Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

IN THE COURT OF

Judge:________________________
Petitioner
Case Number:

Respondent

MOTION TO
VACATE THE FOREIGN SUPPORT ORDER

comes before this court Pro Per in the form of this Revised

Motion to Vacate the Support Order, dated , , as it has been “Null and

Voided” under established Federal Civil Procedure therefore it is no longer enforceable.

Manufacture/Creation of a fictitious obligation... (See18 USC sec'n 513(c) & 514

respectively. Attempts & Conspiracy to defraud the u.s. federal gov't (See 18 USC sec'n 371 &

42 USC sec'n 654). The False Claims Act (falsi crimen) 31 USC sec'n 3729) (See also Executive

order 13520).

Respectfully Submitted

______________________________
Signature line

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
STANDARDS OF REVIEW

 Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F 945, Miller vs. U.S. , 230 F. 486,489, Supreme Court Ruling there
can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional
Rights.

 Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24. The assertion of Federal Rights, when plainly and
reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.

 Jenkins v. McKeithern 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969), Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 151 F.2d
240, and Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 747 (1969). Pro se pleadings are to be considered
without regard to technicality. Pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high
standards of perfection as lawyers.

 Sperry v. State of Florida ex re. The Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379, 83 S. Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed. 2d
428 (1963). Where proceeding is administrative in nature, non-lawyers are authorized to
provide representation.

 Warnock v. Pecos County, 88 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 07/08/1996), Ex parte Young, 209 U.S.
123, 155-56, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S. Ct. 441 (1908); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 664, 39
L. Ed. 2d 662, 94 S. Ct. 1347 (1974); Brennan v. Stewart, 834 F.2d 1248, 1252 (5th Cir.
1988). The Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective
relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.

 Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990). Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State
Court Cases.

 Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980), was a case decided by the United States
Supreme Court, in which the court held that a municipality has no immunity from liability
under Section 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good
faith of its officers as a defense to such liability.

 Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923). This fundamental right includes a
fundamental constitutionally protected liberty interest in ongoing “companionship and
society” with the child, and this includes protection of the relationship between the parent
and child even if the child is in state custody.

 HARDWICK V. VREEKEN 14, Case: 15-55563, 01/03/2017, ID: 10251467,


DktEntry: 46-1, Page 13 of 20
No official with an IQ greater than room temperature in Alaska could claim that he or she did
not know that the conduct at the center of this case violated both state and federal law. The
social workers in this case are alleged to have knowingly and maliciously violated the law in
their attempt to sever Preslie’s protected relationship with her mother. Perjury is a crime
under both federal and California state law, as is the knowing submission of false evidence to
a court. 18 U.S.C. § 1621; Cal. Penal Code § 118. Both crimes make no distinction between
criminal and civil proceedings. This malicious criminal behavior is hardly conduct for which
qualified immunity is either justified or appropriate.