Presidential Proclamation after father contacts the White House from Brevard

Presidential Proclamation after father contacts the White House from Brevard

The Historic Titusville Courthouse halls of justice or injustice?
The Historic Titusville Courthouse halls of justice or injustice?
Credits:
The Objective Review / Joseph Kirk

The father sent videos of some of the events as links in correspondence to the White House about the adoption fraud and Title IV Funding fraud. Days later the President of the United States of America issued this proclamation specifically pointing out due process and Title IV.

For three long years now, Yvonne Howard, with the aid of conspiring Attorneys Joseph CulmerScarlett Davidson, Daniel Freyberg and Shari Wilson have conspired to deprive and defraud two prents of their child for an illegal adoption by Yvonne Howard.

© 2013 Nokia© 2013 Microsoft Corporation
Location: 506 s. palm , titusville, fl

28.609062284231 ; -80.809180811048

On April 5th 2010 Yvonne Howard and Attorney Scarlett Davidson Conspired to deprive the constitutionally protected right to be a parent. Together they filed a document, sworn under oath, containing false statements known to be false with the intentive purpose to gain an illegal adoption. That document was the first of many friviolous unheard motions and petitions containing fraud. The first document was a petition for temporary custody arising under Florida Statutes Chapter 63.

Upon the mother being served the mother immediately contacted the father. When the parents went to pick the child up from school the child was missing and in fact was hidden for over a half a month. The important fact here is that Yvonne Howard and Scarlett Davidson presented under oath to the court a document that stated the address of the parents was unknown.Despite the fact they filed that petition around April 5th of 2010, upon appearing in court on May 21st 2010, while still holding the child for ransom, Yvonne Howard told the court she knew the mother lived a few blocks away with her ex-husband, stepfather of the child’s mother, Bill Howard.

Deprivation of rights under color of law falls under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242. This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Yvonne Howard started with one attorney against one pro-se father and then employed another. At this point the pro-se father was now up against 3 attorneys for Yvonne Howard who were committing and/or aiding fraud for the purposes of an illegal adoption. Though the fraud and crime had much more until this point an article can only be so long. Therefore let us move forward in this 3 year crime spree and witness tampering.

Title 18, U.S.C. (United States Code), Section 241 is a federal statute designed to protect citizens from conspiracy to deprive rights. This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Florida Statutes Chapter 63 is the Florida Statutes governing adoptions. To file and progress such a petition it is required that a diligent search be performed when the address of the parents is unknown. No diligent search was ever performed. Read on as the fraud only begins there and never ceased. Summons are required to be filed for the parents on such a petition. However, not only did the petitioner state under oath on that document that the address of the parents was unknown but they only filed 2 summons for the mother. Furthermore, due to the diligence of the Brevard County Process servers the mother was found almost 30 days later.

Before we continue, in what can only be viewed as a wild and reckless crime spree, let us touch upon another Florida Statute. This is an overview of Florida Kidnapping Laws:

Florida defines the crime of kidnapping as the confinement, abduction, or imprisonment of another person against her or his will. The kidnapping must be committed “forcibly, secretly, or by threat” and without lawful authority. Furthermore, the person committing the crime must have the intent to (a) hold the kidnapped person for ransom or reward, or as a shield or hostage; (b) commit or facilitate the commission of any felony; (c) inflict bodily harm upon or terrorize the victim or another person; or (d) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function. For purposes of the statute, the confinement of a child less than 13 years old is “against her or his will” if the offender confines the child without the consent of his or her parent or legal guardian.

Shockingly, the offender Yvonne Howard violated not one but all four sections as defined. Yvonne Howard hid the child, in accordance with section (a) of the kidnapping statute, for reward of an attempt to illegally adopt the child right under the parents noses by stating in her petition she did not know where the parents were. If the process servers would not have found the mother 3 blocks away, due to Yvonne Howard’s perjury, Yvonne Howard would have obtained a default for an adoption right under the parent’s noses. Reward you ask? There are financial incentives to the tune of thousands of dollars for adopting an older child.

However we are not done with section (a) of the kidnapping statute yet. Yvonne Howard showed up on May 21st of 2010 and stated to the court she had no problem with the father. She then went on to say she had no problem with the mother seeing her child. She just didn’t want the mother to be able to take her out of town since she married a man in the army stationed in Texas. This means that Yvonne Howard took the child from school and hid her never to return to school for over a half a month from the father because she had no problems with the father as she testified May 21st 2010.

