Saturday, June 15, 2013

The Allen Laws 2009!

Main Page

From The Allen Laws

Jump to: navigation, search
The Allen Laws
Mr. Allen, CEO of Militech Systems and Militech.ORG
Mr. Allen, CEO of Militech Systems and Militech.ORG
A reference of the Federal and State Laws pertaining to the May 2001 birth and subsequent abduction Aug 11 2001 of a minor child at the age of less than 3 months, relating ongoing litigation from the State of Oklahoma on behalf of the proven biological father, to effect recovery of his child and protection from Interstate criminal conduct cited from 2001-2009 in regard to this case. For legal purposes, neither the child's name nor the name of the biological mother or other family members will be used herein, and all discussions will relate to the applicable laws of the United States which come into question in this matter. At present, civil damages are estimated at over $1,500,000 USD (2009) and growing, pursuant to Federal and State neglect in application of criminal law and required minimum due process relating to this matter, and ignorance of such Federal and State laws no excuse for officers, judges, or agents employed or acting under Federal grant of authority to the States such as Title 42 Chapter 7 Subchapter 4-D (collectively known in the child trafficking industry as "Title IV-D", the collection of laws related lawful custody modification, child protection, and civil damages for proven cases of civil or criminal wrongdoing against a child). So affirmed by Article 6 of the United States of America pursuant the ratification of International Treaty known as the "United Nations Resolution Against Genocide" and the definition of genocide contained therein which the United States by treaty does recognize as an International Crime and waives all immunity (Federal, State, and Constitutional) in regard to such crime.This site exists to communicate the Federal and International statutes violated in these proceedings and similar cases, of which many congressmen, senators, judges, and attorney generals have stated "do not exist and provide no protection in cases of a family abduction or court order rendered without due process or under false cause" in denial of legal action or lawful enforcement of State and Federal criminal complaint. Many lawmakers have also said that new laws would prevent such actions, and sought to exploit and pander to injured parties in exchange for support and lobbying to advance their political careers - asking the public to carry out petitions and propose new legislation where prior existing laws already offer protection from violation of parental rights and termination of contact or unlawful and excessive child support without cause, trial, or under prejudicial decision dismissing the innocence of either party based on gender, income, ethnic background, local State Citizenship, or other illegal form of discrimination. The context of this account are protected under the Oklahoma Constitution Article II-22 and XXIII-8, and cite violations of Constitutional Rights (4th, 6th, 13th, and 14th) provided backing of the Oklahoma Supreme Court (Kelly v Kelly Dec 2007) calling for formal criminal charges against officers and agency heads responsible as provided in Oklahoma Constitution Article XV-2.

Contents

Summary

Mr. Allen, Defendant in false trial on kidnapping of his newborn child Aug 11 2001 to present (2009)
Mr. Allen, Defendant in false trial on kidnapping of his newborn child Aug 11 2001 to present (2009)

