dawn rogers cynthia conlon and jeff obrien

Richard Dean Zindler
SSN;545-95-3655, DOB;05/30/1973
San Bernardino 92405
1. While Laura and I lived in Traverse City Michigan, we decided to move back to California.
I was under the impression my wife/daughter ( Laura and Eva Zindler) were on there way to California once I got something steady

(which I quickly did)
, she, in the meantime, had already met another guy and didn’t tell me she wanted to end our marriage until around 3week’s after I left Traverse City for Santa Rosa California.
Then, at
some point afterwords, her mother Kathy Scott got her friend Mark Messing to file for
divorce claiming abandonment on my part, and that I was incompetent (crazy), from what I gathered later on. [Exhibit1(a) and 1(b)]
2. I was given 8 hours notice of my custody hearing in Traverse City the night before the hearing over the phone while I was in California.
[Exhibit 1(b) and 1(b)] misapplication and in violation of servicing Rule 5(2)(b)]
3. I was a tax paying resident of my home state, California, when the divorce was
filed. The manner in which they did so became suspicious of being in bad faith,
when F.O.C. (Friends of the Court). Told me over the phone that my old social worker at mental health said I was ‘sick’ and out there, and will come ‘home’ soon(assuming to Traverse City). [Exhibit 1(a), 1(b), 24 and 25]
4. When I talked to the F.O.C. Over the phone while I was living in Santa Rosa,
they declared no conclusion’s were to made about my daughter until an
assessment could happen with me in person. I got a little depressed and I moved in with
my mom. On my first visit to Michigan 5 month’s later, I went
into the F.O.C. Almost daily asking to meet with my F.O.C. Worker or to request A
assessment date and to find out what was needed or what the F.O.C wanted and why
they didn’t want Laura to let me see my daughter Evangeline. After around 3 week’s
the F.O.C. set the hearing date for 4 weeks after the day the F.O.C. Sent A letter to
Kathy Scott’s house,even though I consistently told the F.O.C. To send all info for me to my California address. This hearing date was 6 days after my scheduled return date
on the pre bought Amtrak ticket date(exhibit 5) . Kathy Scott was the only one besides my daughter Eva who knew that return date.
[18 usc 241 conspiracy against the rights of A plaintiff.
5. At A dm hearing on oct 15 2009 case#2008-6042-dm, Dawn Rogers filed with the
judge A statement that “mr. Zindler has had no contact with Laura or Eva for at least
two years” even though she had just talked to me and even said to me “there’s nothing there for you” ,
with A patronizing smirk. Plus she knew I was on phone daily with my wife,
Dawn had also known I was paying child support and knew I was upset at being removed from my daughter’s life, as well as me being in constant contact with Laura and when cut off I was
well known for calling all our friend’s and family in Traverse City. [exhibit 2(a)
2(b).18usc1018/18usc241 18 usc1001]
6. On my second visit, I went to church to talk to our old pastor about A
particular rumor, where I (accidentally) saw my daughter, and she being 5 years
old, I of course hung out with her. Well, when I went outside after church
to talk to the pastor while Evangeline was having cookies, as soon as I wasn’t standing next to Eva, Kathy Scott drag’s my child by the wrist across the street while the
child was screaming and crying and then peel’s off in her friend’s car with Eva.
Kathy is on a lot of medication and I was worried because she stammer’s and get’s frantic etc. from the prescription speed pill’s,
so I called 911. When the 911 operator started getting my info everything was okay,
but when I told Sergeant O’Brien Kathy’s name
he started yelling, “where are you now mr. Zindler”, I told him and he then left the
911 dispatch and while 2 other cop’s were taking info where I was at, Sergeant. O’Brien
pull’s up, jump’s off his bike jabbing his finger at me and yelling, “you have no
right to see your Daughter”, and ,”I know Kathy personally and she is not on
pharmaceutical’s, while the other 2 cop’s had to loosely hold they’re arm’s up to hold him back, because he was totally coming at me all super mad, then he said, “if you don’t leave my town I’m putting you under arrest”,
so I threw off my backpack and he arrested me.
( I must admit he got me pretty mad) [ (exhibit 26) requesting
documents for 911 record’s (if possible) and arrest record.]
7. Though(from what I gathered from the myriad of highly elusive definition’s in the
Michigan Legislative legalize, (which is binding to all), my next step, in case of bad faith, was to present evidence to the chief judge with A explanation.
I did, and the secretary sent it back and it said that I was in ex parte and cannot speak to or petition the judge.
. [Automatism by officially
induced error ,harm without wrong.]
8(a). After Laura’s 1st remarriage several ppo’s were filed in ex parte. The one I chased
down -2010-7454 pp 05/04/2010- The referee, Cynthia Conlon, when she was
questioning the specific’s of my recent arrest for disorderly conduct,(ch.5) I gave her A
complete description of the incident. Afterwords, in Cynthia Conlon’s findings, she
falsified A statement knowingly and with A almost emphasized look of distaste while saying, “the defendant admits to dragging his own child through the street”
as well as 3 other misleading statements which, comparatively, are irrelevant.
[18 usc 1622/18 usc 1018/Requesting transcript.]
8(b). On my second visit to Traverse City to plead for venue, I was only served one of
several ex- parte ppo’s, even though during the first and second trip’s to Michigan every official I’d came in contact with knew where I was staying
(I even kept up with both traverse city pd and state police on my own initiative so there
would be no mistakes as to my where a bouts if any “exciting” make believe were to
erupt again, as well as the 13th circuit and F.O.C. both knowing what motel room in
Traverse City that I was in, and where.
(exhibit 8, 9 and 12)
9. Due to my being attacked on A previous visit, I brought A friend of the family
so as to not worry my mother. My witness and I(David fuga), from home state of
(California), went with me to Grand Traverse and the 13th circuit court clerk with my 3 hearing options and the cash and they said all I could do is go to the friends of the court.
Same with the prosecutor and family division.
The witness watched as ,yes, most secretary’s at the Grand Traverse court house knew of
me and at every reasonable question or request I was chuckled at, along with “sorry we
cant help you” without even A simple explanation. So I’d like to subpena A written
deposition for David in whatever manner chosen by district official’s. Writing’s under
oath is great. He’s down for whatever.
10. When trying to finding out if I had another ex parte hearing, I walked into the
courthouse and I immediately noticed a female guard ,Annette McPeake, who as soon as
she saw me, she picked up the phone on the little back desk next to the entrance, but was
only on it for A few second’s, and then started walking towards me as I went thru the
metal detector, so I asked her who she was talking to and she said “none of your business”, so I then walked up to the 3rd floor walked into the 13th circuit administrative office, with my identification in my hand(to make it as easy as possible).
When the secretary Stacy Fewin’s saw me
she picked up the phone dialed and said “he’s here”, then walked into the receiving area
in front of the Secretary’s counter ( which consists of A Ten foot space at best).
I then tried to give her my I.D., asking her if I had A court date on
the docket, when Chuck Welch, who was standing there, said “how do you not know if
you have A court date” which I replied that I was in ex- parte, he asked if they had my
address, I said yes they’ve had it all along and that it didn’t mean they would notify
me. It was then that Annette Mcpeake came in and stood next to Stacy Fewins (the
secretary) I recognized her as the door security, the only female guard and that she had
latex gloves on, then without saying anything, she(Annette) came slowly at me with hands slightly up. So , fearing the worst,
of her trying to do some kind of restraint or hold on
me and then later saying there was A struggle, so I can be charged with something
worse. So I immediately asked her to stay 5 feet back while trying to leave. Once in hallway she started to move towards me faster,
and since Chuck Welch left to A room there in the 13th circuit office’s,
though I’m not sure where, it left just Stacy Fewin’s, Annet
McPeake and myself as the only witness’s, so I yelled “help help”, not even that loud,
several guards came, put A “arm bar hold”?? on me and then arrested me for disorderly conduct The whole occurrence lasted 2 minutes top’s, there is no way all that was
documented could have happened, the secretary said almost nothing and appeared
dazed A little. The petite middle aged guard, ms. McPeake who had rubber gloves on
with the desired affect, because within 10 second’s
looked nervous while moving towards me. At no time did anyone ask me to leave, plus
the guard McPeake didn’t say anything until after I was restrained and waiting for police.
Then, the same officer
Sergeant. Jeff O’brian # 211 who arrested me for the same charge (see chapter 5),
showed up, though I never actually saw him there, either way,
he spent 30 to 45 minutes in said courthouse, pretty much dreaming up A police report.
[exhibit 17 (a) (b) (c), (d) 18n usc 1018/18 usc 241/18 usc1622 among other statute’s]
10(c). Sergeant O’Brien, 2 months after that arrest(ch10), sent the social security
administration a paper saying I was in jail and not released, which led them to stop my
disability payment’s and this led me to be unable to pay the hotel and I had A way harder
time in Traverse City [18 usc 1001.(18 usc1018) .?and deprivation of relief benefits, If I am enumerating correctly?]