This moves us to section (b), ransom or shield you ask? Yvonne Howard was supposed to show up to court May 21st of 2010 with the child. Yvonne Howard stated to the court she did not know the address where she had the child and went on to say she would only return to her home with the child if it was OK? This is holding a child for ransom and telling the court she will only return to her home if she gets what she wants. The address of the home she was hiding the child at is still unknown today. Yvonne Howard implied to the court unless she got what she wanted no one would know where the child was. This is using a child as a shield and as a hostage. The child was 9 years old at the time.

Furthermore, Yvonne Howard violated section (c) as one week after the child went missing with her, she scared her so bad the blood left the child’s ligaments and the child’s fingers and toes turned white. This was medically documented. She terrorized the child and the parents. In doing all this she prevented law enforcement from finding the child with a missing child report.

Summing up the above, Yvonne Howard, according to her own words, kidnapped the child because she had no problems with the father. Yet she kidnapped the child as found as fact.

Florida statute 787.03 Interference with custody.—

(1) Whoever, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly takes or entices, or aids, abets, hires, or otherwise procures another to take or entice, any minor or any incompetent person from the custody of the minor’s or incompetent person’s parent, his or her guardian, a public agency having the lawful charge of the minor or incompetent person, or any other lawful custodian commits the offense of interference with custody and commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Honorable Judge Charlie Crawford found it as a fact Yvonne Howard was hiding the child and preventing visitation without any court order.

Florida Statutes defines perjury as:

Florida Statute 837.02 Perjury in official proceedings.—

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) Whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding that relates to the prosecution of a capital felony, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of the crime of perjury under subsection (1) or subsection (2), and the defendant’s mistaken belief that the statement was not material is not a defense.

Florida Statutes also defines it as:

Florida Statutes 92.525 Verification of documents; perjury by false written declaration, penalty.—
(1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished in the following manner:
(a) Under oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized under s. 92.50 to administer oaths; or
(b) By the signing of the written declaration prescribed in subsection (2).

(2) A written declaration means the following statement: “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing [document] and that the facts stated in it are true,” followed by the signature of the person making the declaration, except when a verification on information or belief is permitted by law, in which case the words “to the best of my knowledge and belief” may be added. The written declaration shall be printed or typed at the end of or immediately below the document being verified and above the signature of the person making the declaration.

(3) A person who knowingly makes a false declaration under subsection (2) is guilty of the crime of perjury by false written declaration, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) As used in this section:
(a) The term “administrative agency” means any department or agency of the state or any county, municipality, special district, or other political subdivision.
(b) The term “document” means any writing including, without limitation, any form, application, claim, notice, tax return, inventory, affidavit, pleading, or paper.
(c) The requirement that a document be verified means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect.

Upon the subject of fraud being brought up Attorney Scarlett Davidson abandoned the petition and filed another one. That petition carried more fraud and fabricating evidence. When the fraud was brought up again Attorney Scarlett Davidson then simulated legal process to stop trial and go to yet another new petition/motion that you can see in video for was not even a legal document. This violated several amendments to the State and Federal constitutions but specifically the 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, and 14th amendment of the United States constitution. It also violated Title 18 sections 241 and 242 of the United States Code. This being conspiring to deprive rights and then depriving them under color of law through simulated legal process which also stopped a trial on the day of defense before defense could present their side violating due process.

Florida’s Witness Tampering Statute is patterned on the Federal Witness Tampering Statute and you can look to Federal case law in interpreting the statute in absence of applicable state law cases.

Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant. Florida Statutes defines this charge as follows:

Florida Statute 914.22 Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant.–
(1) A person who knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, or offers pecuniary benefit or gain to another person, with intent to cause or induce any person to:
(a) Withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official investigation or official proceeding;
(b) Alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official investigation or official proceeding;
(c) Evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official investigation or an official proceeding;
(d) Be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process;
(e) Hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense or a violation of a condition of probation, parole, or release pending a judicial proceeding; or
(f) Testify untruthfully in an official investigation or an official proceeding,
commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

As you can see, this charge requires intent and knowledge. The offender must know that the victim is a witness, victim, or informant in some type of judicial proceeding, and the offender must act with the intent to get that person to alter their testimony, evade the court, or destroy evidence.

