Investigate Sacramento Superior Court and DCSS for civil rights and due process violations
The Issue
I am asking for your support in signing my petition for a thorough investigation on the policy and practices of cases adjudicated by the Sacramento County Child Support Agency and Sacramento County Superior Court-Family Law Division.
For proceedings that target the poor, disadvantaged, and using public assistance and federal disability income to formulate erroneous support enforcement. Socio-economic bias, abuse practices on the poor and the indigent as well as misappropriation and mismanagement of Federal Funds paid through the TITLE IV-D program of the Social Security Act.
Exceeding or overstepping judicial official capacity in a Federally Funded Child Support Courtroom-while adjudication custody hearings without stipulation of the parties is fraud upon the court and the whole judicial process.
Court systems receiving federal funds, allegedly may be in violation of Tittle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d, when they unnecessarily impose disparate harm on the basis of race or national origin. Fraud on the court has been perpetuated by the Sacramento County Superior Court and Child Support Services and the judicial machinery itself, has been tainted. Such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the fraud or makes material misrepresentation to the court. Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgment of that court. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F. 2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985).
A Sacramento County Superior Court-Child Support Commissioner's are of limited authority and statutes, and when it shows that the proceeding has exceeded its authority (jurisdiction) its orders and subsequent orders or judgments are voided. Lee V. An (2008) 168 Cal. App 588, 563. Challenging subject matter jurisdiction has no statute of limitations. California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 473d. As well in Federal Court 42 U.S.C 1983. As a matter of law, " A void act of judgment may be attacked in any forum, state or federal court, where is validity may be drawn in issue. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 [24 L.Ed.565].
California TITLE 22 CCR Section 11530(2)(3) Automatic Review by a Local Child Support Agency. (a) Any of the following changes in circumstances or combination of changes in circumstances shall be considered a basis for an automatic review for adjustment. (2) The Obligor's sole income is Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment, CALWORKS, or any other public assistance program for which eligibility is determined on the basis of need, and that income was used in determining the amount of the support order.
GOVERNEMENTAL MOTION: Means when a party is receiving WELFARE aka CalWORKs, SSI, public assistance etc.. the Local Child Support Agency is a party to the case. DCSS: Department of Child Support Services. LCSA : Local Child Support Agency. In October 2004, a Governmental motion filed by the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), to modify an order of $596.00 per month- (case number 0678671). The case was assigned to a Child Support Court Commissioner Matthew J. Gary designated for Dept.127, a Title IV-D federally funded court jurisdiction under the Social Security Act.
On December 1st, 2004, during the DCSS law and motion child support hearing, then Pro Tem Judge and attorney Bumni Awoniyi representing the father, initiated a custody proceeding, without stipulation of the parties in a TITLE-IV-D courtroom. Attorney and Pro Tem Judge filed her notice of representation limited scope to represent her client in a "child support hearing" only, the day of the hearing. At this point the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and LCSA failed to object to the disposition of the hearing. The case was continued to January 2005. That is when the child support Commissioner Matthew J. Gary, stripes custody by way of trespassing on the law and the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department-court bailiff by contacting the children's school to hand over the children to the father without due process of the law and stipulation of the parties. Mother, was ordered to pay $759.00 per month in support payments.
The court deprived the Mother of her children then ages 5 & 6, grossly disregard of the state and federal laws, as well as her civil rights. DCSS, failed to report and even challenged the CHILD SUPPORT COMMISSONER's Orders by trespassing on the law, and failed to object to the proceedings knowingly the court lacked SUBJECT matter jurisdiction. In March 2005, TITLE IV-D Child Support Commissioner ordered parties to sign a stipulation to 50/50 custody arraignment, when he knew he had violated the mother's due process rights and trespassed on the law. April 2007, Case number DCSS 0670493075-01, et al. another GOVERNMENTAL motion (petition) filed , to modify child support and change custody from 50/50 arrangement to sole custody to the father.
Since, the mother was receiving public assistance and food subsidies. PRO TEM Judge Bumni Awoniyi, dominated the proceedings by shifting court room to court room to have a custody hearing that particular day.
DCSS filed a Governmental Notice of Motion to change a support order on 07/20/2007 retroactively set to zero effective 02/01/2007, citing Mother is on public assistance with no other income. The Courts refused and there were no remedy. The DCSS filed over 15 motions to modify the orders, citing mother is receiving public assistance from 2007-2010, and the courts refused to modify the request with the exception to one year.
After Mother filed an unsuccessful appeal at the 3rd district court in Sacramento, CA, Child Support Commissioner Scott P. Harman assigned to the case with DCSS attorney assigned to the case filed a contempt petition to seek work but later dismissed. Throughout, the proceeding the Child Support Commissioner, Scott P. Harmon, calculated the father's 3 children and the mother's 2 children combined them together as if it was one case and divided payments to 1/3. Then the DCSS attorney representing the case objected to the order and the Child Support Commissioner ignored the request. It was clear he was retaliating against the Mother for filing an appeal. Knowingly, the Mother was receiving public assistance was in the form of federally cash and food subsidy, the Courts and DCSS has formulated a frivolous child support order which is now grossly and erroneously in arrears over $20,000 dollars and subsequently suspended the Mother's driver's license without a hearing which was a violation of her due process rights to challenge the validity of the orders.
In 2014, the Mother filed a Federal Law Suit (2:14-CV-1534 JAM AC PS), "Complaint for Relief and Motion to Void Orders" challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the Sacramento County Superior Court's and the Department of Child Support Services Law and Motion Proceedings. The Federal Court, which majority of the Magistrates, and Judges are former Sacramento Superior Court Judges, and or with some affiliation to the City, erroneously misconstrued the Mother's pleadings and later dismissed the case as "time barred." Then, Mother filed an unsuccessful Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, 9th Cr. Case No.: 15-15666, the court denied the appeal and dismissed it as frivolous, which basically was denied access to challenge the US Eastern District's courts ruling.
The Mother visited her local county representative with her well documented case on hand. There the representative wrote a letter on her behalf to the Courts Interim Court Executive Officer Tim Ainsworth. Later, it is believed that the court and the DCSS submitted a letter to the California Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend the Mother's driver's license-8 years after the fact of the alleged child support debt. Which she was not given the opportunity to challenge the validity of alleged child support orders. The State Legislator for her district, attempted but failed. So, in July 2015, the Mother filed a Governmental motion/petition at the Sacramento County Superior Court-Family Law Division to set aside, an order based on the courts lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CCP 473D. At first the court denied access to the mother citing the forms were outdated. Then, later she was able to obtained a court hearing, calendared for November 16, 2015.
The Mother requested a court reporter prior to the hearing, but to receive a voicemail message at 7:50 am the day of the hearing, by the Sacramento Superior Court Reporter, "Vanessa" in her voicemail message she states that, "she received my voicemail message.."."we actually did our scheduling, we don't have a reporter available, we are booked for this morning, um if you have any questions (916) 875-3461. I apologize for the inconvenience, but it's first come first serve, thanks" The Hearing was initially set for Commissioner Scott P. Harmon, in Department 127 (TITLE-IV-D courtroom) but it was shifted to Judge James Mize, Department 123 (Child Custody courtroom).
The Judge, knowingly had ex-parte communication with the mother, but insisted to preside over the case challenging jurisdiction and refused to void out the void orders. During that hearing with a court watcher, I requested that my case be heard with a court reporter. Of course he denied it and said that he would like to recap the hearing since I was late and the hearing was dismissed. So, I sat.. Overall, Judge James Mize, was very condescending, while he gestures his finger to his head, assuming he was telling me, either I was stupid or insane or perhaps telling me to get it through my head then goes on to say, what do you want this court to do? When I replied, he made a gesture with his finder to his head, for the 2nd time, for the 3rd time, etc. it appeared as if he was saying, get it through your head , of course I walked out of hearing. Seemingly, the Mother receives a non official court order written what appears to be a clerk or some sort, signed by Judge James Mize, endorsed but not filed in the official record.
I ask you to please sign this petition not only for myself but for those who have been harmed by the due process violations of the Sacramento County Superior Court Title IV-D program and Department of Child Support Services. Their actions has caused irreparable harm and damage to this family as well as her children. You can read more about the Sacramento County Superior Courts at: Sacramento Family Court Report. www.sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com
Thank you for your support.
The Issue
I am asking for your support in signing my petition for a thorough investigation on the policy and practices of cases adjudicated by the Sacramento County Child Support Agency and Sacramento County Superior Court-Family Law Division.
For proceedings that target the poor, disadvantaged, and using public assistance and federal disability income to formulate erroneous support enforcement. Socio-economic bias, abuse practices on the poor and the indigent as well as misappropriation and mismanagement of Federal Funds paid through the TITLE IV-D program of the Social Security Act.
Exceeding or overstepping judicial official capacity in a Federally Funded Child Support Courtroom-while adjudication custody hearings without stipulation of the parties is fraud upon the court and the whole judicial process.
Court systems receiving federal funds, allegedly may be in violation of Tittle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d, when they unnecessarily impose disparate harm on the basis of race or national origin. Fraud on the court has been perpetuated by the Sacramento County Superior Court and Child Support Services and the judicial machinery itself, has been tainted. Such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the fraud or makes material misrepresentation to the court. Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgment of that court. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F. 2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985).
A Sacramento County Superior Court-Child Support Commissioner's are of limited authority and statutes, and when it shows that the proceeding has exceeded its authority (jurisdiction) its orders and subsequent orders or judgments are voided. Lee V. An (2008) 168 Cal. App 588, 563. Challenging subject matter jurisdiction has no statute of limitations. California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 473d. As well in Federal Court 42 U.S.C 1983. As a matter of law, " A void act of judgment may be attacked in any forum, state or federal court, where is validity may be drawn in issue. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 [24 L.Ed.565].
California TITLE 22 CCR Section 11530(2)(3) Automatic Review by a Local Child Support Agency. (a) Any of the following changes in circumstances or combination of changes in circumstances shall be considered a basis for an automatic review for adjustment. (2) The Obligor's sole income is Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment, CALWORKS, or any other public assistance program for which eligibility is determined on the basis of need, and that income was used in determining the amount of the support order.
GOVERNEMENTAL MOTION: Means when a party is receiving WELFARE aka CalWORKs, SSI, public assistance etc.. the Local Child Support Agency is a party to the case. DCSS: Department of Child Support Services. LCSA : Local Child Support Agency. In October 2004, a Governmental motion filed by the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), to modify an order of $596.00 per month- (case number 0678671). The case was assigned to a Child Support Court Commissioner Matthew J. Gary designated for Dept.127, a Title IV-D federally funded court jurisdiction under the Social Security Act.
On December 1st, 2004, during the DCSS law and motion child support hearing, then Pro Tem Judge and attorney Bumni Awoniyi representing the father, initiated a custody proceeding, without stipulation of the parties in a TITLE-IV-D courtroom. Attorney and Pro Tem Judge filed her notice of representation limited scope to represent her client in a "child support hearing" only, the day of the hearing. At this point the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and LCSA failed to object to the disposition of the hearing. The case was continued to January 2005. That is when the child support Commissioner Matthew J. Gary, stripes custody by way of trespassing on the law and the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department-court bailiff by contacting the children's school to hand over the children to the father without due process of the law and stipulation of the parties. Mother, was ordered to pay $759.00 per month in support payments.
The court deprived the Mother of her children then ages 5 & 6, grossly disregard of the state and federal laws, as well as her civil rights. DCSS, failed to report and even challenged the CHILD SUPPORT COMMISSONER's Orders by trespassing on the law, and failed to object to the proceedings knowingly the court lacked SUBJECT matter jurisdiction. In March 2005, TITLE IV-D Child Support Commissioner ordered parties to sign a stipulation to 50/50 custody arraignment, when he knew he had violated the mother's due process rights and trespassed on the law. April 2007, Case number DCSS 0670493075-01, et al. another GOVERNMENTAL motion (petition) filed , to modify child support and change custody from 50/50 arrangement to sole custody to the father.
Since, the mother was receiving public assistance and food subsidies. PRO TEM Judge Bumni Awoniyi, dominated the proceedings by shifting court room to court room to have a custody hearing that particular day.
DCSS filed a Governmental Notice of Motion to change a support order on 07/20/2007 retroactively set to zero effective 02/01/2007, citing Mother is on public assistance with no other income. The Courts refused and there were no remedy. The DCSS filed over 15 motions to modify the orders, citing mother is receiving public assistance from 2007-2010, and the courts refused to modify the request with the exception to one year.
After Mother filed an unsuccessful appeal at the 3rd district court in Sacramento, CA, Child Support Commissioner Scott P. Harman assigned to the case with DCSS attorney assigned to the case filed a contempt petition to seek work but later dismissed. Throughout, the proceeding the Child Support Commissioner, Scott P. Harmon, calculated the father's 3 children and the mother's 2 children combined them together as if it was one case and divided payments to 1/3. Then the DCSS attorney representing the case objected to the order and the Child Support Commissioner ignored the request. It was clear he was retaliating against the Mother for filing an appeal. Knowingly, the Mother was receiving public assistance was in the form of federally cash and food subsidy, the Courts and DCSS has formulated a frivolous child support order which is now grossly and erroneously in arrears over $20,000 dollars and subsequently suspended the Mother's driver's license without a hearing which was a violation of her due process rights to challenge the validity of the orders.
In 2014, the Mother filed a Federal Law Suit (2:14-CV-1534 JAM AC PS), "Complaint for Relief and Motion to Void Orders" challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the Sacramento County Superior Court's and the Department of Child Support Services Law and Motion Proceedings. The Federal Court, which majority of the Magistrates, and Judges are former Sacramento Superior Court Judges, and or with some affiliation to the City, erroneously misconstrued the Mother's pleadings and later dismissed the case as "time barred." Then, Mother filed an unsuccessful Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, 9th Cr. Case No.: 15-15666, the court denied the appeal and dismissed it as frivolous, which basically was denied access to challenge the US Eastern District's courts ruling.
The Mother visited her local county representative with her well documented case on hand. There the representative wrote a letter on her behalf to the Courts Interim Court Executive Officer Tim Ainsworth. Later, it is believed that the court and the DCSS submitted a letter to the California Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend the Mother's driver's license-8 years after the fact of the alleged child support debt. Which she was not given the opportunity to challenge the validity of alleged child support orders. The State Legislator for her district, attempted but failed. So, in July 2015, the Mother filed a Governmental motion/petition at the Sacramento County Superior Court-Family Law Division to set aside, an order based on the courts lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CCP 473D. At first the court denied access to the mother citing the forms were outdated. Then, later she was able to obtained a court hearing, calendared for November 16, 2015.
The Mother requested a court reporter prior to the hearing, but to receive a voicemail message at 7:50 am the day of the hearing, by the Sacramento Superior Court Reporter, "Vanessa" in her voicemail message she states that, "she received my voicemail message.."."we actually did our scheduling, we don't have a reporter available, we are booked for this morning, um if you have any questions (916) 875-3461. I apologize for the inconvenience, but it's first come first serve, thanks" The Hearing was initially set for Commissioner Scott P. Harmon, in Department 127 (TITLE-IV-D courtroom) but it was shifted to Judge James Mize, Department 123 (Child Custody courtroom).
The Judge, knowingly had ex-parte communication with the mother, but insisted to preside over the case challenging jurisdiction and refused to void out the void orders. During that hearing with a court watcher, I requested that my case be heard with a court reporter. Of course he denied it and said that he would like to recap the hearing since I was late and the hearing was dismissed. So, I sat.. Overall, Judge James Mize, was very condescending, while he gestures his finger to his head, assuming he was telling me, either I was stupid or insane or perhaps telling me to get it through my head then goes on to say, what do you want this court to do? When I replied, he made a gesture with his finder to his head, for the 2nd time, for the 3rd time, etc. it appeared as if he was saying, get it through your head , of course I walked out of hearing. Seemingly, the Mother receives a non official court order written what appears to be a clerk or some sort, signed by Judge James Mize, endorsed but not filed in the official record.
I ask you to please sign this petition not only for myself but for those who have been harmed by the due process violations of the Sacramento County Superior Court Title IV-D program and Department of Child Support Services. Their actions has caused irreparable harm and damage to this family as well as her children. You can read more about the Sacramento County Superior Courts at: Sacramento Family Court Report. www.sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com
Thank you for your support.
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on May 22, 2016