You cannot use information available to you because of your job, but not available to the public, for your personal benefit or for the benefit of others. § 112.313(8), Fla. Stat. MISUSE OF OFFICE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW 2003 FL titleXLVI crimes chapter 787 787.03 False complaint Fwd: ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT (Fla. Stat. § 775.085 Enhances penalty for crimes evidencing "prejudice based on the race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, mental or physical disability, or advanced age of the victim. The duty to report misconduct is one of the ethical duties imposed on attorneys in the United States by the rules governing professional responsibility http://www.iape.org/index.php http://definitions.uslegal. com/w/willful-professional- misconduct/ Rule 8.3—Reporting Professional Misconduct (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority. (b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority. (c) This rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 or other law. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309048893 Cases 2005-DR-014270-O (Paternity) P I I Lead Attorneys Petitioner SHAW, SHEILA J BARBARA FANCHER(LIMITED) JONES, Esquire Retained 407-849-1133(W) Respondent GONZALEZ, CARLOS A RUSSELL SCOTT HERSHKOWITZ, Esquire Retained 407-786-2889(W) E & O C & O C DISPOSITIONS 11/10/ Final Order of Dismissal After Hearing 11/10/ Final Order of Dismissal After Hearing 2004 OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 01/01/ Case Reassigned to Division 2007 Case Reassigned to Division|CASE REASSIGNED TO JUDGE 38 02/11/ Notice 2005 Notice|NOTICE OF CONCLUSION OF REPRESENTATION 11/10/ Final Order of Dismissal After Hearing 11/10/ Final Order of Dismissal After Hearing 2004 Final Order of Dismissal After Hearing|FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AFTER HEARING RECORDED RELATED CASES - PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL OR PROFESSION MISCONDUCT-FRAUD ON THE COURTS- PERSONAL AND BUSINESS TORT RELATED-ADVERSARIAL TORTS OR MATERNAL INJURIES WITH INTENT http://whitecollarcrimecentercomplaint.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-florida-bar-attorneyconsumer_29.html http://whitecollarcrimecentercomplaint.blogspot.com/2015/11/any-police-department-receiving-federal.html http://whitecollarcrimecentercomplaint.blogspot.com/2015/11/family-violence-prevention-act-victim.html http://whitecollarcrimecentercomplaint.blogspot.com/2015/10/false-cpi-personal-torts-tort-of-fraud.html http://whitecollarcrimecentercomplaint.blogspot.com/2015/09/jarrid-williams-probation-dc-346801.html http://whitecollarcrimecentercomplaint.blogspot.com/201 Federal laws Federal law 42 U.S.C. § 5772 & 42 U.S.C. § 5780 Federal law (42 U.S.C. § 5772) defines a "missing child" as "any individual less than 18 years of age whose whereabouts are unknown to such individual"s legal custodian." RE: CF OPERATING PROCEDURE NO. 180-4 False CPI, PERSONAL TORTS, TORT OF FRAUD Section 39.205, Florida Statutes (F.S.) states what the department has to do concerning false reporting for children and Section 415.111, F.S. addresses with false reporting for adults. 827.03 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties.— intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child; or (c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child. A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, http://definitions.uslegal. com/w/willful-professional- misconduct PRINCIPAL CASES - HOME STATE ORIGIN INDIANA REGISTER OF ACTIONS CASE NO. 1993-CF-008458-AO cases: OC9901243 PA cases OC9901243 and 02-83719047104532 PA Cause number 53C079704JP00189 IN 2005-01472 FL 2010-DP 1170 FL INDIANA CASE NUMBERS Paternity case file no J18720 filed 11-16-71/11-24-71 order date Shirley Ann Shaw/Claude R. Jackson mariired December 31st, 1978 marriage license number CDR-94-114 Shirley Ann Shaw Joseph Nikolaenko marriage ended June 30, 1995 Buddmeeks Ctr Domestic case DCM-91-6993 1991 marriage license number 02D01-9707-ML-001399 07/08/97 married on 07/26/1997 DOB 04/21/46 Joseph Nikolaenko mother Michlaina Nikolaenko 5012 Pacer Run Ft. Wayne, IN Gwedolyn Ann Brown DOB 04/12/60 son Tyrese Dartanvan Brown father Thomas Lewis Brown mother Mary Lee Spann 3054 Schele Ave Ft. Wayne, IN Dorothy Jackson Claude Jackson married July 2, 1983 Divorce petition 02C01-9110-D1-1313 CDR-91-1313 "...Additionally, whether substantive or procedural misconduct is the basis for the sanction, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing before dismissing a case with prejudice,8 and must make an express finding that the conduct forming the basis for the dismissal was willful or done in bad faith or was deliberate and in contumacious disregard of the court’s authority.9 Appellate courts do not hesitate to reverse and remand for noncompliance with these requirements. Substantive misconduct is and should be subject to less tolerance before dismissal with prejudice is warranted. Lying about facts central to the case, including the nature and extent of one’s own injuries, simply cannot be tolerated and, frequently, cannot be remedied by any lesser sanction than dismissal with prejudice." Cases: administrative misconduct, judicial misconduct issues circumventing TITLE 42 SECTIONS 666 AND 654, 657 COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION CITATION FROM THE FEDERAL STATUTE OF THE US CODE § 657. Distribution of collected support 50 STATE TABLE: CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/child-support-process-administrative-vs-judicial.aspx Child support orders can be established by the courts or by an administrative entity. In the administrative process, the state child support agency, also referred to as the IV-D agency, establishes the support order, usually without a hearing. In the judicial process, the court sets the order. Many states use a hybrid, or quasi-judicial process, which incorporates some judicial elements mixed with administrative processes. For example, many states may use an administrative forum, such as an attorney general’s office, but may incorporate a judicial element, such as an attorney. The three elements that determine where a process falls on the administrative/judicial continuum are 1) the forum used, 2) presiding officer, and 3) attorney involvement. The forum used simply means where the child support order is processed. Forums can include a courtroom, an administrative office of the court, the offices of an executive branch division such as the office of administrative hearings or attorney general’s office, the IV-D umbrella agency, or the IV-D agency itself. The presiding officer is the person who is in charge of supervising and running the process. Attorney involvement refers to whether or not an attorney represents the IV-D agency during the process. A state with a highly judicial process is one in which the forum used is a courtroom, the presiding officer is a judge, and the IV-D agency is represented by an attorney. States may be quasi-judicial, which means that the forum used may be a courtroom, but instead of a judge presiding, it may be a hearing officer who oversees the process. It is difficult to categorize states as fully judicial or fully administrative as the process differs depending on the type of order being processed. For example, there may be different processes for contested (challenged) and uncontested orders. Cases 2002-DR-050423-1 SHAW, SHEILA J 03/0912002 VS, COLEMAN, Family JIMMY L Income Deduction 0 Closed - Non SRS 2002-DR-006249-0 SHAW, SHEILA J 04124/2002 Paternity vs. GONZALEZ, Div 38 Closed - SRS CARLOS A Kest, Sally D M SHAW, SHEILA 08/29/2005 Paternity DOR JOCELYN VS. Div42 Re-Closed GONZALEZ, Evans, Robert M CARLOS ALBERTO SHAW, SHEILA 01/06/2010 Child Support DOR JOCELYN Div 42 Reopened Other KARENA vs. Evans, Robert M WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN SHAW, SHEILA 04112/2011 Domestic Violence w JOCELYN VS. Div 44 Closed - SRS WILLIAMS, JARRID Jordan, John E DESHAUN 2005-DR-014270-0 2010-DR-000170-0 2011-0R-006367-0 CIRCUMVENTING COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT UNDER (1) CIVIL ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SEC. 2000e-6. [Section 707] (a) Complaint... (2) STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CF OPERATING PROCEDURE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES NO. 180-4 TALLAHASSEE, October 29, 2007 Inspector General MANDATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (3) The following is an abstract from the Administration for Children and Families' website and the Administration for Child Support Enforcement, both of which publish all statutory guidelines for the collection of child support and payments thereof to the recipient. collection and distribution of child support payments Within this site it is defined as follows Frequently Asked Questions about Child Support Collection/Distribution For answers to questions about your own case, you need to check with your local or state child support office. State CSE agency telephone numbers and addresses are at (English):http://ocse3.acf.dhhs.gov/int/ directories/ext/IVd_list.cfm (Spanish):http://ocse3.acf.dhhs.gov/int/ directories/ext/Espanol_IVd_ list.cfm State CSE agency web site links are on our web site at the following location: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/ programs/cse/extinf.htm#exta The following general information may be helpful: If the state collects more in a month than is to be paid to the family for their current and past due support, the rest of the money can be used to repay the state and federal governments for cash assistance * AFDC or TANF * that a family received. Also, child support agencies can recover all or part of the costs of their services from people who are not in a cash assistance program. These can include the cost of legal work done by agency attorneys or the costs of locating a parent, for example. The money may be deducted from the child support payment, or it may be collected from the noncustodial parent. For more information on changes in the law and how they may affect you, as well as the cost recovery practices of your State, you should contact your State child support enforcement agency. atty general complaint sent regarding misconduct( SAME ATTORNEY SAME FIRM WITH KNOWLEDGE OF PRIOR CASES-http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/32803-fl-ana-tangelrodriguez-1255736.html)/Duty to Report Lawyer Misconduct--Duty to Supervise--Responsibilities of Members of Law Firm Management Committees; These statutes include: Section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Police Misconduct Provision), 42 U.S.C. § 14141, which authorizes the Department to file suit challenging a pattern or practice of misconduct by law enforcement officers (or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles) that deprives persons of constitutional or federal statutory rights; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., which prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance (including law enforcement agencies) from discriminating on the basis of race, color, (18 usc 2326)REAL CASES VS. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION/IMPLICATION http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/working-group-reports/intellectual-property-and-tech/19980128_Telemarketing_Fraud.pdf (http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/deadbeatparentspunishmentact/ ATTACHED DOCUMENTATION OF THE STATUTORY GUIDELINES) whereas there was exhibited criminal non support by the Respondent, Carlos Alberto Gonzales, is defined as willfully, knowingly and with specific intent did evade a financial acknowledgement and affidavit which was signed as of March of 2005 (willfulness is a " knowing and intentional violation of a known legal duty.") The level of proof for a criminal non-support action is "beyond a reasonable doubt". This means that the prosecutor must be able to see a high level of evidence of: the identity of the absent parent/defendant, the absent parent/defendant's ability to pay the amount of support ordered, and the lack of payments made. ...A parent commits the crime of nonsupport if such parent knowingly fails to provide, without good cause, adequate support which such parent is legally obligated to provide for his child or stepchild who is not otherwise emancipated by operation of law. Criminal nonsupport is a class A misdemeanor, unless the person obligated to pay child support commits the crime of nonsupport in each of six individual months within any twelve-month period, or the total arrearage is in excess of five thousand dollars, in either of which case it is a class D felony in some states. Deadbeat Parent Punishment Act , making non-support in some interstate cases a federal felony offense RE: Abuse of process complaint filed against Dr. Grove re: Isis Shaw Fwd: PRACTITIONER OF RECORD ON FILE THE DATE OF ALLEGED KIDNAPPING & MISSING PERSONS COMPLAINT 02/03/2011 BY FELICIA HANDLEY Fwd: caught.net AFFIDAVIT ATTACHED REGARDING POLICE MISCONDUCT Re: color of law violations Florida statutes 112/medicaid identification number for Isis neonatal records Fwd: WRIT OF HABAES CORPUS CONTESTING CUSTODY ORDER 2003 FL title XLVI crimes chapter 787 787.03 The act contains 11 titles, or sections, ranging from additional corporate board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the law. Harvey Pitt, the 26th chairman of the SEC, led the SEC in the adoption of dozens of rules to implement the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. It created a new, quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/mrpc/MRPCSubjectGuide.authcheckdam.pdf http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.html Case notes: (1) http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/National_Deadbeat_Dad_List Federal Child Support Laws There are two federal child support laws that dictate what can and should be done with fathers who aren't paying child support. The Child Support Recovery Act The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 prescribes misdemeanor penalties for parents who fail to pay child support. For a court to levy these penalties, the parent must be required by a court order to pay child support, and there must be documented evidence of said parent's failure to pay. The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 prescribes felony punishments for nonpaying parents who cross state lines in an attempt to evade making child support payments. For prosecution, multiple state's law enforcement and child support agencies work together to locate and return the nonpaying parent to the state in which he owes child support. For prosecution, the nonpaying parent must owe more than $5,000, be able to pay the overdue support, have intentionally not made required payments and have crossed state lines to avoid making payments. State-Level Enforcement Financial support is considered the right of the child and not the parent. Therefore, child support failure-to-pay proceedings are managed by each state's child support enforcement agency on behalf of the child and child support laws vary from one state to another. Some agencies will assist you with obtaining a court order declaring the child's right to financial support, while others require that you complete this step on your own. Historical data is indicative of non cooperation by the nonparents, no punitive father action toward meeting financial obligation or statutory code. Jarrid Deshaun Williams, attempted to fabricate medical records and did in fact obstruct medical care with intent to inflict personal injury as a means of punishment and discredit the mother’s care of her daughter, omitted case history within DCF records include:absent advance directives from practitioners of which the child was a patient 9457320158 (RFA CASE NUMBER 1143172973) Mental cruelty was exhibited, a pattern of abuse that the primary residential parents, Jarrid Deshaun Williams and Carlos Alberto Gonzalez, maintained for a period of more than six months, throughout attempts to arbitrate on terms of mutual civility which was unattainable and my entitled rights, as the mother,natural parent, those inalienable rights were restrained from me causing gross infliction of intentional personal mental distress and mental cruelty towards the children and myself by the biological fathers after the fathers had maintained several years of nonsupport and absent contribution towards the child’s mental and financial well being as illustrated in court proceedings in division 42, Orange County, Florida. The behavior of which the attempted direction of arbitration was directed towards the mother as retaliatory behavior due to previous attempts to collect child support over several years regarding Michyl Jacob E. Shaw and Isis Jashuana C. J. Shaw. Extensive days and hours of obstructed communication and visitation with children through arbitration methods and as discussed with the fathers on several occasions to again fabricate mental distress alleged in a third party complaint, that the fathers did in fact intentional create situations to deny communication with intent to retaliate and create offensive behavior situations with third parties. Regarding the precipitating child support arrears hearing, in the Carlos Alberto Gonzalez case on 02/14/2011, to include Division and Judicial Representative Heard in Division 42, Ninth Circuity, Orange County, Orlando, Florida 32801 Judicial Hearing Officer: George Winslow, in Division 42 Judge Evans;division 42 case number changed, Case No 02DR6249 NOW 05-17420, regarding principal criminal judicial criminal activity to aid/assist criminal nonsupport George Winslow Regarding delayed child support, the employer/income deduction order modification,the amount of child support set at $30.69 per week due to unemployment, in the case of Jarrid Deshaun Williams, had not been adjusted or set at COLA as of the 11th day of February of 2010 when the order setting non jury trial for matters of paternity, F.S. 742.10 Establishment of paternity for children born out of wedlock. it was set on the 1st day of April of 2010, whereas the child’s date of birth for Isis Jashauna Camirin Jewel Shaw is the 29th day of January of 2007, a period of more than three years prior to the date the child support order was entered during which time the non-parent was unemployed. The mother, Dr. Sheila Jocelyn Karena Shaw, had been supporting the child from post- delivery including medical insurance payments that until April 30th of 2011 were solely in the mother’s name and responsibility, a post delivery bill of$ 9780 from Winnie Palmer Hospital, Orlando, Florida, of which the non-parent has refused to make payments towards aside from all other responsibilities incurred prior, and post-delivery. A writ of habas corpus, as defined in chapters 32 and 90-92.11 F.S., causes for immediate action and remedy by the court for violations of those rights and liberties, that are fundamental and should be enforced by law enforcement agencies, of which precedent case laws regarding child support obligations, visitations and the rights of the mother were infracted statutory code. Attached are the letters and review dates regarding an adjustment hearing of the order child-support , for Isis Jashauna Camirin Jewel Shaw, set on April 1st of 2010. Statutory Codes including The Parental Rights Amendment of the federal Constitution and the Florida State Constitution section 23 (complaint regarding violations of privacy provisions, privacy rights) 92.02-92.15, 92.19 temporary custody must meet constitutional test, the non-parent must demonstrate that he has met punitative father actions, paternity obligations including financial support, (Purpose) The writ of habas corpos is being filed in this case regarding use of a writ of habas corpos "whereas the parent has been deprived of their fundamental rights, fundamental liberty, interest of natural parents, in the the care, custody and management of their children without due process, precedent case; Santosky v. Bernhardt S. Karmer, 455 U.S.745 (1982) Whereas the court dockets of division 42, family court matters clear and visibly shows that the non-parent had not met demonstrative constitutional test regarding financial obligations and that pre-screening was inadequate,and there was manipulation of records including child support obligations, require program health records including neonatal medical records to date health practitioner records required for DCF programs including 4C childcare applications, program participation requirements, that those records where not presented in case number DP1140 intentionally towards the benefit of the non-parent and that administrative powers had not been enforced in collection of punitative father obligations when they could have been availed to prevent unconscionable delay in application,enforcement without judicial action. (2)Case No 02DR6249 NOW 05-17420 WRIT COMPLAINT AGAINST GEORGE WINSLOW, JR., JUDICIAL HEARING OFFICER, NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASE NO DR-05-14270, COMPLAINT AGAINST CLAUDIA HERNADEZ FW: your ltr to counsel FW: nonparents Cases/Clerk of Court Fw: FL Statutes 90.21-90.35 DCF administrative powers(92.02-92.15, 92.19) FW: case no DP1140Writs/COLOR OF LAW COMPLAINTS Title VI of the Civil Rights Act states that "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." In February 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." In a separate memorandum, President Clinton identified Title VI as one of several federal laws already in existence that can help "to prevent minority communities and low-income communities from being subject to disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects." There are several basic differences between EPA's responsibilities under Title VI and under Executive Order 12898: Title VI Title VI prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance (e.g., states, universities, local governments) from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin in their programs or activities. Title VI is a federal law that applies to federal financial assistance recipients (i.e., persons or entities that receive EPA financial assistance) and not to EPA itself as the Executive Order does. Title VI allows persons to file administrative complaints with the federal departments and agencies that provide financial assistance alleging discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by recipients of federal funds. Under Title VI, EPA has a responsibility to ensure that its funds are not being used to subsidize discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. This prohibition against discrimination under Title VI has been a statutory mandate since 1964 and EPA has had Title VI regulations since 1973. EPA's Office of Civil Rights is responsible for the Agency's administration of Title VI, including investigation of such DIVISION 42 CASE NUMBER CHANGED Case No 02DR6249 NOW 05-17420 Fw: REGARDING "PRINCIPAL"CRIMINAL JUDICAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO AID/ASSIST CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT George Winslow Trial or Ajudication Errors Dates of Petitioner Responding are inaccurate, date extends from February 14th 2011, February 15th, 2011 March 28th,20100 (10 days after initial hearing date) not September 12, 2011. intentional mis-statement of the date entered for reason of subsequent initiation of another case involving the minor Mockery of the law-implied Veil of Ignorance regarding formation of the law Manipulation of records, Florida Statute 112, Change in case numbers whereas there was is a "highly visible" evidenced by court dockets and records retained by DCF illustrating no support order until one was entered in November of 2010 also records retained by the local Orange County OCSE office. from the acknowledgement of paternity to date of order was more than ten years regarding the age of the child whereas the minor's age, as a minority disability should have expedited a response time that no voluntary action on behalf the father was made, No inquiry or evidenced was made to the father regarding any payments of such which were not made Abuse of discretionary free will or exercise of legal authority and lack of impartial judgement by George Winslow, Jr. specific performane of which the law was intended regarding financial obligation unconcionable delay in entering a current support order, retroactive child support order, or administrative remedy regarding arrears, the child's entitlement to equal enforcement of the laws available and applied Uniform Laws Case No 02DR6249 Once paternity is established legally, a child gains legal rights and privileges If the father is willing to sign documents to acknowledge paternity and agree to support, then enforcement can proceed by an income withholding order. The Respondent requested genetic testing, whereas the results were submitted to the court, and the biological father. Establishing paternity establishes a financial commitment from the father to the child Criminal Nonsupport (568.040) Criminal nonsupport is defined as knowingly fails to provide, without good cause, adequate support for his spouse; a parent commits the crime of nonsupport if such parent knowingly fails to provide, without good cause, adequate support which such parent is legally obligated to provide for his child or stepchild who is not otherwise emancipated by operation of law. Criminal nonsupport is a class A misdemeanor, unless the person obligated to pay child support commits the crime of nonsupport in each of six individual months within any twelve-month period, or the total arrearage is in excess of five thousand dollars, in either of which case it is a class D felony. 1. A criminal non-support action may be filed either as a misdemeanor or a felony offense Misdemeanor, 1st degree Criteria: fails to provide adequate support, and ability to pay based on evidence presented to county Prosecutor. Decision to prosecute is made by the county Prosecutor Penalties: Maximum $1000.00 fine Maximum six months jail time Felony, 4th degree Criteria: Absent parent/defendant has previously plead guilty or been convicted of felony non-support Penalties: O.R.C., section 2929.11 Maximum $2500.00 fine Maximum 5 years in prison Felony, 5th degree Criteria: absent parent/defendant has previously plead guilty or been convicted of misdemeanor non-support, or if the arrearage is equal to the amount of support ordered for an accumulated period of 26 weeks out of 104 consecutive weeks Penalties: O.R.C., section 2929.11 Maximum $2500.00 fine Maximum 5 years in prison 2. Level of Proof The level of proof for a criminal non-support action is "beyond a reasonable doubt". This means that the prosecutor must be able to see a high level of evidence of: the identity of the absent parent/defendant, the absent parent/defendant's ability to pay the amount of support ordered, and the lack of payments made. 3. Venue Location where the crime occurred. The crime is the lack of payments being made to the child , so cases are normally filed in the county where the custodial parent and child or children reside. Personal jurisdiction over the absent parent/defendant required: long arm jurisdiction over the absent parent, the absent parent is still in Ohio, making local service of a summons or warrant possible, or it becomes possible to serve the absent parent/defendant with a summons or warrant while that person is physically in Ohio, even for a short period of time. (3) Central Region Karlene Cole-Palmer CLS Regional Director Children’s Legal Services Department of Children and Families 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S1114 Orlando, Florida 32801 Office: (407) 245-0530 E-mail: Karlene_Cole-Palmer@dcf.state.fl.us Karlene Cole-Palmer, I spoke with John Hammet regarding the inquiry your agency's CPI made when she called my mother, Shirley Ann Shaw-Wetzel, (formerly Shirley Ann Shaw-Nikolaenko), whereas she inquired about my academic credentials, title, and if I had any history of mental illness ill respective to any proper investigative measures, an act of negligence, and very offensively as well as ignorantly stated in belief as to whether my educational background was valid. None of which is relative to the lack of contact that should have been made to the Orange County School Board Division of Home Education and Principal regarding the facts of Orange County District Schools, government supervised programs or nonjurisdictional programs, school choice, parental choice or dual enrollment programs, again none of which was brought to the juvenile court proceeds or information that was intentionally with knowledge omitted from proceeding during which false statement were made against myself the children's mother. Again absent neonatal child advance directives from practitioners and daycare providers of which mandatory reporting guidelines are a policy in reporting any child abuse and neglect, none (childwelfare.gov and https://www.childwelfare.gov/responding/mandated.cfm) The following complaint detail further information regarding my complaint. DCF John Hammett program administer 4075632381 RE: the most recent contact from the Orlando area CPI 2002-DR-050423-1 SHAW, SHEILA J 03/0912002 VS, COLEMAN, Family JIMMY L Income Deduction 0 Closed - Non SRS 2002-DR-006249-0 SHAW, SHEILA J 04124/2002 Paternity vs. GONZALEZ, Div 38 Closed - SRS CARLOS A Kest, Sally D M SHAW, SHEILA 08/29/2005 Paternity DOR JOCELYN VS. Div42 Re-Closed GONZALEZ, Evans, Robert M CARLOS ALBERTO SHAW, SHEILA 01/06/2010 Child Support DOR JOCELYN Div 42 Reopened Other KARENA vs. Evans, Robert M WILLIAMS, JARRID DESHAUN SHAW, SHEILA 04112/2011 Domestic Violence w JOCELYN VS. Div 44 Closed - SRS WILLIAMS, JARRID Jordan, John E DESHAUN 2005-DR-014270-0 2010-DR-000170-0 2011-0R-006367-0 previous CPI complaint regarding Felicia Handley was forwarding regarding her malicious lie to obtain court venue to not only commit a hate crime but to commit fraud on the court and exploit the children in the aforementioned cases ALL REPRESENTING PARTIES HAD ACCESS TO THE FLORIDA ORANGE COUNTY CLERK OF THE COURT REGISTERS OF ACTION, A DUTY OF CARE HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE OTHER PARTIES, AND WITH KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT TO OMIT INFORMATION THAT WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED SOME OF THE BIASEDNESS THE JUDGE HELD DUE TO FELICIA HANDLEY'S FALSE KIDNAPPING COMPLAINT WHICH SHE STATED AFTER PROCEEDING HAD BEEN DISMISSED ON JANUARY 28TH, 2011 IN JUDGE ANTHONY'S COURT ROOM IN THE JUVENILE COURT. WITHIN A MATTER OF DAYS FELICIA HANDLEY COMES BACK TO THE JUVENILE COURT WITH A MALICIOUS LIE THAT THE CHILDREN WERE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S CUSTODY WHEN IN FACT THE COURT HAD HEARD THE INITIAL ALLEGATIONS AND THE CHILDREN WERE RETURNED HOME WITH THE MOTHER UNTIL WHICH A TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER AFTER THE ALLEGATIONS WAS ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2011 TO ABATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (IRS) OCSE OFFICE AND ATTORNEYS OF WHOM THE SAME REPRESENTATION IS INDICATIVE IN THE RECORDS MANAGEMENT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, ROOM 150. Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of attorney. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, or agent and officer, director, or manager of a corporation or other organization http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/c0d731e03de9828d852574580042ae7a/7ee566f4f7305b2085256e24006a34b6!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,disability* The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward. As set forth in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998): The requisite fraud on the court occurs where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) . . . . The trial court has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court, or where a party refuses to comply with court orders. Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Note that the evidence necessary to support a finding of fraud on the court must be “clear and convincing,” a higher burden than a mere “preponderance of the evidence.” The foregoing blueprint for evaluating fraud on the court has not changed much over the years. What has changed is the increased willingness of trial courts to impose the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice for plaintiffs and default for defendants, together with the increased willingness of appellate courts to affirm such dismissals and defaults pursuant to the applicable “abuse of discretion” standard of review.3 Judge Altenbernd, while recognizing this trend, has expressed concern that the ultimate sanction is employed more readily against plaintiffs than defendants.4 Whatever the empirical data may reveal about the proportion of plaintiffs versus defendants subjected to the ultimate sanction for fraud on the court, nothing in the elements of fraud on the court or its implementation tilts the playing field in favor of defendants. A defendant’s fraud on the court is plainly no less worthy of censure and sanction than a plaintiff’s and the case law makes no distinction between the two. Aoude v. Mobil Oil, 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989), on which Cox heavily relied, described the appellate court’s role in applying the abuse of discretion standard of review: COMPLAINTANT: DR. SHEILA SHAW 6721 NORTH ORANGE BLOOSOM TRAIL, LOT 10, ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32810 407-376-0757 Judicial Qualifications Commission 1110 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 (850) 488-1581 AMENDED COMPLAINT DPI FELICIA HANDLEY, FELICIA HANDLEY'S INVESTIGATION CLAIMS ELEMENTS OF UNFITNESS AND DEFAMOUS STATEMENTS WHEREAS SHE OMITTED AFFIDAVITS/STATEMENTS OF FACTS THAT WERE NOT ASCERTAINED FROM STAFF OR ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS ASTESTATION OF FITNESS AND PRIOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE CHILDREN. CONTINUES AS AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST AND EXTENDED TO STAFF/AGENT THEREOF BRENDA SMITH/DONNA HORTON OF: Dereux Foundation Orange County 1010 Executive Center Dr. Suite 200 Orlando, FL 32803 (407) 367-1503 Fax (407) 896-0247 FOREGOES THE COMPLAINT AS: --- On Fri, 2/18/11, Sheila Shaw wrote: From: Sheila Shaw Subject: Fw: MISUSE OFTHE LEGAL SYSTEM/RIGHT OF INJURY TO A CHILD,Fw: COMPLAINT/Fw: RE:NOTICE AND HEARING, NATURAL PARENT/HABEAS CORPUS Fw: Complaint DP1140; amended complaintFw: info@fcranews.comFw: fwd to OVW Fw: RE: 05-0014270-DR/ 3170 (three thousand, one hundred and seventy days) To: "department of professional" , "Emergency Response" , "rebekah@parentalrights.org" , "Kiwanis Club" Date: Friday, February 18, 2011, 5:02 PM Dr. Sheila J. Shaw 6721 North Orange Blossom Trail Orlando, Florida 32810 407-376-0757 Office of Civil Rights 1317 Winewood Blvd., Bldg 1, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Phone (850) 487-1901 Fax (850) 921-8470 The Chief of Investigations (850) 921-6344. (f)Bureau of Investigations (850) 414-7182 OIG.Complaints@djj.state.fl.us; Office of the Inspector General 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399 RE: AMENDED LETTER OF COMPLAINT Case no. DP -1140, complaint against DCF child protection investigator, Felicia Handley A shelter dependency order was issued to the two respondents to case DP-1140 regarding the necessity for a shelter custody order. The court received documentation as of Monday 02/06/2011 that Ms. Handley's information was inaccurate and of no substantial fact...: Abuse of process whereas the design of the process , “due process” its intended use is to insure fairness whereas governmental employees are bound by ethical standards and impartiality in the performance of the duties of the job which is controlled and must be within constitutional provisions, constitutional provisions control government emergency management programs. That the said employee of whom the complaint herein is comprised act with malicious prosecution and as an antagonist whose misuse of the legal systems, used the legal system in such a manner without probable cause to begin the case, began the case with malice and the results was the case caused harmed to the parties involved. Unreasonable action or failure to act, obligation to act in a reasonable manner, and questionable or doubt in “proximate cause” , also negligence whereas documentation of facts were made of available in written form and available had the employee asked a hired employee on staff regarding the disposition of residency rather than that of hearsay, of which wanton disregard of those facts is apparent and bad faith or action not founded on public policy or the employer’s policies and duties to comply with the constitutional provisions which control the governmental emergency agency, where as funds are being allocated in support of impartiality and compliance with Title VI and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the natural parent’s rights constitutionally founded, and evidence of the purpose to evidence the necessity of presenting clear and present evidence again wanton disregard and bad performance which breaches the duties bestowed on the employee and purpose. A shelter dependency order was issued to the two respondents to case DP-1140 regarding the necessity for a shelter custody order. The court received documentation as of Monday 02/06/2011 that Ms. Handley's information was inaccurate and of no substantial fact, documented by the previous resident case worker, or social assistance agent from the previous transcient campus, 639 W. Central Blvd., Orlando, Florida 32801, Linda Ferriera and also documentation from Dr. Liornel Nau stating that Michyl Shaw's absence was on doctor's tending malicious action or misuse of the legal system, abuse of process without probable cause. Negligence, specific or bad performance. False Tort Claims Act Standard operating proceedures Statutory regulation or public policy course of action mandated by federal statute and governmental ethics law are all elements of the complaint circumventing the case issues and allegations which were not evidenced prior to an award of temporary custody. The state must consider the length of time a child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining the continuity of that environment whereas the state may not interfere with those rights in the absence of a compelling state justification, The nonparent must demonstrate his or her fitness and ability to provide for the welfare of the child Florida Supreme Court held that Florida's constitutional privacy provision requires a threshold showing of substantial threat of signicant and demonstrable harm to the child BEFORE A NONPARENT MAY BE AWARDED CUSTODY OVER A NATURAL PARENT'S OBJECTION. Demonstrable harm may equate with chapter 39 dependency standards of abandonment, abuse , or neglect of the children, constitutional test and such conduct must be of such magnitude and nature as to indicate to the court the general moral unfitness of that party. COMPLAINT IS REQUESTING A JUDICIAL COMPLAINT REGARDING A LETTER OF COUNSEL BE EXTENDED IN ADDITION TO REPRIMAND OF AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE AND REPRESENTATIVE THEREOF FELICIA HANDLEY WHO MADE AN OPINIONATED STATEMENT RESULTING IN CAUSATION OF MISUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, INJURY TO A CHILD'S MENTAL HEALTH, ABUSE OF PROCESS WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF THE JUVENILE DIVISION IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT, ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA. Dr. Sheila J. Shaw approval until the following Monday, 02/06/2011. Ms. Handley made inquires prior to the hearing on 02/04/2011 regarding hearsay from residents and proceeded to act on the hearsay from residents rather that substantiated facts or documentation of record as is the allegations that have been made in the initial petition by DCF whom provided no "proof" of the allegations for reason the initial hearing was dismissed to ascertain a shelter dependency order. The subsequential hearing of emergency stated by Ms. Handley was during the four day pass and I believe Ms. Handley precipitating investigation is how she acquired information that my vehicle was unavailable and that I was relying on public transit to travel in addition my whereabouts in South Orlando when she called for the hearing knowing that I would not be able to attend on short notice, an unethical and biased act in favor of two Respondent's one of which is due for a retroactive child support hearing on 02/14/2011, Carlos A. Gonzalez and Jarrid D. Williams, the later of whom has a substance abuse problem and is a recovering