the corruption in domestic adoption -must- be stopped.

Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza Free Eliza

Civil liberties do not vanish with unethical gain, nor do children’s best interests navigate with fraudulent influence.

corruption

A VISIBLE INJUSTICE

Aspects broadly termed “private family life” are constitutionally protected against government interference. As such, a governmental entity must demonstrate a compelling interest to regulate or infringe on an individual’s fundamental right.

INAPPROPRIATE GAIN IS NOT A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST.

VIOLATIVE ACTIONS -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S4ch4P4HWhiilq65LXsgEW9RKZC5rJLV/view?usp=sharing

In this case, neutrality has been absent from the outset. The Kansas courts have abandoned justice, disregarded a father’s and daughter's fundamental rights, sacrificed a child’s future, and obliterated a family’s happiness.

BEST INTERESTS-

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-FYluRTgHeq28FbQ_Y7Ig29xCA54d-AO/view?usp=sharing

"No matter their background, their religion, or their perspective, the job of Kansas Supreme Court Justices is to be committed to fair and impartial hearings and make legal decisions based on the U.S. and Kansas Constitutions and the laws applied to the facts of each case." - Know Your Courts - Our Kansas Courts - Kansas Bar Foundation (www.ksbar.org)

unconstitutional

DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED

After a three day trial, the 18th Judicial District Court disregarded precedent, procedural law, testimony, and the evidence to terminate this father's rights, exposing collusion that has shockingly continued through appellate "review." Instead of ensuring that the proceedings were fair and that the law was applied correctly, the Kansas Court of Appeals added several exponents of misconduct to an unmerited accumulation. Then the Kansas Supreme Court failed to follow horizontal stare decisis, mirroring the lower courts’ incivility. The evidence and testimony--when the statute and case law are appropriately construed--firmly put favor towards the adoption being voided.

The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases. This requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings safeguards the two central concerns of procedural due process, the prevention of unjustified or mistaken deprivations and the promotion of participation and dialogue by affected individuals in the decision-making process.

The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law. At the same time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, "generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done," by ensuring that no person will be deprived of their interests in the absence of a proceeding in which they may present their case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against them. Under Due Process, natural parents have a liberty interest in the care and management of their children. Under Equal Protection, the Constitution’s guarantee to privacy rights embodies the right in child rearing. It is a constitutional requirement that when a state works to deny citizens of life, liberty, or property interest, citizens must be given notice, the opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decisionmaker.

When a natural father shows a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood, due process entitles him to substantial protection of that interest. Not fitting the mold of any archaic gender stereotype, this father has proven that commitment tenaciously. As they are written, he firmly satisfied the Kansas adoption statutes to secure his parental rights. Research suggests that he is the first father in Kansas to fight the wrongful adoption of his child this extensively.

The trial transcript and the 18th Judicial District Court’s ruling: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VUg_YgqyHZ0ibPo6y3m4FZj424k9AQjb/view?usp=sharing

Vol. 10 of the record—the text messages: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cez_uLq9xBlE5yj4JJrZYYUH9ojcYuQ2/view?usp=sharing

Vol. 11 of the record—photo album:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10rnePZ5wOsecMdafBaHnIdQ58yGIO8ms/view?usp=sharing

The appeal briefs and the Kansas Court of Appeals’ decision:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m5dd-Du7kG4M56CUsO_BRXUeWzzaxzYd/view?usp=sharing

The petition for review briefs and the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17tlsA7HfHcJ5mISJ9iwSOpeYr-1QZRoe/view?usp=sharing

CIVIL COMPLAINT

civil complaint proceedings

Continuing as a pro se litigant, this father filed a civil complaint against the adoptive resource for violations of rights; wrongful adoption; civil conspiracy; factual cause; conversion; loss of consortium; interference with possessory, parental, and custodial rights; intentional infliction of emotional distress; constructive and intrinsic fraud; unjust enrichment; abuse of process; false light; calumny; specific intent; wrongful family separation; and economic and non-economic loss. Despite what should have been a decisively favorable effort, the U.S. District Court judge dismissed the complaint.

Civil Complaint briefs and orders -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RpWxKGwnNf1bMFVv7W-cFGw1vIifh5M2/view?usp=sharing

CONGRESS HAS yet to properly respond

Father has called on congress to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1

“All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., 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 U.S.; 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.”

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5

“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Letters to Congress #1–31:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ymx0dDmQfU0T1TreO89eMmJT8gdhiGfC/view?usp=sharing

An answer has yet to be received.