Hey America!! Sorry to keep you waiting...
Well...I was going to be pretty nice to these people...you know, since they were about to lose and all, I thought it to be only fair..
HOWEVER...it would seem that DHS, in their usual fashion, of course, has once again decided to play dirty with these defendants. They are, of course, pushing that the drunk they want to receive the child now, all because he all of a sudden wants to play ball and jump through any possible DHS hoops he might encounter, but they have filed all the voicemails I left in anger on my caseworker's machine, the father's machine, and Dale Mays' machine, like this is gonna make a difference in whether they win or not....IT WON'T. They filed their permanency report with the sole intent of pissing on this author and infuriating him. It worked, of course, and after throwing my favorite waffle Iron at the wall and breaking it, I thought about it and caught it. To be filed, also today, will be a very interesting report of my very own...for the record, of course. This has not, of course, gone unnoticed by these defendants. Now they've gone too far...now my wife wants to be involved, 100 percent. Now we're BOTH goin' for the B***S, with no mercy, no less.
And so it begins...today.
This defendant, from sun up to sun down, is planning to file nearly 59 motions to this court. We'll start with these two winners, one of which, the Rescindment of Signatures motion, (withdrawal of consent), which of course didn't matter where the judge can deny or accept this motion is concerned...if it's filed with the court of record, it's effective, and nothing this trier of fact can say can change it.
We shall also be submitting the motion to correct motion" motion again today, but not the one concerning the snake Dale Mays, who, I repeat, will NOT be weaseling out of this subpoena this time....nononononono Daily the Snake Mays, you WILL be in attendance, I guarantee it. No, this one will be to declare moot all the motions I purposely filed with EFILE in order to make his Honor chuckle and think I had no idea what I was doing, and that, once again, on January 15th, he'd be able to cow these defendants. Nothing, ever, could be further from the truth. These people are so screwed on so many levels, they won't know what elevator to take to get there to stop it.
Oh, and Your Honor? In case you should be reading this, I would like to submit that you might just have a Solomon-grade dilemma on your hands. See, I'm pushing that blog thing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, as I feel there's more than enough merit there to warrant Constitutional investigation. I guarantee it will be heard too, I've discussed this over and over again with a Constitutional expert who bets on it. That means that all actions in this case will be put on FOREVER hold, until the matter is heard...that's what....a year or two, maybe more, down the road? Sorry DHS, no poster child for Adoption Saturday this year. The Dilemma for the judge? If, when I resubmit the document asking that the blog isn't considered to affect this case as evidence, if he honors that motion, half of the reasons used in the removal order are GONE BABY...and I believe that would be more than enough, considering the RECORDING OF THE ENTIRE INTERACTION, TO BE FILED AS EVIDENCE TODAY, will be more than enough to quash the rest of the order. If he denies the motion, this will drag on....and on....and on....for 1-3 more years...and no one will receive their piece of the action where this child belonging to DHS is concerned. I will be sure to write all who have been paying special attention to make sure they receive no monies for this child during that wait either....:D
yeah....there's more, believe it. I will, NATURALLY, be posting ALL.....DAY....LONG to keep you guys abreast of the happens.
Oh, almost forgot...here are two of the motions to be filed ...well, NOW.
COMES NOW, Christopher Bruce, in his MOTION TO CORRECT MOTIONS FILED ON A PREVIOUS DATE:
1. That on the date of the 26th of December, 2014, this defendant,
representing himself pro se, did file, with this court on the aforementioned
date, four motions.
2. That the defendant used a legal term incorrectly in three of these motions,
and would prefer to be forgiven this infraction, and be allowed to correct
them by replacing them with updated versions...
3. This also needs to be done for the record of the court; in order for this
defendant to appeal to this court’s decisions in our permanency hearing to
be held on January 15th, 2014
4. I request, then, as my relief, that any motion, filed on the date of the 26th,
with the exception of the motion to recuse this case, that all other motions
filed on the 26th of December be considered moot, and each motion filed
prior to this on the aforementioned date, that have already been removed
rom efile, be hereby stricken for consideration in this court’s records, and
that these new motions, filed on this date, 1/8/2015, be addressed instead.
/S/ Christopher Bruce
CHRISTOPHER BRUCE AND ELIZABETH BRUCE
********************************************************************************************
Here is the first motion the mother wanted badly to get in on. Take special note of the very last paragraph that's signed by the mother. In the first hearing addressing the rescindment of signatures, the judge dismissed it like so much balloon air, and asked the mother what she wanted to accomplish with it...the mother, of course, knowing this document to be full of legaleze, and a bit cowed by the judge, of course, stumbled for a legitimate answer...and came up with nothing but a couple of "Uh's...which of course, since she had signed this motion, was exactly what this judge hoped to accomplish with this question. Well, this one's about to be resubmitted, but not for this judge's approval. And yet, should he be curious about anything else, I'm sure the last paragraph will settle that....thanks for your contribution honey. I think it's gonna be a winner, for sure.