18 USC § 1512 – Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(a)(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—
(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—
(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) cause or induce any person to—
(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;
(iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or
(C) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—
(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;
(B) in the case of—
(i) an attempt to murder; or
(ii) the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;
imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and
(C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years.
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,, [1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,, [1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.
(f) For the purposes of this section—
(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
(g) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance—
(1) that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or
(2) that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant.
(h) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(i) A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.
(j) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

It has almost been a year at this point and the father has yet to have been heard or his witnesses. The father then subpoenaed Attorney Scarlett Davidson to the court house for a deposition under oath about all the fraudulent actions she had committed including fabricating evidence. Attorney Scarlett Davidson had the father arrested 1 hour before she was supposed to attend the deposition.

However it did not stop there as Attorney Scarlett Davidson then amended her petition to terminate the father’s parental rights for her client Yvonne Howard due to him being arrested at her request. That is correct she asked the court to terminate his parental rights for being in a county jail waiting to go to court due to her, the Attorney on the case for Yvonne Howard, having the father arrested.

Pattern and Practice falls under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141. This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.

Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:
1. Excessive Force
2. Discriminatory Harassment
3. False Arrest
4. Coercive Sexual Conduct
5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests

The father obtained a certified copy of Attorney Scarlett Davidson being cross examined by him. That transcript shows Attorney Scarlett Davidson testifying to witness tampering and perjury. Furthermore another document received from the Florida bar by the father was Attorney Scarlett Davidson’s response to his complaint. In that response Scarlett Davidson stated to the Florida Bar no one was trying to adopt the child and that no adoption petition was ever filed.

Strangely enough, Judge John Dean Moxley Jr., who’s previous reckless actions resulted in Alissa Blanton’s death, refused to notice in his adoption proceedings that the petitioner’s attorney told the Florida Bar she had not filed for an adoption while she was requesting an adoption plan. Judge Moxley was given a copy of those documents months before hand and set a hearing on it as if it was humorous to him. Judge Moxley then acted under color of law to prevent having a hearing on that too. This is concealing evidence with knowledge.

The father sent videos of some of the events as links in correspondence to the White House about the adoption fraud and Title IV Funding fraud. Days later the President of the United States of America issued this proclamation specifically pointing out due process and Title IV.

Presidential Proclamation — Law Day, 2013

LAW DAY, U.S.A., 2013

– – – – – – –

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

As a Nation, we are bound together not by the colors of our skin, the tenets of our faith, or the origins of our names. What unites us as Americans is our allegiance to an idea articulated more than two centuries ago: that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In the years since that declaration, we not only forged a Republic of, by, and for the people; we also set ourselves to the task of perfecting it, and bridging the meaning of those words with the realities of our time.

This Law Day, we look back on our long journey toward equality for all. We reflect on the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Abraham Lincoln 150 years ago to mend a Nation half-slave and half-free under the unifying promise of liberty. We remember when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stood in Lincoln’s shadow a century later and gave voice to a dream, sounding the call for an America that truly lives out the meaning of its founding creed. We honor the courageous men and women who fought to bring those ageless ideals of freedom and fairness into the rule of law — from the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act to Title IX and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Even now, that work is not yet finished. Opportunity remains painfully unequal for too many among us; justice too often goes undone. Law Day is a chance to reaffirm the critical role our courts have always played in addressing those wrongs and aligning our Nation with its first principles. Let us mark this occasion by celebrating that history, upholding the right to due process, and honoring all who have sustained our proud legal tradition.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in accordance with Public Law 87-20, as amended, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2013, as Law Day, U.S.A. I call upon all Americans to acknowledge the importance of our Nation’s legal and judicial systems with appropriate ceremonies and activities, and to display the flag of the United States in support of this national observance.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

~BARACK OBAMA

This has been another objective review.

Advertisements

About The Objective Review - Journalist Joseph Kirk
"so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent." ~John F. Kennedy Contributing to the people with passion and diligence through vigorous and tedious research to get the facts out for review. Political Correspondent for: General News Agency United Press Association News Examiner Demonstrating much prowess for informing the inquiring mind throughout the Republic of the United States of America. an accredited member of the General News Agency, United States Press Agency, United Press Association, US Press Association, The Examiner and The Objective Review. You can be confident that you have been objectively and fully informed. Correspondent Joseph Kirk: theobjectivereview@gmail.com

One Response to Presidential Proclamation after father contacts the White House from Brevard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: