1. The death and oppression of others to advance the inheriting successors’ benefits of rulers has been a global practice since the dawn of time by those who would use their talents and knowledge to supersede and subjugate the next generation of people in poverty. George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights, was fearful of history repeating itself and limiting access to justice. As one of the three delegates of the 1787 Constitutional Convention that refused to sign the Constitution, he stated, “the judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable, by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.” George Mason, Objections of the Hon. George Mason, reprinted in 1 Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 495 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 2d ed., Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott 1891)
2. Plaintiff Marissa Hernandez is a data analyst, research specialist, and strategic planner (amongst many other skilled traits) who's been dragged into a vortex of allegations that are screaming conspiracy in support of her claim to assert that she was and has been factually innocent. The pattern of racketeering for this complaint has become a sloppy scheme that will be proven through the exclusive use of legal actions brought against the Plaintiff by Defendants to further the conspiracy in a thriller tale in which police officers, medical specialists, social workers, lawyers, judges, and others have come together through their enterprise in a shared interest that could only be believed to be a fictional thriller as a novel series that has been hidden from the public eye while protected by the privacy acts that govern the juvenile dependency courts and the silence they’ve enforced and inflicted against victims of domestic violence in a lethal game of cat and mouse. On July 20, 2021, a court-appointed public defender in the juvenile dependency division instructed his client, Marissa Hernandez, to abstain from challenging the court as he made his passing remark, “these motions, particularly about the 4th Amendment, DO NOT APPLY in Dependency court. You need to STOP filing these motions.” In the case of Hardwick v. Cnty. of Orange (9th Cir. 2017) 844 F.3d 1112, 1120, involving comparable illegal conduct by authorities abusing their power, it was stated, “We believe this is the kind of case the Supreme Court had in mind in Hope when it talked about conduct so clearly and obviously wrong that the conduct itself unmistakably ‘should have provided [Defendants] with some notice’ that their alleged conduct violated their targets’ constitutional rights. 536 U.S. at 745, 122 S.Ct. 2508.”
Want to print your doc? This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (