Petition for Expungement of Name from Central Registry/ 42 U.S.C 1983

State of Michigan
State Office of Administrative hearings and rules


In the matter of Docket No. 2008-835
D Bruns
Petitioner, Agency No. X0654322P

v.


Kent County Agency: Department of Human Services
Department of Human Services,
Respondent, Case Type: Reconsideration

_____________________________


PETITION FOR EXPUNGMENT
OF PETITIONER’S NAME FROM CENTRAL REGISTRY

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Petitioner Ms. Bruns name has been improperly added to the registry section 722.627(3) “if the investigation of a report fails to disclose evidence of abuse or neglect the information identifying the subject of the report shall be expunged from the central registry.” Pursuant to MCL 722.627 further provides that “[a] person who is the subject of a report of record….may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record in which no relevant and accurate evidence of abuse or neglect is found to exist.”
Pursuant to MCL 722.627 (5) & (6) Petitioner Ms. Bruns is the subject of a report or record made under this act and therefore may request the department to expunge an inaccurate report or record from the central registry and local office file.
And, (6) “If the department refuses a request for amendment or expunction under subsection (5), or fails to act within 30 days after receiving the request, the department shall hold a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the report or record in whole or in part should be amended or expunged from the central registry on the grounds that the report or record is not relevant or accurate evidence of abuse or neglect. The hearing shall be held before a hearing officer appointed by the department and shall be conducted as prescribed by the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328.
Pursuant to Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir1990), "Pleadings in this case are being filed by Petitioner In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicalities. Propria pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers”. also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) " however in artfully pleaded, the pro se complaint, we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."
Ms. Bruns a pro se litigant presents relevant and Accurate Evidence the facts attached as exhibits are plead with federal rule 26 “”
sufficient to expunge her name which have been has been improperly added to the registry section MCL 722.627(3) the information identifying the subject of the report shall be expunged from the central registry.” in which “no relevant and accurate evidence of abuse or neglect is found”.
RELEVANT AND ACCURATE EVIDENCE
The facts are being pled with particularity as required by Federal Rule 26. (C) (i) a written statement that the person has signed or otherwise adopted or approved; or
(ii) a contemporaneous stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording — or a transcription of it — that recites substantially verbatim the person's oral statement.
In direct contrast to Bolden’s original allegations the then minor child and now adult's Affidavit states: July 28, 2008, “I would like to correct and put on the record that my mother has never abuse me or any of my siblings. The Child Protective Service Worker exaggerated and pushed the situation far beyond a point of reason. She accused my mother of abuse to my brother and Sister.” (Exhibit 26)
“Kent County CPS has investigated the Petitioner Ms. Bruns has been investigated 26 times, 16 which were screened out 10 investigated and none substantiated criminal history returned with nothing. On September 8, 2008 CPS Bolden recanted her original allegations testifying her report was erred, which “she did not correct and she could not substantiate her original allegations.”
CPS Nyela Bolden and the agency December 5, 2007 report is void and should be stricken in its entirety as it is contain speculation, fabrication and inadmissible hearsay:
Risk assessment narratives
On September 8, 2008 Bolden recantation of her original allegations could not be substantiated is corroborated by the minor child now adult child's affidavit and AB's repeated requests to return home with the Petitioner because she is in regular conflict with her father.
Forensic Interview should be struck and the record corrected:
Specifically, on November 21, 2007 CPS Bolden December 5, 2007 reported “I utilizing the Forensic Interviewing Method Also, present was his father K Bruns and Step mother S Bruns.” (Exhibit 21)
It is clearly established Nyela Bolden a professional failure to follow the proper Forensic Interview protocol and process during the November 21, 2007 interview “contaminated” the child witness, put words into his mouth of false allegations of abuse that really did not occur clearly establishing the minor child’s responses to questions were not reliable. (EX 26)
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to MCL712A.17c (7) and Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) requires the state to provide and appoint a lawyer Guardian Ad Litem to represent “ALL” the children OB (DOB 7/21/90) and AB (5/27/97).
Failure to appoint legal representation for both minor children violates and deprives them of due process and public policy supports a child’s right to counsel: pursuant to MCL 722.630, MCL 712A.17c (7) and MCR 3.915(B)(2) and a meaningful relationship with their mother.
The December 11, 2008 Jones decision and order merely generalized, unsubstantiated claims speculative statements of belief and inadmissible hearsay none of which are based on personal knowledge, such reports do not create genuine issues of material fact as to those claims. Thomas v. Int’l Bus. Machs., 48 F.3d 478, 485 (10th Cir. 1995). The December 11, 2008 order applied no accurate and relevant evidence. See Carey, 500 F. Supp. at 583. It contains statement without factual support, prefaced by phrases as may not be included in an order “I believe” or “upon information and belief” or those made upon an “understanding,” are properly subject to a motion to strike. Tavery v.United States, 32 F.3d 1423, 1426 n.4 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Carey v. Beans, 500 F. Supp. 580, 583 (E.D. Pa. 1980). (See Exhibit Attached)
Third party’s description of a witness’s supposed testimony is not suitable for Petitioners name to be placed on Central Registry Category II for future Child Abuse.
The judge must render a decision that is just, according to the evidence viewed against the plain language of the Law.
A child’s statements were hearsay and inadmissible at trial under the U.S. Supreme Court case, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), because the child did not testify at the November 13, 2008 Administrative Hearing and there was no opportunity for cross-examination of the child. The child's statements were inadmissible, the child welfare agency failed to present preponderance evidence that the child had been abused.
Pursuant to MCL 722.627 further provides that Petitioner Ms. Bruns “[a] person who is the subject of a report of record….may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record in which no relevant and accurate evidence of abuse or neglect is found to exist.”
Ms. Bruns characterizes errors on evidentiary rulings as reviewed under a denovo standard when the abuse of discretion standard clearly applies. Moreover, all the parties failed to adequately identify purported errors at the time of the November 21, 2007 original interview, December 5, 2007 report, or the December 11, 2008 Administrative hearing, decision and order. Ms. Bruns has provided adequate records to demonstrate error, not to mention prejudicial error as shown in this case just alleging abuse, neglect and threatened harm is not enough to place her name on central registry as a category II high risk for future abuse.
Prayer for Relief:
The facts clearly presented conclude the excluded evidence and violations of due process and public policy supports a child’s right to counsel would have changed the outcome of the December 11, 2008 hearing.
A) Kent County CPS Bolden and the agency were on a witch hunt after investigating Petitioner Ms. Bruns 26 times since 1994, 16 were screened out, 10 investigated and none substantiated and a clean criminal history.
B) Kent County CPS Bolden a professional failure to follow the proper Forensic Interview protocol and process “contaminated” the child witness, put words into his mouth of false allegations of abuse that really did not occur. (Ex)
C) Failure to appoint legal representation for the two minor children (add names when submitting to the court) violated and deprived them of due process and public policy supports a child’s right to counsel.
D) On September 8, 2008 CPS Bolden recanted her original allegations, testified her December 5, 2007 report was erred, which “she did not correct and “there are “NO” substantiations against the Petitioner Ms. Bruns corroborated by the then minor and now adult child's affidavit and her criminal history returned with no results.

