPP Law on its head, which was to protect private citizens from frivolous countersuits from large corporations that they sue.

"When a father walks into Family Court, he is the only one in the courtroom without immunity to commit perjury and fraud," continued McLarnon. "Absolute Immunity allows the judge to commit fraud, the Anti-SLAPP precedence set by the SJC allows the mother to commit perjury and fraud and her social workers to submit fraudulent clinical evaluations." As a result of this kangaroo court, the father loses custody of his children and is ordered to pay child support - of which the state makes matching federal funds.

McLarnon is the founder/president of CASK, a coalition comprised of victims who have lost family members as a result of judges having court hearing tapes illegally edited to support their fraudulent rulings. McLarnon claims the divorce and abuse industries use these illegal tactics to remove custody of children for federal funds and seniors to drain their estates.

"When judges make law the legislative process is undermined and we no longer have a representative republic," stated McLarnon.

Parental Rights. org

Children's Day Rally for Parental Rights
November 20 has been designated “Children’s Day” by the internationalists. But what greater way to support children than to protect their families? So, we’re celebrating Children’s Day with a Parental Rights Rally in Washington, D.C.
The rally will be held at the U.S. Capitol, on the East Lawn across from the Rayburn House Office building. It is scheduled for 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., with several very special guests invited to speak, including Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Sen. Jim DeMint, the lead sponsors of the Parental Rights Amendment; Gerard Robinson with Black Alliance for Educational Options; William Estrada of Homeschool Legal Defense Association; Dean and Julie Nelson of National Black Home Educators; and Steven Groves of Heritage Foundation.
We know most of you won’t be able to come all the way to D.C. If you are among those who can, give us a call at 540-751-1200 for further details or directions.
Tell Us YOUR Story
Too many Americans – including congressmen – think the proposed Amendment is just about stopping the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But threats to parental rights are already going on in our nation today. You have seen them. You have experienced them, and we need to hear from you.
Have you: been harassed about your child’s school attendance? Had your child immunized without your consent? Been harassed for your decision over whether to immunize your child or not? Been denied your child’s library records? Had to fight to (or been refused to) opt your child out of specific classes, activities, or events at school? Been harassed for opting them out? Been denied access to your child’s health records, or been kept from staying with them at the doctor’s office? Had your child subjected to health screenings, drug tests, etc., without your knowledge or consent? Had your child obtain an abortion or birth-control prescription without your knowledge or consent? Received threats or had your child removed by social services without cause and a fair trial?
Please, email us at stories@parentalrights.org with a brief description of your run-in with parental rights limitations. (Remember, we will have to read every email sent in, so brevity will be greatly appreciated. We can always write you back if we need more information!) And pass this email along to anyone you know whose parental rights may have been violated, so that they will know to share their story with us, too!

Recent Disciplinary Actions Against Judges 2006

http://www.ajs.org/ethics/eth_impeachement.asp

Recent Disciplinary Actions

In 2006, as a result of state judicial discipline proceedings, 12 judges were removed from office; 11 judges resigned or retired in lieu of discipline pursuant to agreements with judicial commissions that were made public; 1 judge was required to retire; and 4 former judges were barred from serving in judicial office. 111 additional judges (or former judges in 9 cases) were publicly sanctioned in 2006. There were 18 suspensions without pay with the length of the suspensions ranging from 5 days to 2 years. There were 18 public censures, 30 public admonishments, 35 public reprimands, 2 public warning, 2 cease and desist orders, and 6 public informal adjustments.

The Victims Rights Amendment (C)

The Victims Rights Amendment (C) “The court shall not appoint as sole managing conservator a party who has a history of committing family violence.” The 17th Circuit Court Trial Judge Carpenter custody order erred in it discretion by placing the Plaintiff as sole managing conservator. Rather than considering the best interest of the children. The Trial Judge Carpenter erred in discretion when ordering the Plaintiff custody endangering the physical and emotional welfare of the Defendant's minor children.
The 17th ‘Circuit Court Family Division Judge Nanaruth Carpenter is mandated to Report Child Abuse or Neglect (SCAO 66)
D Bruns a reluctant pro se litigant requested 3 investigation of this case to the Judical Tenure Commission. D Bruns has been notified her request are set in place. D Bruns 12 year old daughter wants to come home and return to the only parent without a history of abuse, neglect or abandonment. My princess was told by Judge Nanaruth Carpenter there was a higher power to bring her home.

trial judge Carpenter failed to separate fact from accusation and twisted the evidence

In conclusion the Michigan Court of Appeals, it is difficult to understand why the COA would state that because the same trial judge had presided over the proceedings since 2000 and because the Plaintiff had testified to mental, verbal and physical abuse, that without actual factual proof, the Court of Appeals would then agree to uphold the trial judge’s opinion. The Plaintiff has a documented record of abuse and according to law, that alone gives no rights to custody of the minor child. This cannot be disputed. The Defendant has no long term proven record of abuse and has been proven to be fit to parent. CPS Investigator Nyela Bolden testified her report was erred and fraudulent. (Transcript of complete trial available at 17th Circuit Court Clerks Office)
This complaint is effective, because the transcript and evidence are riddled with false accusations by all parties toward the Defendant. The Trial Judge Carpenter failed to separate fact from accusation and twisted the evidence in favor of the Plaintiff. Clarke v Wayne Circuit Judge, 193 Mich 33; 159 NW 387 (1916)