I will have A letter from the Social Security Administration soon.
11. In the proceeding case, #10-7679-SM, the public defender asked to get from
me A release of information for A copy of A mental health report, telling me that no one
would see it, which as I witnessed the morning of the next hearing, there was A meeting between my public defender,prosecutor and mental health official in A meeting room without me,
(though I tried to hear), then they went to have A private meeting with the judge,
along with the prosecutor, my public defender and the(I’m assuming)mental health
professional (though that type of meeting is not that uncommon) , when I tried to hear
by following them to the court room, they turned and all looked at me, and went off to
the judge’s chambers to see how they could put my case into mental health court. I said
no;. [Exhibit’s 23, 24 and 25]
12. The witness’s each had changed they’re statement’s 3 times, the 2nd time being
Friday the 14th of January 2010 three day’s before the trial date on Tuesday the 18th of January the 2nd statement was produced A day after I asked the
public defender If anyone had even read the police report
[Exhibit’s 18(a)(b)thru 19(a)(b)] ; consultation circle’s
fraud in color of law, lack of judicial notice to appurtenance and though it might be an
officially induced error it was at the least nonfeasance.
13. As well as my being denied witnesses or the right to speak throughout preliminary
hearing’s, plus, when I was on the stand, the judge frequently interrupted if I said
anything about why I was there or about lacking my right’s to witnesses or any of the
bias behavior’s and malfeasance from the court’s there in grand Traverse, by simply
threatening me with immediate jail if I so much as raised my hand. [ 18 usc 1622
subordination to perjury.] contemner and embracery.
14. I was sentenced to 3 day’s for that case(10-7679-sm),which when I got to the jail there was instant harassment waiting for me, name calling, and a guard who stated that
the stars on his shirt signified how many inmates he’s killed. It was A little scary, so my
fear of not being remembered and to presuppose any ability of legitimacy, to myself
even, I began to preach loudly to others about they’re possible loss to court’s in Grand
Traverse County Now even though I was crying here and there, I definitely remember
everything and I promise that Sergeant. O’Brien never showed his face to me . The
jail(I’m assuming) then sent me to A psychiatric hospital.
15. Court official’s wrote to said hospital, A statement that I was homeless, when all
along I told any official who asked that this 3rd time around I was unwilling to reveal my continual location because of the harassment and drama in past trips has proved such that when declaring where I’m staying, has and can lead to more
ambiguous vilification and or physical harm.
Furthermore, all those of concern have always had my mothers
address where I’ve stayed since the divorce 949 w. Edgmont rd San Bernadino
California where I wanted all my mail or phone call’s sent to and that I was in contact with my mother daily at that phone number and address ( which today I realize was A
good decision) (exhibit22(a))
16. After 3 week’s I was told by the psychiatrist there, that I was not going to be let go unless I dropped the issue. ie; not appeal,
also the court house sent that psychiatric facility A paper saying I pushed a
woman in the courthouse.exhibit22(a) I was let go 3 weeks later, this being 3 day’s After I agreed to the public defender that I wouldn’t appeal, [18 usc 241]
17. I somehow have A restraining order from all of the court house by order from
A couple judge’s, including all its facilities with no options of any right to venue
regarding daughter. [ exhibit 21]
18. As well as, in A supervised visit, A worker(Crystal Thomas) at the supervised
visitation center watched as my daughter took down her pant’s and told me to take down
my pants so she could show me “how they do it” the same worker saw my little girl say
“don’t make me kiss your wenis”. Plus, at the end of each visit Eva would grab the
bottom of A table and beg to not be sent home.
I of course asked Crystal Thomas immediately if she heard my Eva and she did but still didn’t tell the mother . I called every person I thought
would at least find out what was going on to no avail, I was even
told by A few official person’s that I thought would be concerned, that I should call the
F.O.C. Which I did to no avail. Crystal Thomas wouldn’t tell anyone, even the child’s
mom. Then, almost 2month’s later after my many requests for her report, I received A
incomplete and misleading report (exhibit;10 and 11). Essentially saying I’d be okay
with something like that if no one was watching and she still hasn’t told the mom. when
I try to tell the mom, she just say’s I don’t know what your talking about. ??Why
wouldn’t she tell anyone. It should have raised eyebrows and defiantly been looked
into . I called everybody I thought would find out what was going on after that happened, because I couldn’t Investigate myself due to restraining order’s,regardless of it most likely being 1 of the 2 boy’s in Eva’s
house, seeing as she said this while in A playtime atmosphere. Though it’s still the
workers word against mine. When I got that statement from Crystal, I took it to my local Child Protective Services.
*note;*False writing’s*
*Most who signed these report’s did so with automatism
though much of this all, in reality, does reflect A culture of insinuating the
dramatic by popularized habit for reason’s I have wrote much about, but for this
particular pleading I’m not going to bring up
various intrapersonal comprehension malady’s.*
**Other consideration’s;**
Though I lack proof besides A knocked out tooth, I did get hit with A shovel,
My ex wife did send Child Protective Services worker to one of the house’s where I stayed at, as well as A few
threats (with 2 attempts) to harm me, and as the past has proven, I dared not call police
for fear of arrest or worse Also my ex-from the beginning has
consistently cut me off from from my little girl months at A time, who is my
direct lineal descendant
Plus the mental anguish both from drama seeking rumor’s turning into my
being vilified , falsely spotted doing something bad and the all around stare’s and jeer’s from foggy eyed official’s (not all of course). Though for many it might be hard to
imagine but, Grand Traverse County is truly A upper class well enclosed and guarded
community with few moderate unbiased person’s being effectual .
Thusly;
There are only 3 person’s whom are guilty with foreknowledge and intent of
aforementioned implacable hostility’s. Now I’m sure I can be revealed as lacking A
perfect and exact codified description, which only one who see’s the law day in and day
out can accurately describe with statutory precision, like maladministration and
intentional misconduct, such it seems that when against some people, all knowledge
seems to be applied. I’m hoping whatever knowledge possessed regarding the defining
and adjudicating of my relief and or order’s surrounding all that’s happened to me in
Grand Traverse County Will be as easily quoted for both party’s.
Therefore;
I, move to remove per diversity jurisdiction, 28 usc 1332 (if I’m enumerating correctly) ,
I move to disclose. To reveal what was truly perceived in the many contradictory and
provably falsified statement’s, I move to consolidate, and I have A few subpoena’s for
written interrogatories, which contain around 1 to 3 question’s, and 2 subpena’s to produce document’s, though I’m sure in the nature of the law.
I have ample evidence of aforementioned. I want to make this as easy for
everyone involved, but without some discovery it will continue as it has , (hardship that I could describe for much longer than this letter calls for). While I will pursue right’s to
my daughter forever and in the face of ANYTHING, many can not. Essentially I’m
seeking Damage’s of $75,200.00 for
tort’s regarding13th circuit/86th district cases which several time’s led adjudication of
among other thing’s; fictitious act’s in fraud of law ,officially induced error ,
vexatious abuse of discretion and the many civil right’s violation’s, leading to long and many hardship’s,
struggle’s of which the law should make no man endure.
The tort of $75,200.00 are against party’s: Dawn Rogers, Cynthia Conlon and Jeff
O’Brien for denial of right’s, deprivation of relief benefit’s,
false arrest, conspiracy against the right’s of A plaintiff
and loss of enjoyment of life, meaning, not being allowed to even write A letter
to the most important piece of my, life my direct lineal descendant
Evangeline Patience Zindler Born 6th of April 2005 United States 379-31-3234
Falsified writings to deprive of equality, and safety consideration of A 5 year old little girl… Inter Alia.
Hence;
(A) Dawn Rogers for false statement’s with intent to defraud, perjury and conspiracy
against my right’s
(B) Cynthia Conlon for false writing’s in her finding’s, subordination to perjury and capricious adjudication with intent to conceal and defraud
(C) Jeff O’Brien for false arrest, conspiracy against the right of A plaintiff, terrorist
threat, and abuse of power for personal reason’s.
I’m totally willing to arbitrate in any way and regarding all thing’s in Grand Traverse
County I have clean hands. Also I’m hoping to place whole Domestic Relations case under local judicial
administrative control, if, I receive accommodations for multi- jurisdictional proceedings
(electronic conferencing,pleads re-pleads motion’s etc.)with any future hearing’s within
Grand Traverse County jurisdiction. Hopefully by federal writ of mandamus to ensure
safety. sincerely with love,
Signed;———————– Date;————————SSN.545-95-3655
Richard dean Zindler Born.30th of may 1973
San Bernadino California 92405
feel free to e-mail either my mother or myself at the following;
clerksofstrictobservance@gmail.com

Case:11-2226
United States Court of Appeals
of the
Sixth Circuit
Richard Dean Zindler

Pro Per
Plaintiff,
vs.
Dawn Rogers Friends of
the court, Cynthia
Conlon13th circuit referee
and Sgt. Jeff O’Brien
Traverse City Police#211
Defendant.
))))))))))))
Counterclaim, response to
idea of immunity to
crimes described.
Attorneys for Defendant C. Cooke,
K. Haider, J. Nimako et, al all 4
of Cummings, Mc’Lory, Davis,&Acho
Dated this __ day of January, 2012
Motion for non-appositive
Judgment of issues.
Understanding scope of office, due diligence and reasonable
notice of constitutional violations.
1
As shown in exhibit 5 (left 2008 child support payments *see date top right) in
following pages the Defendant knew of my residency in California
In Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal,
522 U.S. 287, 118 S.Ct. 766, 139 L.Ed.2d 717
(1998), the Court ruled that a New York tax law
that effectively denied only nonresident
taxpayers an income tax deduction for alimony
paid violated the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause
IE; Jurisdiction
2.
Dawn Rogers was aware of the constitutional violations, lack of common due
diligence and was outside the scope of office. Dawn Rogers knew my complaints of my
ex-wife’s harassment and use of my Daughter for dramatic retaliation from the moment I
left Traverse City in July of 08. Before I left on the 9th of September Dawn Rogers
office knew that I was on my way, my “coming back” was well talked about, the F.O.C.
Worker Karen Sanchez called me a couple of times as a result of my wife’s creation of a
fear “my husband from Los Angeles is coming” She had tried to convince me to wait.
My wife got married while I was on the train to going to said County to see the F.O.C.
worker, I was threatened by my wife’s friends and
It was known I was going Traverse City to pursue a assessment (Exhibit 5 a Ticket stub
purchased the day I left for M.I.9/9/09 (at the bottom of the ticket) Dawn Rogers had
even seen me in
the lobby telling me “there is nothing here for you” and then (a)communicating with
Kathy Scott to tell her my assessment date.
(b) which was after my return ticket return date . (c) of which said date was known to
Kathy Scott and my 4 year old solely After knowing these facts, I’m proclaiming that
Dawn Rogers purposely set my court date/assessment for after my ticket return date
almost two months after I got there and with knowledge I was coming, Dawn Rogersthen made the statement on Exhibit 2(b) fourth paragraph) saying essentially that I
have not contacted my Wife or Daughter for at least two years, knowing I was on the
phone daily with my wife and child. Thus,
proclaiming I had abandoned my child, Breaking the constitutional bounds and
violating aforementioned in plead333(i) statutes.
The defense of qualified immunity protects government
agents “?‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their
conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
have known.’?” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, —-,
116 S.Ct. 834, 838, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (quoting Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73
L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)); ?see also Erwin v. Daley, 92 F.3d 521,
523 (7th Cir.1996).
In Zeigler v. Jackson, [716 F.2d 847, 849 (11th
Cir.1983),] this Court established a two-step analysis to
be used in applying the Harlow test: ?the defendant
government official must prove that “he was acting within
the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly
wrongful acts occurred,” and then the burden shifts to theplaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant “violated
clearly established constitutional law.”
Which her action’s were not in the scope of Office found in the Friends of the Court
manual
(Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 108 S. Ct. 538, 98 L.
Ed. 2d 555 [1988]). Judges also are not immune from
declaratory and injunctive relief. These forms of relief
differ from monetary relief. Generally they require parties
to do or refrain from doing a certain thing. If a judge
loses a suit for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief,
he or she may not be forced to pay money damages, but may
be forced to pay the court costs and attorneys’ fees of the
winning party. For example, assume that a judge requires
the posting of bail by persons charged in criminal court
with offenses for which they cannot be jailed. If a person
subjected to this unconstitutional practice files suit
against the judge, the judge will not be given judicial
immunity and, upon losing the case, will be forced to pay
the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and court costs. (Pulliam
v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S. Ct. 1970, 80 L. Ed. 2D 565
[1984]).Judicial immunity was first recognized by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523, 19 L.
Ed. 285 (1868). In Randall the Court held that an attorney
who had been banned from the practice of law by a judge
could not sue the judge over the disbarment. In its
opinion, the Court stated that a judge was not liable for
judicial acts unless they were done “maliciously or
corruptly.”
in the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No.
104-317, 110 Stat. 3847), Congress inserted language that
voided the decision. The amendment prohibits injunctive
relief in a § 1983 action against a “judicial officer for
an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial
capacity” unless “a declaratory decree was violated or
declaratory relief was unavailable.” In addition, language
was added to § 1988 that precludes the award of costs and
attorney’s fees against judges acting in their official
capacity.2
Denial of declaratory relief.
Time and again I vicariously approached Grand Traverse County Michigan with overt
trust of those deciding the right’s of my person and property. Time and again officials of
said town disambiguated inductively. Seeking the one word to lie on, expanded by
they’re own imagery, subject and or objective. The disambiguation process by officials
in said town were inductive, bordering the ludicrous and in some instances the lie would
be enough to send me to prison.
Although the judge in my case in a absentee court case to appeal a SSDI decision, said
that I wasn’t a incapacitated person.(exhibit 1(ii)] The Psychiatrist there in Grand
Traverse County said I had PTSD. The only one who said over and over after the first
affinity of affections*, was V. Wilkinson a patient and social worker of said towns local
mental health Department(Exhibit 11 of plead700 (ii)…..(*). To answer that deductive
hole(* While living in San Diego my wife and child visited her sister and mom in
Minneapolis where they convinced my wife to stay in the Midwest, then kicking my
wife and 3 year old onto the street where my wife went to several shelters with my small
child. I did not call kidnapping against my whole family’s wishes. This not being the
first time my wife’s family kicked my child out while I was 1000’s of miles away. I’ve
never failed to provide all that my little girl has needed and most wants)…..
Judges also are not immune from declaratory and injunctive
relief. These forms of relief differ from monetary relief.Generally they require parties to do or refrain from doing
a certain thing. If a judge loses a suit for declaratory
judgment or injunctive relief, he or she may not be forced
to pay money damages, but may be forced to pay the court
costs and attorneys’ fees of the winning party. For
example, assume that a judge requires the posting of bail
by persons charged in criminal court with offenses for
which they cannot be jailed. If a person subjected to this
unconstitutional practice files suit against the judge, the
judge will not be given judicial immunity and, upon losing
the case, will be forced to pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s
fees and court costs. (Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104
S. Ct. 1970, 80 L. Ed. 2d 565 [1984]).
Acceptance of crime’s and violations of Statutory Code
3
During my third trip, as several locals of Traverse City are willing to testify,
I brought a friend of the family, named David Fuga, he observed twice as no court
clerk would accept any petitioning, motion, or request for hearing. Complete with all
forms and fee’s. The clerk at one desk was going to take my forms when as David
observed another office worker walk up behind her and inform her of me and to call the
Friends of the Court, then telling me there is nothing I could do but have, yet another,interaction at the FOC, which leads to a whole host of vilification’s. (see Disorderly
conduct witness statementsExhibits13 thru 23 e)
Please believe that if I had at least one realistic adjudication, where officials don’t
make up absurd statements and events the enforce them with force of violence. I would
have never had to write this.
The defense of qualified immunity protects government
agents “?‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their
conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
have known.’?” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, —-,