COMES NOW, Elizabeth Bruce in her motion to rescind signatures, nunc pro tunc,
1. Incidents involved with this motion:
a. Elizabeth Bruce was taken, with Trilynn Bruggeman, the child, from her home to Methodist Hospital, supposedly just for a pediatrician’s appointment. She was told by Emily Nieman and Amanda; two DHS Social workers; upon arrival at the hospital on Friday, July 18th 2014; that they would be waiting to get a room in which to check the child in. Social Worker Amanda left the hospital, and was no longer involved in the removal. After 72 hours at the hospital, when she was mentally and physically exhausted, Elizabeth was approached by Nieman, alone, when no one else was present as witness, hounded the mother to place the baby into adoption. When Elizabeth wouldn’t agree to that, she then stated that it was out of her hands, the child was in the court system already, and she would HAVE to sign the baby into foster care. Emily Nieman said she would read the order to her, then have her initial each line. The worker skipped over almost half of the document, only reading what she knew Elizabeth wouldn’t question, and had each line already filled in with X’s, to represent Elizabeth’s initials. Emily Nieman then handed Elizabeth a court order, already filled out for her, and was told to sign it. When Elizabeth again refused, Nieman stated that “If you don’t, the Judge will rule against you in court, and it won’t look good for you.” Elizabeth, never having had any legal issues, and who had never been in trouble with the law, rather that risk possible trouble, she chose to sign it, against her better judgement, and believed that she would be in trouble if she didn’t. This will be proven in Exhibit 1, the recording of this interaction.
b. Dale Mays, who was appointed by the court on August 22nd 2014, to represent Elizabeth; as well as serve her best interests, because she could not afford to hire her own; asked Elizabeth to sign a financial statement on September 5th, 2014, then e-filed the document onto her case against her best interests and without her knowledge, the same day. Elizabeth has never received a copy of this, nor has she been mailed one, either. Her andN the father were both indigent at the time, and, when Mays asked Elizabeth questions about her income, she had no clue why he was asking them, or that he had planned to file this document with the court. Because of this document, the judge, at the court hearing the parents had on October 21, 2014, concerning our Disposition, ordered Elizabeth as able to pay her attorney fees, because she made $700 a month gross with no expenses. She is now in possession of an apartment with enough expenses to reclaim her indigent status. These facts are apparent and will be shown in exhibits 2-5; the new financial affidavit, and Attorney Mays’ emails to his client, as well as the signed affidavit from September 5, 2014.
Elizabeth still is, to this day, not able to afford this, and she would have, had she but known what would arise out of it, never signed this document, she would have filed a new or more current financial statement with the court, so that the figures represented would have been more recent, as well as accurate.
2. Purpose
Elizabeth Bruce, being now of sound mind, hereby rescinds all signatures obtained under duress by Emily Nieman, social worker, for the Iowa Department of Human Services, and Attorney Dale Mays, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because Emily Nieman and Dale Mays were clothed with the authority of the state, when action was taken under "Color of State Law."
3. Statement of Elizabeth Bruce, concerning issue the first:
a. I was unaware of the legal effects and ramifications of the signing and giving verbal consent to DHS and other legal documents or consent involving the taking of my child. I was influenced by the misleading and deceptive wording of Emily Nieman and Amanda, DHS Social Workers, acting Under The Color of Law, who fraudulently obtained my signature and their implied verbal consent in all forms. These individuals willfully and knowingly failed to fully disclose to me their full intentions. These individuals influenced, misled and deceived me into trusting, agreeing and to sign documents. I was influenced by the common and widespread practice of deception by the above named individuals.
b. My signatures and implied verbal consents were fraudulently obtained by the above named individuals and associates who wrongfully detained my daughter, with the implied promise of reunification. They willfully and knowingly failed to fully disclosure to me the ramifications as well as the full effect of yielding consent. The actions of these individuals, caused extreme stress and lead to the CINA and the possible termination of parental rights, and threaten to place me in more financial difficulty that I already am, causing me to be unable to help myself.
c. That I am a natural born free sovereign United States citizen, a freeman and I am endowed by my Creator with numerous inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which rights are specifically identified in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the United States Constitution including my inalienable right to direct and control the upbringing of my daughter.
4. Statement concerning issue the second:
a. I was unaware of the legal effects and ramifications of the signing and giving verbal consent to attorney Dale Mays and other legal documents or consent involving the disclosure of my financial situation. I was influenced by the misleading and deceptive wording of Attorney Dale Mays, acting Under The Color of Law, who fraudulently obtained my signature and their implied verbal consent in all forms. This individual willfully and knowingly failed to fully disclose to me his full intentions. This individual influenced, misled and deceived me into trusting, agreeing and to sign documents. I was influenced by the common and widespread practice of deception by the above named individuals.
b. My signatures and implied verbal consents were fraudulently obtained by the above named individual and associates who deceitfully took advantage of my trust in my attorney, as well as my confidentiality, with the implied trust in my attorney that he only had by best interests in mind. He willfully and knowingly failed to fully disclosure to me the ramifications as well as the full effect of yielding consent. The actions of this individual, caused extreme stress and lead to only placing me in a worse situation financially, and threaten to place me in more financial difficulty that I already am, causing me to be unable to help myself, my husband, and my family to reunify properly.
c. That I am a natural born free sovereign United States citizen, a freeman and I am endowed by my Creator with numerous inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which rights are specifically identified in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the United States Constitution including my inalienable right to direct and control the upbringing of my daughter.