This court must expunge Ms.Bruns name from Central Registry unless it can prove and establish a preponderance of evidence and facts in support of the claims in the December 5, 2007 report and December 11, 2008 order which would not entitle Ms. Bruns to relief of expungement.

I DECLARE THAT THE STATEMENTS ABOVE ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
Dated this_______Day of November, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
Denise M. Bruns, Pro Se Litigant
616-260-5479

Void Judgment any court anytime. Supreme Court Writ of Mandamus

CIVIL CASE NO: 009-02680-DM
Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, ) COA CASE NO: 292875
) COA CASE NO: 289312
)
****************************************

Denise Bruns Kim Alexander Bruns
Pro Se Litigant Pro Se Litigant



PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
FOR REVISORY REVIEW OF FRAUD, PERJURY, ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND ORDERS EXCEEDING JURISDICTION “on motion of a party filed at any time, the court may exercise revisory power and control over in case of fraud, mistake or irregularity.” (Lapeer Co Clerk v Lapeer Circuit Judges, 465 Mich 559 [2002]).’ as provided for by MCR 9.122(A) (2)
MOTION TO VOID JUDGMENTS ISSUED IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
“There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 2). “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed but rather, should dismiss the action.”
Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………….……….4
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED…………………………………………….……...8
STANDARD OF REVIEW……………………………………………………………………9
JURISDICTIONALSTATEMENT………………………………………………………..….10
STATEMENT OF FACTS……….……………………………………………………………16
ISSUES……………….………………………………………………………………………..18
COMPLAINT ………………………………………………………………………….32
RELIEF SOUGHT……,……………………………………………………………………….33

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Lapeer Co Clerk v Lapeer Circuit Judges, 465 Mich 559 [2002])………………………… 2
Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 2)…………………………………………………….……………….2
Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026…………………………..………………………..……………..2 30A Am Jur Judgments '' 44, 45………………………………………………..……………8
Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. (1999)……..……………9
(Lapeer Co Clerk v Lapeer Circuit Judges, 465 Mich 559 [2002])……………..……..…….9
Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608…………………………………..……….9
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565…………………………………..………9
Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897……………………………..……9
Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914………………………………….…...9
McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608…………………….……9
(Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972)….…..9
Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092……….…9
Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App 2d 573, 576-7, 840 P. 2d 553 (1992)…………………….10
rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093(1993)…………………………………………………………...10
First Federal Commodity Trust Corp. v. Comm’r of Sec”.,272 Md.329,333(1974) ………11
Kraft, Supra, 35 Md. App. at 311…………………………………………………………..11
Ventresca, Supra, 266 Md. At 403…………………………………………………………12
Davis v. Attorney General of Md” No.123 (2009)………….………………………………13
Eyler. Quoting ”Bland vs. Hammond” 177 Md. App. 340, 347, 168 Md……………..……13
Davis v. Attorney General of Md” No.123 (2009)……………………………………….…13
Eyler. Quoting Weitz, Supra, 272 Ms. At 631………………………………………………13
Early v. Early, 338 Md. 639, 652(1995)…………………………………………………….13
Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. (1999)………………….13
Fredman Brothers Funiture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2D 202, 486 N.E. 2D 893(1985)..13
Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill. App. 3D 393(1962)………………………………………...13
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683,1687 (1974…13
Brown v. Vankeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 (1930)……………………………………………...13
Snowden v. Balt. Gas & Electric Co. 300 Md. 555, 559-60n.2(1984)………………………13
id at 560 n.2 quoting United States v. Fort Sill Apache Tribe, Stateb of Okla.,501 F2d 861, 863-64 (t. Cls, 1974). …………………………………………………………………………..…13
Davis v. Attorney General of Md” No.123 (2009)……………………………………………13
Eyler. quoting “Platt v. Platt”, 302 Md. 9, 13(1984)………………………………………….13
J.T. Masonry Co. v. Oxford Construction Srvs., Inc.”, 314 Md. 498, 506 (1989)……………13
Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461……………………………….14
(1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.)…………………………………………………………..14
Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962)……………14
U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5-Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
Klug v. U.S., 620 F. Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985)……………………………………………….14
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 S Ct.1019………………………………………………….14
Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill. 2D 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2D 289 (1956) …………..14
Hallberg v. Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill. 25 (1936)………………………………………………14
U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell 110 F.R.D. 382 (382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)…………………………………………………………………………………………14
Stillwell v. Markham 10 P.2d 15, 16, 135 Kan. 206 (1932)……………………………….....15
Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)..15
U.S. v. Will,449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980) …………………15
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)…………………………15
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958)……………………………………………15
Quinn v Mouw-Quinn, 552 NW2d 843 (SD, 1996)………………………………………........16
Clarke v Wayne Circuit Judge, 193 Mich 33; 159 NW 387 (1916)………………………........16
Johns v Johns, 178 Mich App 101, 106; 443 NW2d 446 (1989)………………………..……..21
Quinn v Mouw-Quinn, 552 NW2d 843 (SD, 1996)………………………………………........21
Burba v Burba (After Remand), 461 Mich 637, 643-645, 647; 610 NW2d 873 (2000)…..…...22
Macomb Co Dep’t of Social Services v Westerman, 250 Mich App 372, 377; 645 NW2d 710 (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………..……22
Evink v Evink, 214 Mich App 172, 175-176; 542 NW2d 328 (1995)………………………….22
People ex. re. Brzica v Village of Lake Barrington, 644 NE 2d 66 (Ill app. 2 dist. 1994)……..23
Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. (1999)……………….........25
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)………………….……………..25
Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill. App. 3D 393(1962) including the Fourth………….……….....25
Reynolds v. Bolunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex. Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087……………....…...27
Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F Sup.892, 901…………………………..……………..…….…27
Brown v. Vankeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 (1930)…………………………………………..……..28
Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608………………………………………..……..29
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565……………………………………..…….…29
Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897……………………………..…….…29
Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914………………………………..………...29
McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608…………………..………...29
(Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972)……........29
Clarke v Wayne Circuit Judge, 193 Mich 33; 159 NW 387 (1916)……………………..……..31


Statutes Cited
MI. Code.” (1973, 2006 Repl. Vol.), 6-408 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article
(“CJ”), and Rule-535(b)………………………………………………………………..………12
Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(B) (4),………………………………………………..14
28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5……………………………………………………...14
Michigan Child Protection Law Act of 1975……………………………….…………………16
Michigan Supreme Court Custody Act…………………………………………..……………….…..21
False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729)……………………………………….…………………20
False Claims Act and (Title 31U.S.C. § 3729-3733)………………………..…………………22
18 USC - U.S. Code - Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure (January 2004)….…………22
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment……………………………………………………………26
CHILD CUSTODY ACT OF 1970 Act 91 of 1970, 722.27a, Parenting time, Sec. 7a. (3)…..27
Federal Questions Case (28U.S.C. §1331)…………………………………………………….31
Diversity Case (28 U.S.C. §1332)………………………………………………….…………..31
42 U.S.C. §1983…………………………………………………………………….…………..31
1746 of title 28 United States Code…………………………………………………………….33


Court Rules Cited
MCR 9.122(A) (2)………………………………………………………………………………..2
MI. Code.” (1973, 2006 Repl. Vol.), 6-408 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJ”), and Rule-535(b)...…………………………………………………..……………………………15
MCL 552.23(1)……………………….………………………………………………………….17
MCL 552.605(2)…………………………………………………………………………………21
MCL 552.17(1)…………………………………………………………………………………..22
MCR 2.114(a) ……………………………………………………………………………………22


STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
A - WERE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS USED TO UNLAWFULLY CHANGE CUSTODY
AND DESTROY THE DEFENDANTS?

B – WAS FRAUD, PERJURY and VIOLATIONS OF FALSE CLAIMS ACT USED
BY PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS TO CHANGE CUSTODY?

C – WAS FRAUDULENT GAL & CPS REPORT USED TO UNLAWFULLY REMOVE THE
MINOR CHILD AND CHANGE OF CUSTODY?

D – WERE DEFENDANT’S PRO SE RIGHTS AND HER DEFENDANT’S RIGHTS
VIOLATED?

E - DID JUDGES CONTINUE AFTER JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES WERE
SUBMITTED?
F – WAS THERE A PATTERN & PRACTICE OF EXTREME JUDICIAL BIAS?








STANDARD OF REVIEW
ISSUE: Revisory Review of Fraud, Perjury, Abuse of Discretion and Orders Exceeding Jurisdiction
This Court in Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026 succinctly explained:
“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears
that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather, should dismiss the action,”
30A Am Jur Judgments '' 44, 45. “A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid,”









JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Defendant’s petition for void judgment: “An order procured by fraud, can be attacked at
any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court,” Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. (1999).
Void judgment issued in excess of jurisdiction: “There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 2). “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed but rather, should dismiss the action.”
Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026
Defendant’s petition for writ of mandamus: For Revisory Review of Fraud,
Perjury, Abuse of Discretion and Orders Exceeding Jurisdiction: “on motion of a party filed at any time, the court may exercise revisory power and control over in case of fraud, mistake or irregularity.” (Lapeer Co Clerk v Lapeer Circuit Judges, 465 Mich 559 [2002]).’ as provided for by MCR 9.122(A) (2)
“An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue” Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.
"a Court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction," (Lubben v.
Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972)
“Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally,” Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092.
- “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears
that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather, should dismiss the action,” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026
- “A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but
may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid,” 30A Am Jur Judgments '' 44, 45.
- “A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the
defendant is void. It is a nullity. A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity,” Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App 2d 573, 576-7, 840 P. 2d 553 (1992) rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093(1993)
Therefore, Defendant/Counter submits that her void judgment and writ of mandamus lies properly before this Court.
Now comes the Defendant, Denise Bruns, a reluctant pro se litigant and victim of ineffective assistance of counsel, unlawful malicious prosecution, attorney fraud and perjury that usurped the judicial process, and a pattern and practice of extreme judicial bias that began with the Defendant Denise Bruns submission of her financial form informing the court she was a 15 (fifteen) year stay-at-home mother without any income the court being fully aware the plaintiff was the only source of income during the fifteen year marriage denied the defendant paid legal representation. The court being fully aware the plaintiff was the only source of income during the fifteen year marriage denied the defendant paid legal representation. Defendant Denise Bruns kept the family together during the two year period when Plaintiff deserted the family, and caused a nine-year divorce-custody battle to cover-up the kidnapping of her children under color of law by judicial appointees, lawyers and judges that profited financially. The felonies and offenses in the above-cited case threatens the Constitution, and Defendant Bruns preys the Michigan Supreme Court will interpret this pro se pleading as broadly as possible to ensure justice, and exercise revisory jurisdiction, review and correct “glaring injustice and irremediable injury” as a supervisory review of the unlawful hearings, void judicial orders.
Attorney Catherine Appel and Defendant’s oral requests and Motions to Void Judgment
December 26, 2002 continuing to o that have been suppressed and ignored, despite that they remain unchallenged and unadjudicated, yet the Court continued “on the merits” in excess of jurisdiction and unlawfully deprived Defendant of custody, and pursuant to the MI. Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court citations listed below (Pgs. 12-15) Defendant petitions this Court to perform a Revisory Review of orders based on fraud and perjury, orders that exceeded jurisdiction and abuse of judicial discretion as the irrefutable evidence herein was submitted to inferior Courts only to be suppressed, ignored or dismissed for fabricated procedural reasons to usurp the judicial process and deny justice.
Therefore, as a result of the Kent County, 17th Circuit Court and the MI. Court of Appeals and the Attorney Grievance Committee denying Defendant justice, “there is no remedy available in the inferior Courts” ”First Federal Commodity Trust Corp. v. Comm’r of Sec”.,272 Md.329,333(1974); Kraft, Supra, 35 Md. App. at 311, Defendant requests this Court exercise Supervisory Jurisdiction and review the merits and issue a Writ of Mandamus and; 1) issue orders to void judgments or vacate custody orders entered after November 9, 2004 that unlawfully awarded custody to Plaintiff based on overt fraud and perjury in “emergency ex-parte hearings” when no emergency existed (See Exhibits 5 & 6)(case #00-02680-DM), and immediately revert sole custody of the minor child, Alida Georgette Bruns, to Defendant Bruns as it existed before attorney fraud upon the Court and perjury robbed the Court of jurisdiction, refer the fraud upon the Court and perjury by Plaintiff and his corrupt attorneys “to the proper authorities” to prosecute their felonies, pursuant to the following rulings by the MI. Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court and other well established citations issued regarding jurisdiction, fraud and perjury that usurped the judicial process.
1) SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION - MI COURT OF APPEALS
”First Federal Commodity Trust Corp. v. Comm’r of Sec.”, 272 Md.329, 333(1974); Kraft, Supra, 35 Md.App. at 311 states “Court’s Supervision grant a motion to vacate as and an appeal is necessary to vindicate rights wrongfully lost,” Ventresca, Supra, 266 Md. At 403”;
“Appeals of orders that are not final but treated as if they are,” Snowden v. Balt. Gas & Electric Co. 300 Md. 555, 559-60n.2(1984).
“All other rulings are intertwined with the Court’s decision to issue an arrest
warrant these rulings properly may be challenged,” See id at 560 n.2 quoting United States v.
Fort Sill Apache Tribe, Stateb of Okla.,501 F2d 861, 863-64 (t. Cls, 1974).
in appeal a Circuit Court’s judgment is governed by MI. Code.” (1973, 2006 Repl. Vol.), 6-408 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJ”), and Rule-535(b) “on motion of a party filed at any time , the court may exercise revisory power and control over in case of fraud, mistake or irregularity.”
“Once fraud, mistake, or irregularity has been shown, the court may vacate the judgment upon consideration of equitable factors, including whether the moving party has shown that he has acted in good faith and with ordinary diligence, and that he has meritorious cause of action or defense” “Davis v. Attorney General of Md” No.123 (2009) Eyler. quoting “Platt v. Platt”, 302 Md. 9, 13(1984); also see “J.T. Masonry Co. v. Oxford Construction Srvs., Inc.”, 314 Md. 498, 506 (1989). “We review the court’s exercise of discretion to vacate the judgment, upon consideration of the equitable factors for abuse” “Davis v. Attorney General of Md” No.123 (2009) Eyler. Quoting ”Bland vs. Hammond” 177 Md. App. 340, 347, 168 Md; and quoting Furthermore, an irregularity in the contemplating of Rule 2-535(b) is “not an error”, but a nonconformity of “process or procedure” “Davis v. Attorney General of Md” No.123 (2009) Eyler. Quoting Weitz, Supra, 272 Ms. At 631; Early v. Early, 338 Md. 639, 652(1995)
2) VOID ORDERS BASED ON FRAUD
“An order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either
directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court,” Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. (1999).
“An order is void if fraud was committed in the procurement of jurisdiction,” Fredman Brothers Funiture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2D 202, 486 N.E. 2D 893(1985)
“An order is void if it was procured by fraud upon the court,” In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill. App. 3D 393(1962)
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683,1687 (1974) states "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States";
“A judgment is void if a defective petition was filed, ”Brown v. Vankeuren, 340
Ill. 118, 122 (1930)
“A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be
heard is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other
tribunal” Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461
"If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.)
“When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason,” The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse."
3) AUTHORITIES REGARDING DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
“Void judgment is one where court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or entry
of order violated due process,” U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5-Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
- Judgment is a void judgment if the court that rendered the judgment lacked
jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(B) (4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klug v. U.S., 620 F. Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).
- “A judgment is void if it violated due process,” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 S Ct.1019; Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill. 2D 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2D 289 (1956) Hallberg v. Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill. 25 (1936)
Void judgment where the court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or entry of
order violated due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell 110
F.R.D. 382 (382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)
The subject-matter of a criminal offense is the crime itself. Subject-matter in its broadest
sense means the cause; the object; the thing in dispute. Stillwell v. Markham 10 P.2d 15, 16, 135
Kan. 206 (1932)
“Due Process is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution. Violation of the United States Constitution by a judge deprives that person from acting as a judge under the law. He/she is acting as a private person, and not in the capacity of being a judge,”:Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)
“any judge who acts without jurisdiction is engaged in an act of treason,” U.S. v. Will,
449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6
Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).
“Engaging in an act of treason against the United States Constitution by any citizen of the United States is an act of war against the United States,” Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958):
4) FACTS OF THE CASE
Plaintiff Kim Bruns and Defendant Denise Bruns were married on November 7, 1987.
Three children were born to the marriage, to wit, Josiah Alexander Bruns, Oliver Mitchell Bruns, Alida Georgette Bruns, dob, 5/27/1997, only custody and visitation as to Alida Georgette is in dispute in this matter.
Defendant Bruns, a 15 (fifteen) year stay-at-home mother who kept the family together during the two year period when Plaintiff deserted the family
October 13, 2004 and Amended November 9, 2004 orders: “The defendant shall have sole legal and physical custody of the parties minor children, because the court finds that the Plaintiff has abandoned his role as a parent.” (Exhibit 1) as the father did not attempt to contact the children until the defendant filed her petition); Quinn v Mouw-Quinn, 552 NW2d 843 (SD, 1996) Pursuant to law: Unfit parent: “One who failed to visit, provide support been abusive, neglected, or failed to provide proper care.
5) CASE HISTORY
On December 25, 1991 the plaintiffs pattern of documented domestic violence began with the charge of a non aggravated assault with 1 year probation against Defendant Bruns –see (Exhibits 2 – 8)
December 13, 1999 plaintiff admitted in writing to criminal sexual misconduct to the parties’ three minor children, “I did that with the boys also. It was her butt not her genially. Don’t start getting weird on me Denise but if you want me to stop, I will.” (Exhibit 4) 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,
January 19, 2001, the Plaintiff (Kim Bruns) pinched the minor child Oliver Bruns, DOB 7/21/90 on his chest leaving a large bruise. This incident was reported to Child Protective Services their investigation substantiated the Plaintiff of child abuse. Clarke v Wayne Circuit Judge, 193 Mich 33; 159 NW 387 (1916).
Being fully advised of the above documented incidents of abuse by the Plaintiff the lower court appointed Guardian Ad Litem-Attorney Mary Benedict, as a “ringer”, on November 21, 2001 (Exhibit 9) to investigate the facts relating to the care, custody of the minor children Josiah Bruns dob 1/14/89, Oliver Bruns dob 7/21/90 and Alida Bruns dob 5/27/97.
Benedict’s investigation and report (Exhibit 9) began a pattern and practice of fraud upon the Court that usurped the judicial process and included false child abuse allegations, false attorney affidavits, and perjury used to maliciously prosecute defendant Bruns to cover up the kidnapping of the minor child under color of law. Specifically, GAL/Attorney ignored the minor children repeated reports of abuse by the plaintiff supported with evidence of material facts of his documented history of abuse, properly leaving the trial court to decide. (Police Reports Attached Exhibits 2-8)
6) ISSUE: PATTERN & PRACTICE OF EXTREME JUDICIAL BIAS – November 21, 2001 (Exhibit 10) the Parties were ordered to equally compensate the GAL-Attorney at the rate of $80.00 per hour, to further oppress Defendant financially and judicial malfeasance, in violation of: Chapter 215: Section 56A. Investigations; “The compensation shall be fixed by the Court and shall be paid by the commonwealth, together with any expense approved by the court, upon certificate to the state treasurer.” The judge’s order ignored the plaintiff’ was the sole source of support for the defendant a 15 (fifteen) year stay home mother. The judge denied Defendant, a fifteen year stay at home mother who kept the family together during the two years that Plaintiff deserted the family, alimony in violation of MCL 552.23(1) with another order exhibiting extreme judicial bias and another example of the pattern and practice of judicial wrong doings in an attempt to eliminate the defendant from the lives of her children.
GAL-Attorney Benedict and therapist Steven Griffioen agreed to conceal exculpatory evidence by only providing the children a safe place to express their feelings during the custody proceeding and keeping the children’s therapy records confidential and would not be brought into the custody dispute. February 14, 2002 (Exhibit 11) court ordered Griffioen by recommendation of Benedict custody evaluations to be performed by Dr. Griffioen. (Exhibit 12)
August 6, 2004 (Exhibit 13) the defendant a pro se litigant ordered to pay the GAL-Attorney Fees within 15 day. GAL-Attorney Benedict “I’m asking the court to order her to list the house for sale at a price to pay my fee, as well as the existing mortgage.” “I don’t care if Ms. Bruns gets anything out of the house at this point.” The defendant advised the court the Plaintiff had not voluntarily paid child support for the three minor children with the defendant since November 19, 2002. The defendant request for a quick claim deed to refinance the home and retroactive child support back to the entry of the consent judgment was denied. Referee Dok “it is not properly before this court. If Benedict forecloses on the defendant’s home where would she like the children to live? The defendant’s request for an evidentiary Hearing to reduce the GAL-Attorney bill was denied.
October 28, 2005 (Exhibit 14), reintroduction therapy after plaintiff abandoned his parental role court denied the minor children confidentiality. Plaintiff’s Attorney Irons petitioned a show cause the martial home hadn’t been sold or refinanced and the defendant was ordered by Judge Carpenter to sign a release disclosing the minor children’s therapy records. The request for a quick claim was denied on August 6, 2004 defendant could not proceed without the plaintiff and Attorney Irons cooperation to execute the quick claim deed. September 26, 2008: The defendant having sole, legal physical custody of the minor child Alida paid $427.20 dollars for her to continue attending Tri-unity Unity Christian School. (Exhibit 15) October 10, 2008 (Exhibit 16), The Plaintiff did not have custody and arbitrarily changed the minor children’s schools, the proper procedure to change schools would have been to file a motion. The Defendant’s Attorney Catherine Appel asked the court to hold the Plaintiff in contempt. Judge Carpenter denied charging the plaintiff in contempt and further responded “According to case law, change custody on and ex parte or a temporary basis. Reality is even though Mr. Bruns technically is given extended parenting time opposed to some type of custody , at this time he is the person the child is spending days and night. I believe it would be very inappropriate and very destabilizing to change her school setting in a couple of weeks we will have completion of the evidence in the trial and I’ll be in a position to make a long-term decision. Defendant concluded “Bias—that’s bias Carpenter”
January 11, 2006 (Exhibit 17) Motion to determine responsibility for uninsured health care expensed was adjourned, defendants Attorney James Kraayeveld did not appear, the motions was never rescheduled. Do to ineffective counsel the defendant shall reimburse the Plaintiffs attorney fees $350.00. The defendant properly submitted Dr. Makedonski therapy bills for the minor children in compliance with the FOC’s recommendation and order. Plaintiff was not held responsible for children’s therapy bills.
FOC on December 11, 2007 abated defendant’s child support 100%. Referee Komar: “Judge Carpenter is doing and issued and order consistent with what she has in Mind.” “I’m not going to make any changes to what she is doing, it’s inappropriate for me to step in and do something for a couple months.” Judge Carpenter Ordered on December 11, 2008, March 14, 2009, April 25, 2009, October 24, 2009 (Transcript Exhibit 18) child support for Alida was not to be abated. October 10, 2008 Attorney Appel asked Judge Carpenter to enforced two previous child support orders. Attorney Appel: “There are two prior orders. The last I checked, the court speaks through its orders except today when legal custody means nothing.” Judge Carpenter:’ I believe that the motion is not timely. All aspects of issues relating to the children are before the court in a trial status. Defendant’s request reinstatement of child support in compliance with courts orders denied

7) ISSUE B: WERE FRAUD, PERJURY and VIOLATIONS OF FALSE CLAIMS ACT USED BY GAL-ATTORNEY, PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS TO CHANGE CUSTODY?
CUSTODY ORDERS
December 14, 2001 (Exhibit 19) Gal- Attorney Benedict a “ringer” “Emergency” Petition for a change of custody declaring the defendant was “mentally abusive “and “a threat to the minor children.” Judge Carpenter issued a restraining order and forced into supervised visitation based on fraudulent allegations – contained no first-hand evidence of any kind to support Benedict’s claim that Defendant Bruns had abused neglected or mentally harmed her children. Therefore, the emergency motion “on its face” is legally insufficient absent of first-hand evidence or knowledge, and overtly violates the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729). The histrionics and hearsay it contains “is legally insufficient” and, by law, does not provide probable cause to convene an “emergency” immediate removal without due process of law. Since this time the defendant has been forced to defend herself against a pattern of false allegations of child abuse whose due process rights have been violated, Defendant pro se rights have been violated and those of her minor children as Defendant Bruns’ original lawyers took her money and sold her out, and failed to submit to the Court that Defendant is a good parent who has injured no one and broken no law, The lower court did not have jurisdiction to entertain a change of custody when there was no emergency and did not have probable cause that any “emergency” existed. The Michigan Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court have ruled repeatedly that “when jurisdiction is challenged” the merits of the case are to be halted and jurisdiction addressed before continuing “on the merits.

8) ISSUE D: CONSENT JUDGMENT
November 19, 2002 (Exhibit 20) the parties entered a consent judgment for a change in custody. Defendant was always the primary caretaker of the children and support would be awarded to neither party. “[a]n agreement by the parties regarding support will not suspend the authority of the court to enter a support order.” Johns v Johns, 178 Mich App 101, 106; 443 NW2d 446 (1989).

October 13 and November 9, 2004: (Exhibit 1) “The defendant shall have sole legal and physical custody of the parties minor children, because the court finds that the Plaintiff has abandoned his role as a parent.” as the father did not attempt to contact the children until the defendant filed her petition); Quinn v Mouw-Quinn, 552 NW2d 843 (SD, 1996) (Exhibit 4) Pursuant to law: , Unfit parent: “One who failed to visit, provide support been abusive, neglected, or failed to provide proper care. Michigan Supreme Court Custody Act provides, in pertinent part: “There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has a history of perpetrating domestic violence against the other parent, a child, may not be awarded sole legal custody, sole physical custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody of a child. A parent has a history of perpetrating domestic violence if the court finds that, during one incident of domestic violence, the parent caused serious physical injury or the court finds that the parent has engaged in more than one incident of domestic violence. The presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.” obligated to enter a support order in compliance with the consent judgment and the children’s rights and entitlement to support obligation of the plaintiff.
Judge Carpenter had a statutory duty and is required to comply with MCL 552.605(2) to follow the criteria set forth in the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual (“MCSFM”), when modifying a child support award. Burba v Burba (After Remand), 461 Mich 637, 643-645, 647; 610 NW2d 873 (2000). The consent judgment was contrary to the well-established principle and public policy of the state of Michigan that parents may not bargain away their children’s right and entitlement to support, by obligation of the plaintiff. Macomb Co Dep’t of Social Services v Westerman, 250 Mich App 372, 377; 645 NW2d 710 (2002); Evink v Evink, 214 Mich App 172, 175-176; 542 NW2d 328 (1995). Judge Carpenter October 13, 2004 and November 9, 2004 order violated MCL 552.17(1), it effectively nullified the plaintiff’s child support obligation, contrary to the child support formula, and “as the circumstances of the parents and the benefit of the children require,” (Exhibit 1)
9) ISSUE B: WERE FRAUD, PERJURY and VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT AND 18 USC - U.S. Code AND MCR 2.114 (a) WILLFULLY USED TO CHANGE CUSTODY?
December 11, 2007 Ex Parte Motion (Exhibit 21) Attorney Irons “ringer” “Emergency” Petition for a change of custody declaring Child Protective Services Bolden’s report (Exhibit 21)found the defendant had “abused, neglected and threatened harmed “her minor child Alida. Attorney Irons and Plaintiff Bruns certified as true and accurate procured by fraudulent allegations of child abuse, restraining orders and supervised visitation orders were issued. The Plaintiff’s affidavit, (Exhibit 22) certified as true and accurate was prima facia procured by fraudulent allegations of child abuse the “Emergency” Petition – contained no first-hand evidence or knowledge of any kind to support their claim that Defendant Bruns had abused neglected or mentally harmed her daughter. Therefore, the affidavit “on its face” is legally insufficient, and overtly violates the False Claims Act and (Title 31U.S.C. § 3729-3733), 18 USC - U.S. Code - Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure (January 2004) and MCR 2.114(a)
The histrionics and hearsay it contains “is legally insufficient” and, by law, does not provide probable cause to convene an “emergency” ex-parte hearing. The lower court did not have jurisdiction to convene an ex-parte hearings when there was no emergency and did not receive probable cause that any “emergency” existed. The Plaintiff has a documented history of abuse MOLESTATION and abandonment towards the Defendant and children, (Exhibits attached) according to law that alone gives no rights to custody of the minor child, when the Defendant HAS NO PROVEN HISTORY OF ABUSE, MOLESTATION AND ABANDONEMENT OF THE CHILDREN. This cannot be disputed.
September 8, 2008 CPS Bolden (Exhibit 24) testified her report was erred, which she did not correct. In fact she could not substantiate neglect, emotional abuse or threatened harm. The lower court lost subject matter jurisdiction based on the CPS Bolden’s retraction, which negated the allegation for a change in circumstance. In People ex. re. Brzica v Village of Lake Barrington, 644 NE 2d 66 (Ill app. 2 dist. 1994) it was stated that orders lacked jurisdiction over parties or subject matter lacks inherent power to enter judgment.
December 11, 2008 (Exhibit 25) Decision and Order by Administrative Law Judge C. David Jones reviewed the evidence and determined: “The evidence on the record does not show child abuse or neglect of Alida. There is no evidence of actual harm, negligent treatment or that the Petitioner placed Alida at an unreasonable risk and the great weight of evidence there was no threatened harm. Petitioner’s dispute was resolved by the time CPS investigation. Indeed Alida reported no neglect or abuse (although in regular conflict with her father); she wanted to continue living with Petitioner.” (Exhibit 25)
July, 28, 2009 Oliver Bruns retracted his allegations of abuse and further reported the “CPS exaggerated and pushed the situation far beyond a point of reason.” (Exhibit 26)
CPS Bolden and Oliver Bruns retractions (Exhibit 24 & 26) of their allegations against the defendant, Administrative Law Judge David C. Jones reviewed the evidence and determined she was innocent the change of custody was unwarranted and “unfounded”. (See Exhibits 24-26)
Despite the fact the defendant had two previous Psychological evaluations (Exhibit 27 & 28) the most recent Psychological Evaluation by Dr. Jarchow’s (Exhibit 29) and Dr. Makedonsky whose credentials as an expert witness have been accepted in Michigan, testified September 8, 2008 “the mother/child relationship is positive and appropriate”. Based on clinical knowledge its Dr Makedonski’s (Transcript Exhibit 30) opinion that “it’s in Alida’s best interest to return to live with her mother, separation anxiety will be detrimental to Alida.” It is not unreasonable to assume that Plaintiff Bruns and corrupt Attorneys Joan Irons and corrupt Judges Carpenter and Referee Komar ignored and suppressed Makedonski’s testimony and Interim Report to unlawfully get rid of the defendant so that Plaintiff Kim Bruns could “take her child away
December 2, 2007 (Exhibit 31) custody order awarding custody to the plaintiff was unlawful based on his Psychological Evaluation, (Exhibit 32) CPS Bolden’s September 8, 2008 retraction of her abuse allegations, Oliver Bruns 7-28-09 retraction, December 11, 2008 order and recommendation of Administrative Law Judge C.David Jones “Petitioner’s dispute was resolved by the time CPS investigation. (Exhibit 25)
Alida reported no neglect or abuse (although in regular conflict with her father); she wanted to continue living with Petitioner.” September 8, 2008: Dr. Makedonsky expert witness testimony and interim report. ( Exhibit 30) “the mother/child relationship is positive and appropriate”. Based on clinical knowledge “it’s in Alida’s best interest to return to live with her mother, separation anxiety will be detrimental to Alida.” Pursuant to: 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.
- MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT CUSTODY ACT provides, in pertinent part: “There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has a history of perpetrating domestic violence against the other parent, a child, may not be awarded sole legal custody, sole physical custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody of a child. “An order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court,” Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) states "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States";
Judge Carpenter, Attorney Joan Irons and Plaintiff Bruns all have engaged in a pattern and practice of human trafficking based on fraud, perjury, false child abuse reports, motions, attorney affidavits, ex parte orders violating due process, and civil and constitutional rights all under the color of law. (Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill. App. 3D 393(1962) including the Fourth, Fourteenth Amendments and other violations of the False Claims Act, (31 U.S.C. § 3729) and 18 USC - U.S. Code - Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure (January 2004) and MCR 2.114(a)
December 2, 2008 custody order is void pursuant to: 1) The Plaintiff has a documented history of abuse MOLESTATION and abandonment towards the Defendant and children, (Exhibits attached) 2) according to law that alone gives no rights to custody of the minor child this cannot be disputed. 3) VICTIMS’ RIGHTS AMENDMENT (C) Section 71.004 for the U.S. Constitution states: the court shall not appoint as sole managing conservator a party who has a history of committing family violence. 4) MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT CUSTODY ACT provides, in pertinent part: “There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has a history of perpetrating domestic violence against the other parent, a child, may not be awarded sole legal custody, sole physical custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody of a child. 10) ISSUE A: WAS A PATTERN & PRACTICE OF DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS USED TO UNLAWFULLY DESTROY THE DEFENDANT BRUNS?
Secret Hearings Violate Due Process
June 3, 2009 (Exhibit 33) Attorney Irons petitions and “emergency” ex parte hearings alleging the defendant attempted to abduct the minor child from a school event which parents were invited and the minor child Alida was involved. Attorney Irons affidavit, (Exhibit 34) certified as true and accurate was prima facia procured by fraudulent allegations of child abduction issued an order to suspend any and all contact between the minor child and the defendant until further order of this court. “Emergency” Petition – contained no first-hand evidence or knowledge of any kind but instead contained false claims, fraud, histrionics and “quotes” from unnamed third parties to support her claim that Defendant Bruns had attempted to abduct the minor child and that the defendant was not invited to the school event at Michigan Adventure. Therefore, the emergency petition “on its face” is legally insufficient, absent of probable cause and overtly violates the False Claims Act and (Title 31U.S.C. § 3729-3733), 18 USC - U.S. Code - Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure (January 2004), MCR 2.114(a) and CHILD CUSTODY ACT OF 1970 Act 91 of 1970, 722.27a, Parenting time, Sec. 7a. (3)
June 19, 2009 (Exhibit 35) the docket reflects the defendant Bruns petitioned the court for a void judgment, re-instate visitation of the June 3, 2009 restraining order as the court did not have jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter pursuant to Reynolds v. Bolunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex. Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F Sup.892, 901.
Despite the exculpatory evidence (Exhibits 36) Referee Komar dismissed the motion with no delegation of authority cited to support the ruling “ The Defendant argues this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide on this issue” “Defendant is strongly cautioned about making representations to the court that have no basis in law or fact, “Defendant offered no creditable explanation her pleading have no basis in law or fact, no reasonable reading or interpretation of that same order could lead the defendant to believe that contacting the minor child was permissible.”
The defendant’s “I would be granted a hearing or jury trial o this evidence.” Referee Komar “I don’t think you’ll get a jury trial. You might get an evidentiary hearing, thought.
“When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason,”
The Court in Bolunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex. Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F Sup.892, 901.Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse."
Attorney Irons June 2, 2009 Affidavit (Exhibit 34) certified as true and accurate was absent first-hand knowledge as she is not a party to the action. “A judgment is void if a defective petition was filed,”Brown v. Vankeuren, 340 Ill. 118, 122 (1930). The pleading was insufficient “robbed the Court of jurisdiction. A secret hearing convened under color of law held to usurp justice and falsely condemn Defendant Bruns.
The case docket reflects that on July 17, 2009 (Exhibit 37) the defendant’ request a denovo review of the June 19, 2009 order, void judgment and reinstate visitation which is a constitutional right according to Michigan parenting time guidelines of the unlawful June 2, 2009 Ex Parte order.
Judge Carpenter denied the defendant a denovo review based on her request had expired even though her motion was filed properly, the court clerk decided it wasn’t the proper signature. (Exhibit38) The defendant was stifled in all her attempts to present the facts being advised “You don’t have a right to reargue your appeal.”
Judge Carpenter advised the defendant “she has made it very difficult to determine or to establish a routine which is not one that creates conflict and is distressing to Alida it continues to be problematic.” Defendant was further advised: “Ms. Bruns if you do not discontinue your litigation I will have you escorted from the court room.” The intent was to have Defendant incarcerated.
Judge Carpenter willfully suppressed and ignored the prima facia exculpatory evidence (Exhibits 39) that proved the Defendant Bruns innocents and Attorney Irons allegations of fraud upon the court are founded in fact and well documented. This is another act of this court and attorney Irons to destroy the defendant’s relationship with her child. Pursuant to “An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue” Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608. "a Court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction," (Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972) Judge Carpenter dismissed the motion with no delegation of authority cited to support the ruling (Exhibit 23 & 25).
11) ISSUE E: Malicious Prosecution
From the beginning of this case Judge Carpenter changed custody, issued restraining ordered supervised visitation all based on fraudulent reports , prima facia affidavits and motions all in violation of 18 USC - U.S. Code - Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure (January 2004) and MCR 2.114(a) the exculpatory evidence proved that Defendant Bruns was innocent of child abuse, neglect, threatened harm and attempted abduction of the minor child. Judge Carpenter and Referee Komar knowingly suppressed the defendant’s innocence despite the fact that the Defendant had three psychological evaluations stating the she could effectively parent her children, and despite the fact that the Plaintiff has a documented history of abuse and molestation to which he has admitted and despite the fact that he was court ordered to attend therapy before he could be considered as a custodial parent.


12) ISSUE E: DID JUDGES CONTINUE TO ADJUDICATE AFTER JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES WERE SUBMITTED?
Defendant Bruns Attorney Catherine Appel challenged Judge Carpenter’s authority to remove the children from the defendant custody on December 14, 2001 (Exhibit 19) without evidence or proof of neglect or abuse. Judge Carpenter advised Attorney Appel “If you don’t like my ruling you can always file and Appeal”
The docket reveals Judge Carpenter did not correct the court record by returning the minor children to the defendant’s custody. Judge Carpenter did not report GAL-Attorney Benedict, Attorney Richard Roane or Attorney Joan Irons and Kim Bruns fraud upon the court and perjury “to the proper authorities” as mandated by Judicial Canons and she did not sanction GAL-Attorney Benedict, Attorney Roane or Attorney Irons in any way for knowingly representing a guilty party and perpetrating a fraud upon the court.
Instead, the docket reveals Judge Carpenter knowingly awarded custody of the minor
child to Kim Bruns, who has a documented history of abuse. Awarding custody to a parent with a history of domestic violence and non-aggravated assault in violation of the judge’s mandate “to act in the best interest of the child.” Violates the VICTIMS’ RIGHTS AMENDMENT (C) Section 71.004 for the U.S. Constitution” and “MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT CUSTODY ACT”
13) ISSUE COMPLAINT
This complaint is effective, because the transcript and evidence are riddled with false accusations by all aforementioned judicial appointees’ toward the Defendant (Denise Bruns). The lower court assigned ringers: Aforementioned state employees appointed by the trial judge failed to separate fact from accusation and twist the evidence in favor of the Plaintiff (Kim Bruns). Clarke v Wayne Circuit Judge, 193 Mich 33; 159 NW 387 (1916). All continue to conspire to destroy the defendant’s relationship with her daughter. The lower court awarded custody to an unfit parent in violation of a Prima facie tort by awarding custody to an unfit parent ignoring substantial evidence to return the minor child to the defendant’s home where she was not abuse. The lower court intentional ignored evidence and intentionally maliciously prosecuted the defendant for fraudulent child abuse allegations, inflicted harm on the minor child and the defendant resulting in mental and emotional abuse, denial of legal representation, and costly legal fees for defending herself against false claims of abuse and protecting the minor child from further abuse from the plaintiff and the trial court. The lower court has intentionally extended this case for their own financial gain.
This complaint is both a Federal Questions Case (28U.S.C. §1331) and a Diversity Case (28 U.S.C. §1332) for losses and damages - and an ongoing child custody.
This is a complaint for relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 with pendant state claims, against the trial court, the defendant Denise Bruns submission of her financial form informing the court she was a 15 (fifteen) year stay-at-home mother without any income the court being fully advised the plaintiff was the only source of income during the fifteen year marriage denied the defendant paid legal representation, falsely accused of child abuse by judicial appointees legal professionals retained by this court, the plaintiff and municipality, and corporate conspirators, a certain judge in the lower court. The defendant was a victim of ineffective assistance of counsel, unlawful malicious prosecution, attorney fraud and perjury that usurped the judicial process, and a pattern and practice of extreme judicial bias.
For declaratory and injunctive relief – Certain judicial appointees, in conspiracy with each other, violated the Defendant and the minor children’s protected First Amendment right to civil redress, their right to a jury trial and due process rights by a pattern and practice of fraud, deceit, perjury, falsifying and manipulating official court records, and other depraved and degenerate acts including the seditious act of corrupt judges who work with Michigan Bar members in courtrooms to deny victims of the family court schemes any meaningful remedy, and, thereby, conspire to destroy the Constitution and civil redress.
14) RELIEF SOUGHT
Writ of Mandamus: issue orders to void judgments or vacate custody orders entered unlawfully awarded custody to Plaintiff based on overt fraud and perjury in “emergency ex-parte hearings” when no emergency existed, Abuse of Discretion and Orders Exceeding Jurisdiction: November 21, 2001, December 14, 2001, August 6, 2004,
October 28, 2005, January 11, 2006, December 2, 2007, December 11, 2007,
December 2, 2008, June 2, 2009 June 3, 2009, June 19, 2009, July 17, 2009.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court:
(1) RELIEF FROM INFERIOR STATE COURT’S FRAUD PERJURY: Exercise its Power of Superintending Control, and corroborated by the Exhibits allow Defendant relief from the above-listed violations of jurisdiction, issue the following orders
(2) the Rulings were void because they were made in unlawfully convened secret hearings
(3) The above orders Falsely accused the defendant of child abuse are void, based on the finding of the corroboration of Chief Administrative Judge Jones and CPS Worker retractions of her fraud, perjury of abuse and neglect allegations.
(4) The defendant has been cleared of all allegations of abuse.
(5) Pursuant to October 13 and November 9, 2004 order (Exhibit 1): Return the minor child Alida immediate to the sole legal & physical custody of the defendant as it existed before the fraud and perjury orders that exceeded jurisdiction unlawfully removed custody,
(6) Prosecute the Plaintiff Kim Bruns and Attorney Joan L. Irons under section - 1746 of title 28 United States Code – False Claims Act, willfully subscribes as true any material matter declaration, certificate, verification or statement under penalty of perjury is guilty and shall law be fined or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.

carpenter is corrupt kidnapps our children under the color of law, places children in the custody and care of those substaniated child abuser.

reluctant pro se litigant and victim of extreme pattern and practice of judicial bias and malicious prosecution that started with the Court denying Defendant a 15 (fifteen) year stay-at-home mother, legal representation paid for by the plaintiff who was the only source of income over the fifteen year marriage. An Original Action in the Supreme Court pursuant to (Lapeer Co Clerk v Lapeer Circuit Judges, 465 Mich 559 [2002]).’ as provided for by MCR 9.122(A) (2), to request this “Court to exercise its Power of Superintending Control” over the lower court. Defendant prays this “Court to exercise its Power of Superintending Control over the wrong doings of Plaintiff’s attorney and the trial court judge that participated in a pattern and practice of fraud upon the court, perjury and false attorney affidavits by Plaintiff and his attorney that usurped the judicial process, and judicial orders that exceeded jurisdiction, and judicial appointees that willfully made false claims and allegations that continue to destroy Defendant’s relationship with her daughter, the non-abusive parent, and awarded custody the daughter to the Plaintiff who has a documented history of abuse and sexual molestation of the daughter, and despite the fact that before he suborned the judge, Daniel J. DeWitt, Psy. D physiological recommendation states: states: “ I would not have a problem with this man continuing as custodial parent so long as he is held responsible to continue with family counseling as long as that is warranted by the emotional needs of the children.” Based on some undue influence the lower court awarded the plaintiff custody. (Exhibit attached)

The lower court’s orders were based on a fraudulent affidavit in violation of: 18 USC - U.S. Code - Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure (January 2004) and MCR 2.114(a). Attorney Irons knowingly submitted the fraudulant affidavit and Carpenter allowed the only parent without a history of abuse experience abuse by the attorney and judges in 17th Circuit Court Family Division.

This child wants to come home Carpenter believes in a higher power. She better believe in a higher power child abuse is a crime and hell is forever.