Prologue

While parental kidnapping, state sponsored kidnapping violating parental and child civil rights and existing laws, and stranger kidnapping shielded by cooperation of relatives and denial of legal recourse due existing prejudice (John Walsh case) are viewed differently in many regions of the United States and between the State and Federal government level, common threads exist which set conventional custody disputes (civil lawsuits) apart from criminal kidnapping and ransom efforts (criminal law violations, abuse of office, duress or denial of access under color of law or by denial of law enforcement resources).
The Allen Kidnapping is unique because it represents a mistrial in a County court without appeal resulting in proof of legal intent to execute perpetual concealment of a child and gross negligence to criminal and malicious activities of State and Federal officers to deny wrongdoing by harassment and abuse of the initial plaintiff (criminal complaint August 11 2001) in favor of civil judgment initiated October 17 2001 and rendered by "default judgment" despite no due process or legal trial May 2002.
As such, it shows the extend of State and Federal corruption and abuse of office, violation of oath of office, and threat to the public safety and public good rendered by such actions without legal or proper recourse of criminal law enforcement divisions and protections. This is typical of several cases brought to the attention of investigators ("Bitara v The State of Texas", "Bitara v The United States") and denied standing under fiat claim no such corruption or mishandling was present or possible. While the details of the case are not relevant solely to the statutes cited, the denial of any such statute by multiple Senators, Congressmen, the Governors of both Oklahoma and Texas, local law enforcement in both states, The Attorney General of the State of Texas, and the regional field agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation - deeply undermines the "full faith and credit" any person or nation may place in the United States and its regional and Federal government, law enforcement, or the physical safety of a parent's bond and rights to their proven child in the territories of the United States or its enforcement and application of Treaties such as the (ratified, 1986) "United Nations Resolution Against Genocide".
A number of false and defamatory allegations have also been issued by the abducting party and commercial competitors who took material part in death threats and menace supporting the kidnapping of the CEO of the Oklahoma-based LLC, making false claims Mr. Allen was "an unfit parent", "worthless", "untrustworthy", or mentally ill before the public and in writing without any legal basis and for the express purpose of causing commercial and financial harm, denying recovery efforts, sabotaging existing business and the relationship of the firm with the public, and in such publications did use the trademarks, business brands, name of the company in searchable data, slurs, and altered photographs of Mr. Allen and his family to carry out such abuse. This conduct, in light of its duration (2002-2004 in Federal Identity theft of his full legal name as a .com domain for this purpose in the State of Texas) and again in 2008 after and in connection to explicit extortion threats to obtain money and suppress report of statutory rape allegations Mr. Allen was prepared to allege before the District Attorney, express the nature of this kidnapping explicitly.

Backstory


Related Law - Federal Statutes Violated

Law enforcement officers of the State of Texas, the State of Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma City (OK) office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have stated that "no such law exists" to preclude the removal without writ or lawful cause under threat or demands for money thereafter using concealment of a minor child as duress in extortion prior court order or intervention of child services agents or complaint. These claims are false and fraudulent, and so evident in the United States Federal Criminal Code: Title 18, 28, and limitations on the powers of the courts so described in Title 42 Chapter 7 Subchapter IV as well as Federal immunity from threat of incarceration or conviction for incapacity to pay child support orders issued beyond real and established income or claims to force the sale or liquidation of a persons estate to meet such demands, which by Federal Law may not exceed 65% of gross annual income or any penalty or duress or threat used to force payment of such excess. Regardless this fact, the State and Federal officers perpetuate a myth that child support is an 'obligation' and issued solely due to 'civil wrongdoing' or criminal or moral crimes under which unwed male parents are without rights or equal standing before the court. State laws exist in both Texas and Oklahoma which grant sole custody to the mother in unwed births, despite International Treaty and 14th Amendment protection which dictate equal rights regardless matrimony or state license in the procreation and parental rights of a parent to a child. Signature of the birth certificate is recognized as a legal instrument granting custody in the State of Oklahoma, as is the genetic testing (99.999% accurate) which prove the paternity of a child. Child support may not be awarded solely because a male is proven to be a father, as was the case in "Petersen v Allen" nor rights removed or visitation denied on the basis of State law or State Constitution in violation of Article 4-2.1 and Article 6 of the United States Constitution, and pursuant Civil Rights specified in Oklahoma Supreme Court review of 4th Amendment standing in Kelly v Kelly (2007 Dec).
States profit from the assignment of child custody to one parent, the collection of child support under Title IV-D matching funds granted in $500,000,000 USD annual distributions, and have strong financial incentives to prolong and create services funded by Federal Tax Payers from which States receive a portion of these funds. Fraud in such proceedings is Federal taxpayer fraud and violation of Title 18 USC Sec 1001 where such funds are applied or granted related fraud, a Federal felony. Abuse of office to carry out such actions is Title 18 USC Sec 872 and 873, and by U.S. Mail 876. Threats to support collection in case of fraud are covered under Title 18 USC Sec 875 and 1202, and where such acts impact commercial businesses or such statements are falsely placed on record related public officers Title 18 USC Sec 1951.
Where witnesses or plaintiffs in Federal criminal complaints are targeted by these abuses including denial of lawful enforcement, Title 18 USC Sec 1513e and 1519 are violated, as is the case with EPA and IRS regulations and harassment on false defense in response to class action at the State and Federal level of this dispute. Regardless claim of "full faith and credit" in Intrastate enforcement by officers of Oklahoma, Federal law was violated by denial of investigation on petition of habeaus corpus and citation of Title 28 USC Sec 1738Ae - prohibiting such action in cases of false trial and denial of due process.

Itemized Federal Law Violations

  1. Title 18 USC Sec 1951 - Interference in Interstate Commerce ("The Hobbs Act" - 30 years)
  2. Title 18 USC Sec 1201 - Federal Kidnapping ("The Lindberg Act" - any term of years)
  3. Title 18 USC Sec 1202 - Ransom in connection to kidnapping (10 years)
  4. Title 18 USC Sec 872 - Extortion by officers of the United States (1 year)
  5. Title 18 USC Sec 873 - Blackmail (1 year)
  6. Title 18 USC Sec 875 - Interstate Communication of Threat (20 years)
  7. Title 18 USC Sec 876 - Extortion by written statement (20 years)
  8. Title 18 USC Sec 1001 - False statements by the Judicial (5 years)
  9. Title 18 USC Sec 1519 - Destruction of criminal complaint to conceal a crime
  10. Title 18 USC Sec 1513(e) - Retaliation against a member of a class action, EPA violation witness or person bringing such complaint, IRS regulatory complaint submitter, or any other similar Federal crime which retaliation is shown to benefit the State or agents responsible in violation of Civil rights and Federal Law pursuant to the plaintiff whereby the standard of living is lowered as a result of that retaliation or certain fundamental rights are voided unlawfully and without legal cause to deter such complaint of corruption or violation of State or Federal Law.
  11. Title 28 USC Sec 1738A(e) - Right to due process prior removal of a child

Sovereign Immunity Defense

Statements that these actions are protected by State Constitution or 10th Amendment immunity of the State violate International Treaty and the Sovereignty of the United States of America, so specified in "Texas v White (1869)" and constitute sedition, revolt, and such act against the United States of America an "overt act of war" punishable as high treason. Such statements have now been issued in video recording and formal record of trial and defense in class action by the State of Texas and personally by Texas Governor Rick Perry (April 2009). Elements stated in those claims by Gov Perry include assertion that "all rights not reserved by the federal government belong to the States" contradicts the rights of "The People" and the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the Bill of Rights and Constitution so outlined by Alexander Hamilton in "Federalist No 84" - a key reference used by the United States Supreme Court from the Federalist Papers, supporting the protection of all rights not granted to the Federal or State governments explicitly and assumed exclusive and reserved to the People. The challenge of this premise, and the demands for immunity from the prior charges and obligations of the State of Texas under the International Treaty "The United Nations Resolution Against Genocide" and associated definition of conduct in this case as "genocide", "conspiracy to commit genocide", "direct and public incitement to commit genocide", "attempt to commit genocide", and "complicity in genocide" related Article 2 section b, c, d, and e violations in "Bitara v. Bitara" and "Petersen v. Allen" support these claims.

Immunity is Void by U.S. Treaty

Article 4 of the "Resolution Against Genocide" (a ratified International Treaty signed by the United States in 1986) voids such immunity completely, as enforced superior to State or Federal Law and any State or Federal Constitutional language pursuant Article 6 of the United States Constitution.

International Treaties Which Apply

  1. United Nations Resolution Against Genocide - Ratified by the United States November 25th 1988

Supreme Court Decisions Related

  1. Texas v. White (1869) - Claims of Texas seceding are Sedition and Treason
  2. Kelly v. Kelly (OK 100) - 2007 OK 100, 175 P.3d 400, Case Number: 104787, Decided: 12/18/2007 - 4th Amendment Right in due process for child custody and termination of parental rights


MediaWiki User Guide

Consult the User's Guide for information on using the wiki software.
Retrieved from "http://www.theallenlaws.com/index.php/Main_Page"
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)