17th Circuit Court Judge Carpenter is under investigation by the Judical Tenure Commission

The Judge Carpenter and Appeal Justices besmirched the Defendant's D Bruns character with fraudulent allegations that her home was an unstable, unsatisfactory environment for her child/ren to live and that their relationship was unhealthy enmeshment. The trial judge Nanaruth Carpenter allowed Plaintiff to testify of fraudulent allegation of abuse and neglect of the minor child yet denied Attorney Catherine Appel to redress the Plaintiff testimony. The parties were instructed by the trial judge Nanaruth Carpenter that anything prior to the last custody order of November 9, 2009 would not be allowed into evidence. The trial judge Carpenter attacked the Defendant's D Bruns character with the allegations of filing a false report of sexual misconduct. The trial Judge Carpenter did not, would not consider and ignored the Defendant's D Bruns firsthand knowledge of the Plaintiff's written confession of the sexual misconduct.

The Michigan Child Protection Law Act of 1975 states that sexual misconduct includes but is not limited to any contact or inter-action between a child and an adult.

The Trial Judge Carpenter aimed at protecting the Plaintiff , ignored and giving him wide latitude for presently fraudulently reporting child abuse of the minor child.

The Court (Judge Carpenter) is mandated by Judicial Canon # 1, 2 & 3 “to enforce a high standard of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.” The conduct throughout this case of Judge Carpenter, Attorney Irons and Child Protective Services investigator Bolden and the Plaintiff, come into question regarding honesty, trustworthiness and committing fraud upon the court under the color of law.

Furthermore the U.S. Supreme Court states any party who aids and abets commits crimes against the U.S Government and treason. The Trial Judge(Carpenter) and Attorney Irons ignored the CPS investigator Nyela Bolden's testimony and retraction of her most recent fraudulent report. Attorney Catherine Appel presented the proper evidence which was ignored by Judge Carpenter a violation of the:

VICTIMS’ RIGHTS AMENDMENT (C) Section 71.004 for the U.S. Constitution which states: the court shall not appoint as sole managing conservator a party who has a history of committing family violence.

The Trial Judge is not a mental health professionals, therefore not qualified to diagnose a psychological disorder. In the lower court hearings, three psychological evaluations were entered into evidence which state the Defendant D Bruns is qualified to provide appropriate parenting to her children. By ignoring evidence the trial Judge Nanaruth Carpenter has chosen to remain completely silent about the Plaintiffs long documented history of abuse, neglect and abandonment of the minor children. This gives approval to the Trial Judge Carpenter excusing the Plaintiff for sexual misconduct while ignoring the best interest of the minor child. The Trial Judge Carpenter is mandated be the fact finder and to to make the best interest of the minor child a priority and report violations of professional misconduct.

I D Bruns found Carpenters findings were against the great weight of the evidence.

Supporting Evidence:

1. Carpenter willfully omitting pertinent facts of the case which documented the history of abuse and abandonment of the minor child/ren.

2. Trial Judge Carpenter as a fact finder is to preform due diligence reviewing the file, which would have revealed the Plaintiff history of abuse to the minor children. For the trial judge Carpenter allowing the minor child to remain in the custody of the Plaintiff is a clear violation of the best interest factors.

3. Judge Carpenter ignored the retraction of the CPS investigtor Bolden's report which made the change of circumstances and redress custody were void.

4. The trial judge Carpenter awarded the Appellant sole legal and physical custody when the Plaintiff abandoned his parental role of the children. Custody was later again awarded to the Plaintiff false allegations which CPS stated were unfounded.

Facts of the Case:

Plaintiff’s conviction of Non Aggravated Assault: Pleaded guilty to domestic violence of the Appellant with 1 year probation (police report attached) .

Temporary Order of Custody: Given to Plaintiff on 12/14/1002. Plaintiff was substantiated for child abuse on 1/19/2002. (see transcript page 12)

Plaintiff and New Spouse: Reported to Belding Police for child endangerment of inhaling helium to stage of passing out. (see attached)

Wyoming Police Department: Plaintiff named as perpetrator in seven domestic violence reports (see attached).

Plaintiff abandoned his parental role from 2002-2004: Plaintiff abandoned his parental role.

5/21/06 (see attached)

Civil Family Dispute: Plaintiff locked minor children out of his home during visitation. (see attached)

Domestic Assault 12/03/06: Plaintiff substantiated of child abuse 12/8/06.

December 11, 2007 Appellee violated court order: Plaintiff took minor child to Appellant’s residence and had child enter the home. (see transcript page 16)

Plaintiff submitted illegally gained evidence: Plaintiff taped private phone conversations without consent of Defendant D Bruns and minor child. The tapes were provided to the Guardian Ad Litem and Friend of the Court.

Testifies at Trial 2007: Plaintiff testified both incidents of abuse to the boys were pretty insignificant. (see transcript page 50 and attached)

Defendant had sole custody of minor child: In 2008, Plaintiff violated custody order by changing the minor child’s school, sending minor child to camp and failing to enable phone conversations between Plaintiff and the minor child.