116 S.Ct. 834, 838, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (quoting Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73
L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)
Which Dawn Rogers did deprive me a citizen unjustly
4.
Dawn not only had the office workers at the FOC desk primed, as a
consequence my when my Daughter told me adult scenario’s from her then home, infront of a safe haven worker, No one would look into it, and the worker did nothing.
Also they would have at least looked at the video of my ex wife drinking and driving
while on medication, with my child in the car. Dawn Rogers and Jeff O’Brien initiated
this corruption Solely With the intent of further concealing my child.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution[1]
reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
It basicly boils down to this, was the ma-lease born from moments or a moment
off duty to which then lo and behold the persons is standing in front of them at they’re
work, and then the tortfeaser acted. Or, was the tortfeaser at work when confronted inwhatever way, by the injured, maybe just by sight, and then the tortfeaser acted.
Essentially saying either
A. The tortfeaser knew of the injured prior to first sight at the office from outside the
office?
B. The tortfeaser had yet to know of the injured until first confrontation at they’re
office
(1) public function test—state action is found where the
government has delegated its traditional responsibilities,
such as police protection, to a private party or agency;
(2) nexus test—state action is found where there is a
sufficiently close connection between the government and a
private actor, such as where the state owns or leases
property on which private discrimination occurs; (3) state
compulsion test—state action is found where the government
coerces or significantly encourages private conduct, such
as where federal regulations require private railways to
conduct urinalysis after accidents; (4) joint action test—
state action is found where the government is a willful
participant in discrimination by a private actor.II
In the case of Cynthia Conlon a 13th Circuit referee, according to the manner in which
my ex wife read a prepared “worse abusive Husband case scenario” set of statements
and the manner in which Cynthia Conlon had to rearrange the proclaimed statements
before her to enable a restraining order(eventually saying I had admitted to abusing my
child saying”the defendant admits to dragging his child thru the streets” knowing this to
be false). She smiled sarcasticly after her findings saying”be sure to go to the clerk and
file”. As well as having a private conversations immediately after with my ex-wife
where they giggled and looked at me. Not to mention Cynthia Conlon’s not reporting
that I had said my Daughter showed severe signs of abuse. This being provable, due to
the nature of fraud upon the court, hopefully from the transcripts in Case: 2010-7454-pp
04/22/2010
See above Harlow test etc..
III
I hope to have Jeff O’Brien fully on in contact, as of now he has yet to reply, though noone has stated either way, yet implying that there is no need to subpena him. Therefore I
have back tracked, he has gotten another District summons and will get his Circuit anyday.
It would be unfair for me spell out his crimes further than what he has not admitted
to receiving up to the point in which he jurisdictionaly sits today. Though you should
expect the same.
To the precedence quoted to me by CMDA
Although the justice’s remained aback on the Federal question of
immunity(probably till the issue ripens). They did mention several time’s that the Judge
in that case was not entitled to absolute immunity and one Justice retained his vote thus
disagreeing. We conclude that Judge White was not entitled to
absolute immunity for his decisions to demote and discharge
Forrester. In so holding, we do not decide whether Judge
White is entitled to a new trial, or whether he may be able
to claim a qualified immunity for the acts complained of in
Forrester’s suit. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Fn [484 U.S. 219, 220] JUSTICE BLACKMUN joins in all but Part
II of this opinion. [484 U.S. 219, 231]
So if one citizen of the U.S. Goes to a small town in another state, in “the east” havingcome from”the west”, and gets all his rights abused regarding venue, gets threatened,
lied about, arrested for nothing, has his finances constantly manipulated by the local
officials, made to sleep in the snow for the overt actions of officials on behalf of his/her
mother in-law, has proof of his daughter showing signs of abuse in her new
home/family, it is the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. We all know it is my correct
forum, because of the multiple attempts of venue locally.
Finally,
The reply offered to me refereed to my ex-wife’s claim for a restraining order being
petitioned for by her, because ”she was concerned for the safety of my small child” was
what some people call slighted, others call it gobbledygook speak I call it a lie. The
defendants lawyers refer to what the defendants are employed as over and over and does
not say either way if they admit to conspiratorially breaking the law, or not. It says I
claimed “capricious and arbitrary” as the meat to my claim (plead333), I never said this.
Replying as such because it is a phrase refereed to as being not enough to deny the
defendants immunity in the Uniformed State Code. As well as all around asserting a
aspect of my claims that when said alone assumes 99.9% less of the facts I have put
forth, this theme is not accepted by myself. It will be combated at any level needed,
including my posting of all papers everywhere, talking about and all papers disclosed to
the whole world if necessary. If I could effectively combat politicians on T.V. Speaking
this way you would all know my name long ago. I have asked the lawyers of CMDA to
please not let it happen again and if I do the same, to bring it to my attention and I willcorrect it. We are all products of environment. Having all fallen short of always loving
our neighbors.
My( the plaintiff) Issues I’m needing a pre-dispositive judgment for is this,
Are all Defendants, whom are court officers, Immune to tort
under any circumstance.
More precisely, if your most highest honors,
or whomever, might please indulge this question and thought;
.
So if person A. gets in a auto accident on the
weekend and months later person B. sues in small
claims, and person A. works at the Dept of Motor Vehicles
and has persons B.’s license revoked in retaliation.
Then in person B.’s auto accident
hearings, person A.’s action of the license revocation under
officialdom is proven by person B.. Is person A.immune to civil liability from
losses incurred by person B. because of
immunity’s having been brought forth by the
license revoking action of person A.
Also
If person A from state 2, is in a auto accident in state 1,
the cause clearly seen as person B”s fault.
When person A sues for damages in state
1 he finds that state 1’s judicial person C states
person B was, at the moment of the accident,
to and fro for they’re work at the county
clerks office thus immune to liability.
Then person A proves that person B and
judicial person C have knowledge of each other
and an objective of hindering person A’s suit
was established with, even if a peripheral
connection, is Judicial person C immune to
liability.
If person A is in a auto accident in state 1, t
he cause clearly seen as person B”s fault.When person A sues for damages in state 1
he finds that state 1’s court officer person C states person B
was at the moment of the accident,
to and fro for they’re work at the
county clerks office thus immune to liability.
Then person A proves that person B and
person C have know of each other and
an objective of hindering person A’s suit
was established, even if a peripheral connection,
is person C immune to liability.
If yes, are “they” hiring? For I love my Daughter more than anything and these are
the thing’s and the people concealing her whereabouts.
This scope of employment being the last bastion against a two class society, it is
hard not to remain stilled and in awe at its essence.
I would never hold back even the tinniest bit of respect at it’s essential detrimental
Federal Question.Conclusion
Immunity was created for court officers to shield them the confrontational front line that
they work in. We can all have a bad day, and when looking through the scope of our
office, normal situations can seem dreary, yet still the court officer has to remain
unbiased. A hard stance for even the nicest of us.
However if allowed immunity for illegal actions for something or someone in which
our scope must be pointed elsewhere, other than the
office, in order to see the tortuous activity’s, then we will create a society in-which a
government worker is all powerful against a non-government
worker being subject to anything at the will of a court worker who is immune to those.
laws which they defend.
A “Us” and “them” if you’ll follow me.
By;Richard Zindler
Signed______________________ Dated_______________________
Richard Zindler
San Bernadino California 92405

United States Court of Appeals
of the
Sixth Circuit
Case:11-2226
Richard Dean Zindler (909)882-5393
Pro Per
Plaintiff,
vs.
Dawn Rogers Friends of the court, Cynthia Conlon 13th circuit referee and Sgt.Jeff
O’Brien Traverse City Police#211
Defendant.
))))))
Attorneys for two Defendant’s
Joseph, Nimako et, al all 4
of Cummings, McLory, Davis,&AchoDated this __ day of January, 2012
X
_________________________________
Motion for stay of action in cases
2008-6042-DM/ 2010-7454/ 13th Circuit Michigan
86th District Michigan 10-7679-SM
I(the plaintiff) declare all facts contained in my plea to the Federal District Court of
the Western District of Michigan case#1:11-cv-770.
1. The complaint proclaims corruption, Fraud upon the Court, and criminal actions
by officials that can influence the activity’s of said Court cases.
2. The office of Defendant Dawn Rogers has sent me financial statements that
were changed in order to substantiate her claim of child abandonment in case#2008-
6042-DM. Of which I have a format friendly copy.
3. In the process of locating my Daughter’s where a bouts, a person with possible
information to my child statements of serious concern spelled out in my plea333(i), and
proven by exhibit’s 10, 11 that were submitted to said District Court along with
plea333(i)
4. There is much faith in me that the District Magistrate did not read my plea, I
fear that a lawyer from CMDA was the only one to have read said plea, and am hoping
no one has on account of the report of issued by said Magistrate being filled so many
error’s to my statements.
5. I can’t locate where in the U.S. my sole lineal descendant Evangeline
Patience Zindler SSN#379-31-1582 conceived in California Born in
Michigan at Munson medical center weighing 11 pounds 3 ounces 11:42pm
on the 6th of April to parents Richard Dean Zindler SSN 545-95-3655 and
Laura Danielle Grielick SSN 386-02-1582 , this being universally
understood by reasonable persons to be said by professionals as the top
most stressful situation for a child and a parent.
6. After 2 and halve years spending much time and money trying to
communicate in reasonable ways, without loud verbal abuse by her family,
in front of her, and control access to her where about with the Defendants
said actions.

next
United States Court of Appeals
for the
Sixth Circuit
Case#11-2226
Richard Zindler
(Plaintiff)
V.
Dawn Rogers et, al
Cynthia Conlon, Jeff O’Brien
(Defendant)
c/c Cummings, M’Clory,Davis and Acho
(231)922-1888
Nature of suit:
[tort, civil, Diversity Jurisdiction.]
SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
I (the plaintiff) subpena for the defendant;
Sergeant Jeff O’Brien #211
Traverse city Michigan Michigan 49686
A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on
you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United
States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint
or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the
plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
Richard Dean Zindler Dr. San Bernadino CA 92405
http://www.clerksofstrictobservance@gmail.com
Title of document plead333
Note* After not returning a waiver of summon from the case;1:11-cv-770
It is soon to be 120 days after accusations leveled against you.witness of mailing:Elizabeth Mila de la Roca
Sign______________________________- Date____________________________
Date:_________________ Clerk signature_______________________________

Richard Dean Zndler
Dr. San Bemadino
California 92405
SSN:545-95-3655 DOB:05/30 I 1973
My jurisdictional requirements are self explanatory. The defendants are from A different
state, the state of Michigan,I am from the state of California. The days I spent in severe
hardship in Grand Traverse Michigan, ie;Not allowed to petition unto the color of law, getting
arrested for calling child abuse on A “upstanding member of the community”, then having A
referee in A court in the U.S.(Grand Traverse Michigan) Proclaim it was I who abused the child
by simply stating that I admitted as such, Child Protective Services being sent to the place I was
staying saying someone(ex-wife) was concerned for the child there in the home I was staying
because I was there and hence getting me kicked out to sleep in the cold, having A “upstanding
member of the community” use his official capacity to deny me my relief benefits thus leading
to me sleeping in the cold, having an official knowingly lie and tell your Daughter that “your
dad just didn’t want to see you”, having an official knowingly 1ie stating that I abandoned my
child with no reprieve regardless of the clear evidence otherwise, having court hearing set
around my known unavailability, walking miles through the snow, knowing my little girl might
be getting molested and not being able to find out and there was no one to whom I could report
the concern(I defiantly tried), coming back A year later after moving under the impression my
family was coming once I was established, to her new husband and my Daughters having been
told I left in the middle of the night and her dad is now this other guy, AAdministrative official
threatening my Daughters mom that if she even let me speak to my Daughter she Would be take
her away and no one would get her??. Getting hit in the head with A shovel, being threatened by
A Sergeant of the Police Department, being threatened in jail by the jail guards with death being
they’re reference , the constant dramatized vilification created by simply making things up,
being told that I may not buy A bus ticket out of Traverse City until I report to the local Mental
Health, having the local Mental Health call my home to ask my mother if it was okay to
hospitalize me, having my bank account shut down A few times.
I’ve been back to Traverse City three times trying to present evidence, petition the
judge of bad faith, and the last two trips having just simplest requests forA hearing, complete
with contempt of various orders, summons and complaint and or requesting child order
modification, to no avail. Which is why I brought A witness the last trip. It being such that no
matter what I tried or how much money I would present, I could not get A hearing, each clerk
and or secretary seemingly notified of me, with instructions to deny me.any legitimacy.
As well as, to best of my knowledge I am the only U.S. Crtizenunable to access or call
on any aspect of A Court, this one being in Grand Traverse County, yet am still subject to that
exact County Courts bindings, prohibitions, punishments and adjudications. The Grand Traverse
County now has A warrant and A restraining order against me. Plus , as you might be imagining
I am barred from even writing my Daughter. Much like the aristocracy’s our good nation toiled
to not become subjected to, I am treated in Grand Traverse 13’h circuit and 86’h district much as
A lower cast and assumed undeserving of the same bindings and or adjudication as another
citizen.
It becomes the prince to defend the very same laws to which he himself is immune.
Finally, not only was I resident of my home state California when most adjudications were
ordered in Grand Traverse Michigan which is forum qon-convenum if ever there was, some
Administrative persons claimed that I was “out there ind coming home soon”(assuming to TraverseCity) as the reasoning behind these lack of interstate considerations. Essentially, there are many
elements in the Grand Traverse court house and throughout the Grand Traverse officialdom who simply
make up whatever is needed to be truth, so as to bind and or order actions of another, in the manner
suited to themselves or they’re friends. With the lie being accepted just because of the old adage of
“backing up your co-worker”. It isn’t A new phenomenon in our platforms of power , but it is A
addressable one. Ifone has evidence to the contrary ofthe facts accepted and adjudicated on as
reasoning for said adjudications, then it must be addressed, or we are no better than A aristocracy or
worse.
There is many reasons for my torts to be vindicated, many of which are blocked by mechanisms
of human factor born legislation. Now I’m not going to recite studies on human inference or
they’re calculations used in social engineering. I’m not going to invoke any civil rights leaders.
I am however lead to point out how many persons have went through unimaginable hell of war
to insure we as A country stand tall with equality of human kind. That all go punished for
crimes which have been codified as prohibited. That all receive no more and no less than any
other, as long as they’re not found to be guilty of crimes andpenalized by way of lessened
rights. Those persons who have scraped through the worst mud blood and pain to fight and
endure , sometimes for years, the pains of certain death, did so for one reason, that the United
States ofAmerica remain the land of freedom and EQUILITY. That all are kept from unrightfully
invading others rights and or causing harm on to others, sonie of the basic laws of
nature and that the execution of the law of nature remain in everyone’s hands. These virtues
when leaving no persons subjugated foster the random inventor, intellectual and or soldier to be
lead forward and make this already great nation become even greater. In my opinion the greatest
nation in the history of humankind.
May you hear my plea.
Richard
Signed