5. Supreme Court Decisions covering both issues present:
a. The Supreme Court has specifically recognized parental rights of custody and control. In the landmark decision of Meyer v. Nebraska, the Court stated that parents have a substantive due process right to direct the upbringing and education of their children shall not be infringed. Parents possess the right to direct their child's "destiny." Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925). The Supreme Court stated that natural parents have a "fundamental liberty interest...in the care, custody, and management of their child." Santosky v. Kramer, also protecting children's interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents.” Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999). Children have a Constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. Brokaw v. Mercer County, 7th Cir. (2000)
b. Social workers cannot deliberately remove children from their parents and place them with foster caregivers when the officials reasonably should have known such an action would cause harm to the child's mental or physical health. K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan (7th Cir. 1990)
c. The forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time; represents a serious infringement upon the rights of both. J.B. v. Washington County (10th Cir. 1997)
6. These rulings as they pertain to this motion:
a. The Court rulings leave no room for doubt as to the importance and protection of the rights of parents.
b. That by reason of the afore stated facts, I do hereby exercise my rights as a free sovereign U.S. citizen, upheld by various court decisions, to revoke, rescind, cancel and to render null and void, both currently and retroactively to the time of signing or otherwise implying consent, based upon the constructive fraud perpetrated upon me by Emily Nieman of the Iowa Department of Human Services and Dale Mays, of Benzoni Law, an Attorney.
c. The lack of full disclosure and fraudulent representations by DHS and Dale Mays vitiate those documents and verbal agreements in question with the signature of Elizabeth in which those agreements were breached, is hereby declared NULL and VOID as of this date, November 3rd, 2014.
7. Legal Definitions
a. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1856:
FRAUD, contracts, torts: Any trick or artifice employed by one person to induce another to fall into an error, or to detain him in it, so that he may make an agreement contrary to his interest. The fraud may consist either, first, in the misrepresentation, or, secondly, in the concealment of a material fact. Fraud, force and vexation, are odious in law. Booth, Real Actions, 250. Fraud gives no action, however, without damage; 3 T. R. 56; and in matters of contract it is merely a defense; it cannot in any case constitute a new contract. 7 Vez. 211; 2 Miles' Rep. 229. It is essentially ad hominem. 4 T. R. 337-8
Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit -- and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985) -- includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987)
2. Inalienable rights - Rights which are not capable of being surrendered
or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.
Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
8. A Public Declaration and Notice of Immediate Withdraw of Consent
a. I, Elizabeth Bruce, 1196 9th Street, Apt. 5, Des Moines., IA 50314, hereby declare in affidavit form, my full and complete renunciation and withdraw of all possible forms of consent to the unlawful creation of, operation of, and participation in, the current fraudulent, de facto, State and Federal “corporate bodies politic”.
b. This complete withdraw of consent includes all known and unknown fraudulent “unconscionable” agreements or contracts, past, present, or future, relating to any vessel, individual, actor, natural or artificial “person,” corporate “fiction,” commercial entity, legal fiction, legal term, trust, status, standing, station, or any other possible creative combination of carefully constructed “words of art,” CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MAXIMA, or other possible “color of law” misrepresentation of my existence and flesh and blood body, that are designed to replace my God given unalienable Rights, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, “Without Prejudice”
c. And that from this day forward, all issues, including all jurisdictional issues, arising from, relating to, or in regards to, the “presumption of consent” to the 14th Amendment corporate “person” of Federal United States “citizen” status, shall be considered ab initio - NULL, void, invalid and With explicit reservation of all of my Rights and waiver of none.
I now affix my signature to these affirmations:
/S/Elizabeth Bruce
Signature of Rescinding Party:
/S/Elizabeth Bruce, “Without Prejudice" U.C.C. 1-207
9, It’s widely believed (and shown as well at every opportunity by everyone in this court), that this court doesn’t think that I have the mental capacity to know what I’m asking for in presenting and signing this document, or have any idea what relief it is I seek with it. Unlike the impatient people of this court, my husband has taken the time to break down for me the ridiculously hard legal language for me and explained what every sentence means. I therefore declare that I know full well what I’m signing to, as well as everything I hope to gain from doing so. Should this court or this judge need any assistance in understanding this document, I suggest that you direct your questions to the Drake Law Library, where you’ll find all the help you need. I’ll be more than happy to wait for the rest of this court to catch up.
Signed, this date, 1/8/2015
/S/Elizabeth Bruce