alcoholic. Both parties have domestic violence incidents involving the case histories and I believe those incidents were to provoke a physical altercation toward criminal charges and in hopes to ascertain custody in that manner. I am requesting a formal complaint be entered against the Department of Children and Family regarding an erroneous judgement of such necessity, there was no "risk of harm, or life threatening emergency" indicative for an emergency sheltering order to be requested to the court, aside from the false statements subject to legal recourse of which I perceive as a civil action matter, aside from any other criminal act that would allow any citizen to file a police report against a party whom makes a false police report with malicious intent, or an act of environmental racism/environmental crimes. Orlando police department had been made aware of the precipitating domestic violence ongoing with Jarrid D. Williams, Willie James Williams, Cheryl Yvonne Williams and several high school friends of Williams of which the domestic violence (ex intimate relationship(s), and family members) has continued since placement has been made by DCF for temporary shelter dependency in regards to communication and seeing the child of which no legal transference of custody from the legal custodian Dr. Sheila Shaw was issued on 02/04/2011. Mr. Williams acts are criminal and considered child concealment short of parental kidnapping which has been aided and abetted by family members and friends. It is also a matter of discrepancy the allowance of the other sibling to travel outside the Orange County area where the mother resides favoring the Respondent and also an act to trucate upcoming court action against Carlos A. Gonzalez in the 02/14/2011 OCSE case. With regard to emergency management law: fraudulent misrepresentation when an employee makes a false statement of opinion, fact or law or intention in (4) WRIT OF HABAS CORPUS CONTESTING CUSTODY ORDER Historical data is indicative of non- cooperation by the non-parent, no punitive father action toward meeting financial obligations or statutory code. Regarding delayed child support, the employer/income deduction order modification, the amount of child support set at $30.69 per week is had not been adjusted or set at COLA as of the 11th day of February of 2010 when the order setting non jury trial for matters of paternity, F.S. 742.10 Establishment of paternity for children born out of wedlock. it was set on the 1st day of April of 2010, whereas the child’s date of birth for Isis Jashauna Camirin Jewel Shaw is the 29th day of January of 2007, a period of more than three years prior to the date the child support order was entered during which time the non-parent was unemployed. The mother, Dr. Sheila Jocelyn Karena Shaw, had been supporting the child from post- delivery including medical insurance payments that until April 30th of 2011 were solely in the mother’s name and responsibility, a post delivery bill of$ 9780 from Winnie Palmer Hospital, Orlando, Florida, of which the non-parent has refused to make payments towards aside from all other responsibilities incurred prior, and post-delivery. A writ of habas corpus, as defined in chapters 32 and 90-92.11 F.S., causes for immediate action and remedy by the court for violations of those rights and liberties, that are fundamental and should be enforced by law enforcement agencies, of which precedent case laws regarding child support obligations, visitations and the rights of the mother and non-parent have been made statutory code. Attached are the letters and review dates regarding an adjustment hearing of the order child-support , for Isis Jashauna Camirin Jewel Shaw, set on April 1st of 2010. Statutory Codes including The Parental Rights Amendment of the federal Constitution and the Florida State Constitution section 23 (complaint regarding violations of privacy provisions, privacy rights) 92.02-92.15, 92.19 temporary custody must meet constitutional test, the non-parent must demonstrate that he has met punitative father actions, paternity obligations including financial support, (Purpose) The writ of habas corpos is being filed in this case regarding use of a writ of habas corpos "whereas the parent has been deprived of their fundamental rights, fundamental liberty, interest of natural parents, in the the care, custody and management of their children without due process, precedent case; Santosky v. Bernhardt S. Karmer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) Whereas the court dockets of division 42, family court matters clear and visibly shows that the non-parent had not met demonstrative constitutional test regarding financial obligations and that pre-screening was inadequate,and there was manipulation of records including child support obligations, require program health records including neonatal medical records to date health practitioner records required for DCF programs including 4C childcare applications, program participation requirements, that those records where not presented in case number DP1140 intentionally towards the benefit of the non-parent and that administrative powers had not been enforced in collection of punitative father obligations when they could have been availed to prevent unconscionable delay in application, enforcement without judicial action. In fact DCF and the local OCSE office had adverse information towards the non-parents claims of meeting those financial obligations by presentation and records of the mother's financial information including records of finances from academic loans amounting to more than $81,000 in the course of a period dating November 27th, of 2006 throughout July of 2009, financial accounts that assisted in the care of the two children's living expenses, childcare, food and shelter, information required to be reported by the mother.