Richard Zindler
(909)882 5383
Date. 9th of April2012 Case#11-2226
Motion for preliminary injunction
Richard Zindler (the plaintiff) move for the most honorable adjudicator to consider that;
(a) The defendants or through the entity in which the defendants Dawn Rogers and
Cynthia Conlon represent, have threatened Laura Converse saying the Child division
will take Evangeline away from Laura(her mother/my ex-wife) if Laura let me speak
with her
(b) The Defendants and or persons at the defendants request and or behalf have gotten a
hold of Laura as it would be impossible that
(1) Laura could have gotten a hold of the Exhibits of the original plead (plea333) to
which she is not yet a party.
(2) 3 days after the Defendants lawyers (CMDA) received my brief explaining absolute
immunity as it is now written, There was a hearing set for Laura to drop the Restraining
order Cynthia Conlon ordered as explained in the original plea [plea333,ch. (8) (a) and
Exhibit 9]
(3) The order both refers to be being a threat to my child with not one piece of
evidence to even closely substantiate such(c)since Laura’s ex husband Jason Schewe and myself have been implied to be abusive
I am afraid for her new husband. Since even when a judge looked at Laura knowing she
was pregnant, and cheating on ones spouse being against the law, when a judge found
this unconquerable fact in Jason’s Divorce maintenance hearing, instead of equal
diligence, took Jason to jail for a violation of probation, and said nothing more about
Laura’s part. * Laura is susceptible to influential “upper class”
people’s, and as a result, had recklessly kidnapped my child outright in 2007 at the
bequest of outside influence’s who then kicked her and my two year old child onto the
streets, which forced her into a cross country homeless shelter and farm run. We were
back together
soon, after that situation occurred, and together for about two years, seemingly
inconsistent to a
“decision” to leave ones family. Ergo, this type of influence can happen again as it has
with many others, according to my interviews of some of the locals.
(d) The letter Laura read at the personal protection hearing under Cynthia Conlons
adjudication2010-7454PP, revealing the essentials of the subjective intentions, Cynthia
Conlon ended up boldface lying to effectively materialize the objective
of removing me from any ability to pursue my child.
(e) the official[‘s] now are aware of Both Laura Converse(ex-wife) and her mother,
Kathy Scott(friend of Jeff O’Brien, and peripheral acquaintance of Dawn Rogers)
lacking the want or ability for lie’s, and I fear the defendants next actions for they arepowerful and mentally in “food” recapture mode. *Genghis Khan once a farmer created
his first army to get his wife and child back(considered more detrimental than food
destiny , but lacking recognizable reference I will use food destiny.
(f) the law firm representing Dawn Rogers and Cynthia Conlon have presented a off
the subject and slighted comment filled counterclaim which I have likened to the
“chewboka defense”, they are over the time limit to respond, refuse to answer any type
of
communication after signing a waiver of summons.
(f) The ability for a officials of a adjudicative nature to say ” what is this guy talking
about” and interrupting reasonable explanations with insults maybe laughter with nearby
piers, can and has somehow, though completely out of reality, bluff off past plea’s and
leaving the Child division to harm more family’s and a small towns “elite” to continue to
pick on the less defended citizenry
(g) It is my premise I wish to argue that, my Daughters Grandmother, Kathy Scott is
now in Arizona because she has proven unable to lie as she has proven to her friends. (A
trait to be envied by almost all Americans) Thus being a liability to the discovery of
crimes I had briefly laid out as such in the original pleading[(i)plea333)] This is A
possible bad faith-ed move for the Defendants (or cohort’s), in which describes the
capacity for bad faith ed actions, of which I do not want my child to be further subjected
too.

richard dean zindler
San Bernardino California
http://www.clerksofstrictobservance@gmail.com

UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS
of the SIXTH CIRCUIT
CASE;11-226 Tort, Personal, Diversity Jurisdiction
from the tort case in the Federal District Court of western Michigan 11-00770
Richard dean Zindler
(plaintiff)

V.
Dawn Rogers Friends of
the court, Cynthia
Conlon13th circuit referee
and Sgt. Jeff O’Brien
Traverse City Police#211
Defendant.

I (Richard Zindler, Plaintiff.)
Request for leave of Appeal under Constitutional
question.
Such groups include corporations that
contract prison labor, construction companies, surveillance technology venders, lawyers,
lobby groups and the companies that represent them. in mind. While it may be, that it will
fuel the economy, humans are cyclical in they’re reactions to they’re environments,
growing profusely when confronted with they’re food destiny and such.
REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT)
Act 236 of 1961
Motion for conjoinment of cases;2008-
6042-DM, 2010-7454-PP, and 2010-7679-SM
With a case of semi related subject.
Case:11-2226. for a non-dispositive judgment of
Constitutional and Interstate issues Listed as follows;

1. The capacity of a Court Officer to decide, without
evidance, that a person is a credible threat.
722.23 sec.3 “Best interests of the child” defined. Line(
i) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a
particular child custody dispute.
(f) The moral fitness of the parties involved.
2.
CHILD PROTECTION LAW
Act 238 of 1975

AN ACT to require the reporting of child abuse and neglect by

certain persons; to permit the reporting of child abuse and
neglect by all persons; to provide for the protection of children
who are abused or neglected; to authorize limited detainment in
protective custody; to authorize medical examinations; to
prescribe the powers and duties of the state department of
social services to prevent child abuse and neglect; to prescribe
certain powers and duties of local law enforcement agencies;
to safeguard and enhance the welfare of children and preserve
family life; to provide for the appointment of legal counsel; to
provide for the abrogation of privileged communications;
}—–*to provide civil and criminal immunity*{— }for
certain{– —}[persons]___ (these are the mooted lines)*—–;
to provide rules of evidence in certain cases; to provide for
confidentiality of records; to provide for the expungement of
certain records; to prescribe penalties; and to repeal certain
acts and parts of acts.

3.
722.2 Unemancipated minors; parental rights.
Sec. 2.
Unless otherwise ordered by a court order, the parents of an
unemancipated minor are equally entitled to the custody,
control, services and earnings of the minor, but if 1 parent
provides, to the exclusion of the other parent, for the
maintenance and support of the minor, that parent has the
paramount right to control the services and earnings of the
minor.

722.501 Care of children; agreements by county board of
commissioners; maximum expenditure; county expense.
Sec. 1.
A county board of commissioners may enter into an agreement
or agreements for a period not exceeding 1 year with any
agency, institution, or hospital, or agencies, institutions, or
hospitals which have been and are for the current year**—-}
licensed by the department of consumer and industry
services{——– to receive aid, care for, support, maintain,
treat, cure, or relieve in or by the agency, institution, or
hospital, any poor[???], sick, distressed, abandoned, needy, or
crippled child or children residing within the county who may

be referred to such agency, institution, or hospital by a judge
of the family division of circuit court for the county in

accordance with the provisions of this act, whether the aid,
care, support, maintenance, treatment, cure, or relief is
furnished wholly or in part by such agency, institution, or
hospital. The proper charges under the contract or contracts
shall be audited and paid from time to time by the board of
auditors, or by the county board of commissioners of the
county in counties not having a board of auditors. However, a
county board of commissioners, before entering into a
contract under this section shall fix the maximum amount to be
expended for the purposes described in this section during any
1 year, which shall be raised, levied, and collected as part of
the general expense of the county.

4.
FRIEND OF THE COURT ACT

Act 294 of 1982

AN ACT to revise and consolidate the laws relating to the
friend of the court; to provide for the appointment or removal
of the friend of the court; to create the office of the friend of
the court; to establish the rights, powers, and duties of the
friend of the court and the office of the friend of the court; to
establish a state friend of the court bureau and to provide the
powers and duties of the bureau; to prescribe powers and
duties of the circuit court and of certain state and local
agencies and officers; to establish friend of the court citizen
advisory committees; to prescribe certain duties of certain
employers and former employers; and to repeal acts and parts
of acts. –}entirely{—— [self explanatory]

As well as, The manner of instructions for venue in the State
of Michigan Courts Legislation, I(Richard Zindler) am
declaring michigan Court Rules to be glaringly bias to most of
Michigans the Residents and, Because of the Family Division
wing of ‘Friends of the Court’, and the statutory confusion, is
bias upon citizens of other States in the United States States of
the Union. Thus, -Clarity Act- relating to the subsequent
cases;11-00770 and 11-2226 Is such that our Country
desperately needs to refine and redefine. Therefore, I appeal both
the subject matter being adjudicated on in the said Michigan
cases as bad faithed, fruad upon the Court and the Courts legal
capacity to act Biasly, as unconstitutional, derogatorily

injurious, and a plain as day, mechanism of corruption in the face of
the Court of Citizens, for the sole reason of special interests.

furthermore, The statutes

(a)
552.9e Divorce; cause occurring out of state, residence.
Sec. 9e.
Whenever the cause for divorce charged in the bill or
petition has occurred out of this state, no decree of divorce
shall be granted unless the complainant or defendant shall have
resided in this state 1 year immediately preceding the filing of
the bill of complaint for the divorce. Absence from this state
for not to exceed 90 days shall not be construed as to interfere
with the fulfillment of the 1-year residence requirement
provided in the case of causes for divorce occurring without
this state.

(b)
Revised Statutes of 1846 (EXCERPT)
DIVORCE
552.14 Action for annulment, divorce, or separate
maintenance; entering personal protection order.
Sec. 14.
(1) On the motion of a party at any time after the filing of a
complaint in an action to annul a marriage or for a divorce or
separate maintenance, the court may at any time during the
pendency of the action prohibit a party from imposing any
restraint on the moving party’s personal liberty[???} by entering a
personal protection order under section 2950 or 2950a of the
revised judicature act of 1961, Act No. 236 of the Public Acts
of 1961, being sections 600.2950 and 600.2950a of the
Michigan Compiled Laws.
(2) On the motion of a party, before or at the time of a
judgment of divorce, order for separate maintenance, or decree
of annulment, regardless of whether a personal protection
order has been issued under subsection {?too further aggrivate???](1), the court may
enter a personal protection order under section 2950 or 2950a
of the revised judicature act of 1961, Act No. 236 of the Public
Acts of 1961, being sections 600.2950 and 600.2950a of the

Michigan Compiled Laws. How does this make a invisible fence compare up to the
negative affects like an aggrieved person unable to contact his or her child, not that
they’re are applicable situations for restraining orders. For truly if a spouse is going for
some retrobution of whatever kind a PPO can be a straw breaking the camels back.

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT)
Act 236 of 1961

600.2950 Personal protection order; restraining or enjoining
spouse, former spouse, individual with child in common,
individual in dating relationship, or person residing or having
resided in same household from certain conduct; respondent
required to carry concealed weapon; omitting address of
residence from documents; issuance, contents, effectiveness,
duration, and service of personal protection order; entering
order into L.E.I.N.; notice; failure to comply with order; false
statement to court; enforcement; minor; definitions.
Sec. 2950.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (27) and (28), by
commencing an independent action to obtain relief under this
section, by joining a claim to an action, or by filing a motion in
an action in which the petitioner and the individual to be
restrained or enjoined are parties, an individual may petition the
family division of circuit court to enter a personal protection
order to restrain or enjoin a spouse, a former spouse, an
individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, an
individual with whom he or she has or has had a dating

relationship, or an individual residing or having resided in the
same household as the petitioner from doing 1 or more of the
following:

(a) Entering onto premises.
(b) Assaulting, attacking, beating, molesting, or wounding a
named individual.
(c) Threatening to kill or physically injure a named individual.
(d) Removing minor children from the individual having legal
custody of the children, except as otherwise authorized by a
custody or parenting time order issued by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
(e) Purchasing or possessing a firearm.
(f) Interfering [???]with petitioner’s efforts to remove petitioner’s
children or personal property from premises that are solely
owned or leased by the individual to be restrained or enjoined.
(g) Interfering with petitioner at petitioner’s place of
employment or education or engaging in conduct that impairs
petitioner’s employment or educational relationship or
environment.
(h) Having access to information in records concerning a
minor child of both petitioner and respondent that will inform
respondent about the address or telephone number of
petitioner and petitioner’s minor child or about petitioner’s
employment address.
(i) Engaging in conduct that is prohibited under section 411h or
411i of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.411h
and 750.411i.
(j) Any other specific act or conduct that imposes upon or
interferes with personal liberty or that causes a reasonable
apprehension of violence.
(2) If the respondent is a person who is issued a license to

carry a concealed weapon and is required to carry a weapon as
a condition of his or her employment, a police officer certified
by the commission on law enforcement standards act, 1965
PA 203, MCL 28.601 to 28.616, a sheriff, a deputy sheriff or a
member of the Michigan department of state police, a local
corrections officer, department of corrections employee, or a
federal law enforcement officer who carries a firearm during
the normal course of his or her employment, the petitioner shall
notify the court of the respondent’s occupation prior to the
issuance of the personal protection order. This subsection
does not apply to a petitioner who does not know the
respondent’s occupation.

(3) A petitioner may omit his or her address of residence from
documents filed with the court under this section. If a
petitioner omits his or her address of residence, the petitioner
shall provide the court with a mailing address.
(4) The court shall issue a personal protection order under this
section if the court determines that there is reasonable cause to
believe that the individual to be restrained or enjoined may
commit 1 or more of the acts listed in subsection (1). In
determining whether reasonable cause exists, the court shall
consider all of the following:
(a) Testimony, documents, or other evidence offered in
support of the request for a personal protection order.
(b) Whether the individual to be restrained or enjoined has
previously committed or threatened to commit 1 or more of the
acts listed in subsection (1).
(5) A court shall not issue a personal protection order that
restrains or enjoins conduct described in subsection (1)(a) if all
of the following apply:
(a) The individual to be restrained or enjoined is not the spouse
of the moving party.
(b) The individual to be restrained or enjoined or the parent,
guardian, or custodian of the minor to be restrained or enjoined
has a property interest in the premises.

(c) The moving party or the parent, guardian, or custodian of a
minor petitioner has no property interest in the premises.
(6) A court shall not refuse to issue a personal protection order
solely due to the absence of any of the following:
(a) A police report.
(b) A medical report.
(c) A report or finding of an administrative agency.
(d) Physical signs of abuse or violence.
(7) If the court refuses to grant a personal protection order, it
shall state immediately in writing the specific reasons it refused
to issue a personal protection order. If a hearing is held, the
court shall also immediately state on the record the specific
reasons it refuses to issue a personal protection order.
(8) A personal protection order shall not be made mutual.
Correlative separate personal protection orders are prohibited
unless both parties have properly petitioned the court pursuant
to subsection (1).
(9) A personal protection order is effective and immediately
enforceable anywhere in this state when signed by a judge.
Upon service, a personal protection order may also be
enforced by another state, an Indian tribe, or a territory of the
United States.
(10) The court shall designate the law enforcement agency that
is responsible for entering the personal protection order into
the law enforcement information network as provided by the
L.E.I.N. policy council act of 1974, 1974 PA 163, MCL
28.211 to 28.216.
(11) A personal protection order shall include all of the
following, and to the extent practicable the following shall be
contained in a single form:

(a) A statement that the personal protection order has been
entered to restrain or enjoin conduct listed in the order and that
violation of the personal protection order will subject the
individual restrained or enjoined to 1 or more of the following:
(i) If the respondent is 17 years of age or more, immediate
arrest and the civil and criminal contempt powers of the court,
and that if he or she is found guilty of criminal contempt, he or
she shall be imprisoned for not more than 93 days and may be
fined not more than $500.00.
(ii) If the respondent is less than 17 years of age, immediate
apprehension or being taken into custody, and subject to the
dispositional alternatives listed in section 18 of chapter XIIA of
the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.18.
(iii) If the respondent violates the personal protection order in a
jurisdiction other than this state, the respondent is subject to
the enforcement procedures and penalties of the state, Indian
tribe, or United States territory under whose jurisdiction the
violation occurred.
(b) A statement that the personal protection order is effective
and immediately enforceable anywhere in this state when
signed by a judge, and that, upon service, a personal
protection order also may be enforced by another state, an
Indian tribe, or a territory of the United States.
(c) A statement listing the type or types of conduct enjoined.
(d) An expiration date stated clearly on the face of the order.
(e) A statement that the personal protection order is
enforceable anywhere in Michigan by any law enforcement
agency.
(f) The law enforcement agency designated by the court to
enter the personal protection order into the law enforcement
information network.
(g) For ex parte orders, a statement that the individual
restrained or enjoined may file a motion to modify or rescind

the personal protection order and request a hearing within 14
days after the individual restrained or enjoined has been served
or has received actual notice of the order and that motion
forms and filing instructions are available from the clerk of the
court.

(12) An ex parte personal protection order shall be issued and
effective without written or oral notice to the individual
restrained or enjoined or his or her attorney if it clearly appears
from specific facts shown by verified complaint, written
motion, or affidavit that immediate and irreparable injury, loss,
or damage will result from the delay required to effectuate
notice or that the notice will itself precipitate adverse action
before a personal protection order can be issued.
(13) A personal protection order issued under subsection (12)
is valid for not less than 182 days. The individual restrained or
enjoined may file a motion to modify or rescind the personal
protection order and request a hearing under the Michigan
court rules. The motion to modify or rescind the personal
protection order shall be filed within 14 days after the order is
served or after the individual restrained or enjoined has
received actual notice of the personal protection order unless
good cause is shown for filing the motion after the 14 days
have elapsed.
(14) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the court
shall schedule a hearing on the motion to modify or rescind the
ex parte personal protection order within 14 days after the
filing of the motion to modify or rescind. If the respondent is a
person described in subsection (2) and the personal protection
order prohibits him or her from purchasing or possessing a
firearm, the court shall schedule a hearing on the motion to
modify or rescind the ex parte personal protection order within
5 days after the filing of the motion to modify or rescind.
(15) The clerk of the court that issues a personal protection
order shall do all of the following immediately upon issuance
and without requiring a proof of service on the individual
restrained or enjoined:
(a) File a true copy of the personal protection order with the

law enforcement agency designated by the court in the
personal protection order.

(b) Provide the petitioner with not less than 2 true copies of the
personal protection order.
(c) If respondent is identified in the pleadings as a law
enforcement officer, notify the officer’s employing law
enforcement agency, if known, about the existence of the
personal protection order.
(d) If the personal protection order prohibits respondent from
purchasing or possessing a firearm, notify the concealed
weapon licensing board in respondent’s county of residence
about the existence and contents of the personal protection
order.
(e) If the respondent is identified in the pleadings as a
department of corrections employee, notify the state
department of corrections about the existence of the personal
protection order.
(f) If the respondent is identified in the pleadings as being a
person who may have access to information concerning the
petitioner or a child of the petitioner or respondent and that
information is contained in friend of the court records, notify
the friend of the court for the county in which the information
is located about the existence of the personal protection order.
(16) The clerk of the court shall inform the petitioner that he or
she may take a true copy of the personal protection order to
the law enforcement agency designated by the court in
subsection (10) to be immediately entered into the law
enforcement information network.
(17) The law enforcement agency that receives a true copy of
the personal protection order under subsection (15) or (16)
shall immediately and without requiring proof of service enter
the personal protection order into the law enforcement
information network as provided by the L.E.I.N. policy council
act of 1974, 1974 PA 163, MCL 28.211 to 28.216.

(18) A personal protection order issued under this section shall
be served personally or by registered or certified mail, return
receipt requested, delivery restricted to the addressee at the last
known address or addresses of the individual restrained or
enjoined or by any other manner provided in the Michigan
court rules. If the individual restrained or enjoined has not been
served, a law enforcement officer or clerk of the court who
knows that a personal protection order exists may, at any time,
serve the individual restrained or enjoined with a true copy of
the order or advise the individual restrained or enjoined about
the existence of the personal protection order, the specific
conduct enjoined, the penalties for violating the order, and
where the individual restrained or enjoined may obtain a copy
of the order. If the respondent is less than 18 years of age, the
parent, guardian, or custodian of that individual shall also be
served personally or by registered or certified mail, return
receipt requested, delivery restricted to the addressee at the last
known address or addresses of the parent, guardian, or
custodian of the individual restrained or enjoined. A proof of
service or proof of oral notice shall be filed with the clerk of
the court issuing the personal protection order. This
subsection does not prohibit the immediate effectiveness of a
personal protection order or its immediate enforcement under
subsections (21) and (22).
(19) The clerk of the court shall immediately notify the law
enforcement agency that received the personal protection order
under subsection (15) or (16) if either of the following occurs:
(a) The clerk of the court has received proof that the individual
restrained or enjoined has been served.
(b) The personal protection order is rescinded, modified, or
extended by court order.
(20) The law enforcement agency that receives information
under subsection (19) shall enter the information or cause the
information to be entered into the law enforcement information
network as provided by the L.E.I.N. policy council act of
1974, 1974 PA 163, MCL 28.211 to 28.216.
(21) Subject to subsection (22), a personal protection order is

immediately enforceable anywhere in this state by any law
enforcement agency that has received a true copy of the order,
is shown a copy of it, or has verified its existence on the law
enforcement information network as provided by the L.E.I.N.
policy council act of 1974, 1974 PA 163, MCL 28.211 to

28.216.

(22) If the individual restrained or enjoined has not been
served, the law enforcement agency or officer responding to a
call alleging a violation of a personal protection order shall
serve the individual restrained or enjoined with a true copy of
the order or advise the individual restrained or enjoined about
the existence of the personal protection order, the specific
conduct enjoined, the penalties for violating the order, and
where the individual restrained or enjoined may obtain a copy
of the order. The law enforcement officer shall enforce the
personal protection order and immediately enter or cause to be
entered into the law enforcement information network that the
individual restrained or enjoined has actual notice of the
personal protection order. The law enforcement officer also
shall file a proof of service or proof of oral notice with the
clerk of the court issuing the personal protection order. If the
individual restrained or enjoined has not received notice of the
personal protection order, the individual restrained or enjoined
shall be given an opportunity to comply with the personal
protection order before the law enforcement officer makes a
custodial arrest for violation of the personal protection order.
The failure to immediately comply with the personal protection
order shall be grounds for an immediate custodial arrest. This
subsection does not preclude an arrest under section 15 or 15a
of chapter IV of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175,
MCL 764.15 and 764.15a, or a proceeding under section 14 of
chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL
712A.14.
(23) An individual who is 17 years of age or more and who
refuses or fails to comply with a personal protection order
under this section is subject to the criminal contempt powers
of the court and, if found guilty, shall be imprisoned for not
more than 93 days and may be fined not more than $500.00.
An individual who is less than 17 years of age and who refuses
or fails to comply with a personal protection order issued

under this section is subject to the dispositional alternatives
listed in section 18 of chapter XIIA of the probate code of
1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.18. The criminal penalty
provided for under this section may be imposed in addition to
a penalty that may be imposed for another criminal offense
arising from the same conduct.

(24) An individual who knowingly and intentionally makes a
false statement to the court in support of his or her petition for
a personal protection order is subject to the contempt powers
of the court.
(25) A personal protection order issued under this section is
also enforceable under chapter XIIA of the probate code of
1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.1 to 712A.32, and section 15b
of chapter IV of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175,
MCL 764.15b.
(26) A personal protection order issued under this section is
also enforceable under chapter 17.
(27) A court shall not issue a personal protection order that
restrains or enjoins conduct described in subsection (1) if any
of the following apply:
(a) The respondent is the unemancipated minor child of the
petitioner.
(b) The petitioner is the unemancipated minor child of the
respondent.
(c) The respondent is a minor child less than 10 years of age.
(28) If the respondent is less than 18 years of age, issuance of
a personal protection order under this section is subject to
chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL
712A.1 to 712A.32.
(29) A personal protection order that is issued prior to the
effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection
is not invalid on the ground that it does not comply with 1 or
more of the requirements added by this amendatory act.

(30) As used in this section:
(a) “Dating relationship” means frequent, intimate associations
primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional
involvement. This term does not include a casual relationship
or an ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in a business
or social context.
(b) “Federal law enforcement officer” means an officer or
agent employed by a law enforcement agency of the United
States government whose primary responsibility is the
enforcement of laws of the United States.
(c) “Personal protection order” means an injunctive order
issued by the circuit court or the family division of circuit court
restraining or enjoining activity{????} and individuals listed in
subsection (1).
(d)
To Re-enact And Redefine

Act 166 of 1929 Statute Repealed-INDEX OF GENERAL LAWS (8.61 -8.68)

Subrule A (4) below allows parents to file supplemental pleadings without first seeking the
permission of the court.

(4) A party may file a supplemental pleading required by this subrule without
first seeking and obtaining permission from the court. The supplemental
pleading must be served as provided in MCR 3.203(A)(2), and an answer
must be filed within the time allowed by MCR 2.108. When this rule
requires a supplemental pleading, all filing and judgment entry fees must be
paid as if the action was filed separately
http://www.clerksofstrict observance@gmail.com

Image

ImageImage

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment