Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Diana Ingrid Reismann Sexton, Petitioner v. Gilbert Sexton

Supreme Court briefJan 24, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

1 ~

FILED

jan u im

No.~

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE HONORABLE.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

CASE 23-0486 HONORABLE TEXAS SUPREME COURT

CASE 14-23-00175-CV HONORABLE FOURTHEENTH

COURT OF APPEALS

CASE 19-DCV-264-966 505™ DISTRICT COURT

Diana Reismann Sexton,

Gilbert John Sexton,

Petitioner

Respondent

1795 N. Fry Rd., # 249

10110 Sandhill Pine Court

Katy, Texas, 77449

Katy Extraterritorial Jurisdiction,

of Houston, Texas

346-479-5453

832-754-9345

RECEIVED

APR - 2 2024

H. QUESTIONS OF THE CASE

U.S. Fort Bend County District Court Judge Kali Morgan refused to be recused or

disqualified for violation of due process clause, prejudgment and bias, lying during child

custody proceedings, denied hear any motions filled by petitioner, failed to rule, and denied

hear a Writ of Habeas Corpus for an Argentine child to be returned to his mother who was

primary custodian of the child since birth until due process was obstructed by Judge

Morgan’s Bailiff Jose Falcon and some local law enforcement employees, who committed

aggravated perjury to a judge injured and tortured petitioner, tampered evidence. Fort bend

County employees also altered court records at district clerk level by changed the court

index, adding statements in court dockets, added services and precepts never provided to

petitioner, added notices of orders and capias orders never produced or stated by former

Judge Cindy Aguirre, and filed false allegations cases against petitioner, all dismissed.

These abusive government employee’s actions happened and were committed by

government employees under Judge KP George Administration during the past four years.

All these are acts of public administrative fraud, against a housewife innocent citizen, all

was reported to FBI agents in Houston and to the Argentine government.

Petitioner and her child are Argentinean citizens with dual citizens status whose their

constitutional and international rights were injured by these U.S. naturals actions, reason for

what petitioner is suing Fort Bend County and its employees involved. The Hague

Convention established the resolution of a case within 180 days, Judge Morgan took four

years of administrative silent and the case is still pende lite.

Judge Morgan ignored exceptions for pro se litigants during child custody cases, she

denied heard any of petitioner filed motions and she failed to rule on motion requesting a

writ of habeas corpus for the child and the return of petitioner’s sole apportion of money to

pay a lawyer. The Federal rights exists, and this case is also an issue of clarity of the United

States on regard of children retained inland who hold international rights. The fourteenth

court of appeals memorandum opinion on April 19th, 2023, stated: “... There are no statutory

provisions authorizing an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to recuse a

judge. See In re Hart, 460 S. W.Sd 742, 743 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.)... ”

1) Can a state district judge be removed from a child custody case for violation of

due process clause 14th Amendment, of petitioner after an interlocutory appeal

for recusal was denied, when the judge omits exception 3- 28 U.S.C. § 1654 of

pro se litigants, and commits a mistake of law?

2) Does this due process and other mentioned violations committed by a District

Judge Kali Morgan which violated both dual citizens petitioner and her child

Constitutional and international rights, is a jus cogens? (according to United

Nations, report of the international law commission on the work of its fifty-third

session responsibility ofstates for internationally wrongful acts)

III. LIST OF PARTIES

Diana Reismann Sexton, Petitioner PRO SE LITIGANT

1795 N. Fry Rd. # 249, Katy, TX 77449

Mobile phone 346-479-5453 dianareismann@gmail.com

Gilbert John Sexton, Respondent PRO SE LITIGANT

10110 Sandhill Pine Court, Katy, TX 77494

Mobile Phone 832-754-9345 sexton@mindpring.com

RELATED CASES

23-0486 filed in the Honorable Supreme Court of Texas

22-14-00175- CV filed in the Honorable Fourteenth Court of Appeals

19-DCV-264966 filed in the 505th Fort Bend County District Court of Texas

IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER OF THE CASE...................................................

II.

QUESTION OF THE CASE Rule 14.1 .(a).......................

III.

LIST OF PARTIES OF THE CASE Rule 14.1 ,(b)(i)........

.2,3

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule 14.1 .(c)............................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Rule 14.1 .(c).......................

.5, Appendix A, C

VI.

OPINIONS AND ORDERS IN THE CASE Rule 14.1 .(d)

Appendix A

VII.

JURISDICTION Rule 14.1 .(e)...........................................

VIII.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND TREATIES Rule 14.1 .(I)... 5, 6, 7, 8

IX.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Rule 14.1 .(g)

ARGUMENT OF THE CASE Rule 14.1 .(h)..

12 to 31

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI Rule 14.1 ,(h)..31

XII.

CONCLUSION......................................................................................

Xffl.

PROOF OF SERVICE..........................................................................

XIV.

APPENDIX............................................................................................

XV.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES WASHINGTON DC 20543, GUIDE FOR PROSPECTIVE

INDIGENT PETITIONERS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI,

AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION..............................................................

XVI.

MISCELANEOUS RuleM.l .(h)(vi) captions of previous clerk case.....

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Honorable Fourteenth Court of Appeals, dismissal May 11th, 2023, by Panel Consists of Justices Jewell,

Hassan, and Wilson. Opinion delivered Per Curiam, Memorandum Opinion and Mandate to the

505th District Court of Fort Bend County.

APPENDIX B: Honorable Judge Susan Brown of the 11th Administrative Judicial Region of Texas,

Denial, March 1st, 2023.

APPENDIX C: Honorable Supreme Court of Texas, first motion to extension of time to file a petition for review,

granted, June 29* 2023.

APPENDIX D: Honorable Supreme Court of Texas, second motion to extension oftime to file a petition for review,

granted, July 26*, 2023.

AP PENDIX E: Honorable Supreme Court of Texas, Petition for review dismissal and motion to extend word count

for petition of review, granted October 27*, 2023.

APPENDIX F: Honorable Texas Supreme Court, Certification oftrue and correct copy ofthe orders ofthe Supreme

Court of Texas for petition for review, dismissed October 27*, 2023, signed by Honorable Supreme Court of Texas

Clerck Blake A. Hawthorne, January 5*, 2024.

V. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

(FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 16(a). 599 U.S. —, slip op. at 1-2 in COINBASE, INC. V. BIELSKI,

(June 23, 2023)(interlocutory appeal granted)....20

McDONOUGH v. SMITH No. 18-485. Argued April 17, 2019—Decided June 20,

2019898 F. 3d 259, reversed and remanded JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion

of the Court. Petitioner Edward McDonough alleges that respondent Youel Smith

fabricated evidence and used it to pursue criminal charges against him. McDonough

was acquitted, then sued Smith under 42 U. S. C. §1983. The courts below, concluding

that the limitations period for McDonough’s fabricated evidence claim began to run

when the evidence was used against him, determined that the claim was untimely. We

hold that the limitations period did not begin to run until McDonough’s acquittal, and

therefore reverse

SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST v. DRIEHAUS 525 Fed. Appx. 415, reversed and

remanded No. 13-193. Argued April 22, 2014—Decided June 16, 2014

JUSTICE Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners in this case seek to

challenge an Ohio statute that prohibits certain “false statements ” during the course

of a political campaign. The question in this case is whether their pre-enforcement

challenge to that law is justiciable—and in particular, whether they have alleged a

sufficiently imminent injuryfor the purposes ofArticle III. We conclude that they have.

Petitioners in this case have demonstrated an injury in fact sufficient for Article III

standing. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion, including a determination whether the remaining Article III standing

requirements are met. It is so ordered

SUPREME

COURT

THE

UNITED

STATES

DAVID

THOMPSON, ETAL., v. HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director of the Alaska Public

Offices Commission, ETAL. No. 19—122. Decided November 25, 2019 on petition for

writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit PER

CURJAM. Alaska law limits the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate for

political office, or to an election-oriented group other than a political party, to $500

per year. Alaska Stat. §15.13.070(b)(1) (2018). Petitioners Aaron Downing and Jim

Crawford are Alaska residents. In 2015, they contributed the maximum amounts

permitted under Alaska law to candidates or groups of their choice but wanted to

contribute more. They sued members of the Alaska Public Offices Commission,

contending that Alaska’s individual-to-ccmdidate and individual-to-group contribution

limits violate the First Amendment, in light of all the foregoing, the petition for

certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is

remanded for that court to revisit whether Alaska’s contribution limits are consistent

with our First Amendment precedents. It is so ordered... 15

No. 13-P-1035. 09-09-2015 Karina SCHECHTER v. Yan SCHECHTER (and a

companion case)

No. 21-908 US Writ of Certiorari 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). “There is no doubt that

fraud requires intent. The question in this case is whose intent counts ”. a “willful and

malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity, ”

id. § 523(a)(6); and Section 523(a)(2)(A) carves out from the rule of discharge debt

“for money, property. services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to

the extent obtained by fraud. ”11 TJ.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The question, of course, is

whose fraud counts. If the rest of section 523 is any indication, it must be that of the

“individual debtor ” herself.

McMahon v. Hodges, 225 F. Supp. 2d 357, (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (writ of habeas corpus granted

September 26, 2002)

In re M.M.E., NUMBER 13-14-00326-CV, (“NUMBER 13-14-00326-CV10-16-2014IN RE

M.M.E. & L.M.E., MINOR CHILDREN”) (Lower court granted writ of habeas corpus to Mother,

and father Appeal to a Writ of habeas corpus for children, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) (Tex.

App. October 16, 2014)

LITEKY et al. v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the United States court of appeals

for the eleventh circuit No. 92—6921. (Argued November 3, 1993'Decided March 7,

1994) (Justice Kennedy explains the difference on language between £455(a) and

£455(b) for bias and prejudgment, however he does not mention the commercial

relationship of political campaign lawyer who donates to a judge campaign and then

request financial information to a parti for potential representation and later

withdrawal)

Vin. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PORVISIONS AND RULES INVOLVED

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:

1st Amendment, “right to speech, rights to petition to the Governmentfor redress of Grievances ”.

4th Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,

but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the

place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”

5th Amendment, “punishment without due process and right ofproperty not seized without a just compensation

7th Amendment, “the right to a jury trial”.

8th Amendment, “cruel and unusual punishments ”.

9th Amendment, “about the right not enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive and

the people retain all rights not enumerated in the Constitution ”.

STATUE

28 U.S. Code § 455 - “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge: (a) Any

justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in

any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.(b) He shall also

disqualify himself in the following circumstances:(1) Where he has a personal bias or

prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts

concerning the proceeding;..

28 U.S. Code § 144 - Bias or prejudice ofjudge

U.S. Code § 453 - Oaths ofjustices and judges

Exception 3- 28 U.S.C. § 1654 of pro se litigants “The right to appear pro se in a civil case

in federal court is contained in a statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Thus, anyone can appear pro se,

and anyone who appears before the Court without an attorney is considered pro se. There

are, however, certain limitations to self-representation, such as:1-Corporations and

partnerships must be represented by an attorney. 2-A pro se litigant may not represent a

class in a class action. 3-A non-attorney parent may not appear pro se on behalf of a child,

except to appeal the denial of the child's social security benefits.

28 U.S. Code § 1738A - Full faith and credit siven to child custody determinations

(a) The appropriate authorities of every State shall enforce according to its terms,

and shall not modify except as provided in subsections (f), (g), and (h) of this section,

any custody determination or visitation determination made consistently with the

provisions of this section by a court of another State. (b)As used in this section, the

term—(l) “child” means a person under the age of eighteen.28

Sec. 51.014. APPEAL FROM INTERLOCUTORY ORDER refers to politically

subdivided land or municipality, and the area is an extraterritorial jurisdiction of

Houston, creating a constitutional gap.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges: Cannon 2A, 2B, 3A,

28 U.S. Code § 2101 - Supreme Court; time for appeal or certiorari; docketing; stay

(a)A direct appeal to the Supreme Courtfrom any decision under section 1253 of this

title, holding unconstitutional in whole or in part, any Act of Congress, shall be taken

within thirty days after the entry of the interlocutory or final order, judgment or

decree. The record shall be made up and the case docketed within sixty days from the

time such appeal is taken under rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. (b)Any other

direct appeal to the Supreme Court which is authorized by law, from a decision of a

district court in any civil action, suit or proceeding, shall be taken within thirty days

from the judgment, order or decree, appealedfrom, if interlocutory, and within sixty

days if final. (c)Any other appeal or any writ of certiorari intended to bring any

judgment or decree in a civil action, suit or proceeding before the Supreme Court for

review shall be taken or applied for within ninety days after the entry of such

judgment or decree. A justice of the Supreme Court, for good cause shown, may

extend the time for applying for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding sixty

days, (d) The time for appeal or application for a writ of certiorari to review the

judgment of a State court in a criminal case shall be as prescribed by rules of the

Supreme Court.(e)An application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to

review a case before judgment has been rendered in the court of appeals may be

made at any time before judgment.(f)In any case in which the final judgment or

decree of any court is subject to review by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari,

the execution and enforcement of such judgment or decree may be stayed for a

reasonable time to enable the party aggrieved to obtain a writ of certiorari from the

Supreme Court. The stay may be granted by a judge of the court rendering the

judgment or decree or by a justice of the Supreme Court, and may be conditioned on

the giving of security, approved by such judge or justice, that if the aggrieved party

fails to make application for such writ within the period allotted therefor, or fails to

obtain an order granting his application, or fails to make his plea good in the

Supreme Court, he shall answer for all damages and costs which the other party may

sustain by reason of the stay. (g)The time for application for a writ of certiorari to

review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces shall

be as prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 961;

May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 106, 63 Stat. 104: Pub. L. 98-209. $ 10(b). Dec. 6, 1983, 97

Stat. 1406: Pub. L. 100-352. $5(b). June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 663: Pub. L. 103-337.

div. A. title IX. $924(d) (1)(C). Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2832.)

28 U.S. Code § 1253 - Direct appeals from decisions of three-judge courts Except as

otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an

order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent

injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to

be heard and determined by a district court of three judges. (June 25, 1948, ch.

646, 62 Stat. 928.)

OTHER

UNITED NATIONS, REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION ON

THE WORK OF ITS FIFTY-THIRD SESSION RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR

INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS

Article 8. Conduct directed or controlled by a State The conduct of a person or group

ofpersons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person

or group ofpersons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or

control of, that State in carrying out the conduct. Commentary (1) As a 28 1738 A

general principle, the conduct ofprivate persons or entities is not attributable to the

State under international law. Circumstances may arise, however, where such conduct

is nevertheless attributable to the State because there exists a specific factual

relationship between the person or entity engaging in the conduct and the State. Article

8 deals with two such circumstances. The first involves private persons acting on the

instructions of the State in carrying out wrongful conduct. The second deals with a

more general situation where private persons act under the State’s direction or

control. 153 Bearing in mind the important role played by the principle of effectiveness

in international law, it is necessary to take into account in both cases the existence of a

real link between the person or group performing the act and the State machinery.

University of Miami- Interamerican Law Review, “Dual Nationality, the Myth of

Election, and a Kinder, Gentler State Department” H. Ansgar Kelly (1-1-1992)

“The Charming Betsy canon ” International Customary Law: The International Court

of Justice (ICJ) is the main judicial body of the United Nations, and it settles

disagreements between member states of the United Nations. Under Chapter II. Article

38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, international customs and

general practices of nations shall be one of the court’s sources of customary

international law is one of the sources of international law. Customary international

law can be established by showing (1) state practice and(2) opinio

juris

(On application to United States naturalization processes for children born overseas)

-«'■

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

to the

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

petition and is

[ ] reported at_________________________________ ______________

i or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [ ] is

unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

petition and is

[ ] reported at___________________________ __________________

to the

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [ ] is

unpublished.

[X ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court Texas Supreme Court to review the

merits appears at Appendix C_ to the petition and is

[ ] reported at_______there was no opinion for its dismissal__________ ;or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [ ] is

unpublished.

The opinion of the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals appears at

Appendix. A to the petition and is

[ ] reported at____Memorandum Opinion Appendix A

__________

[X] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [ ]

is unpublished.

;or,

VH. JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was __ .

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals on the

, and a copy of the

following date: _______________________

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to and

including__________

in Application No.

(date) on

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[X] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was 10/27/2023.

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix E.

[X] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

June 22nd 2023______, and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at

Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to and

(date) in

(date) on

including________

Application No.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

Note: Petitioner reserves her international right for her child and self to file in International

Court of Justice in the Hag

(date)

VII. JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a). The date on which

the highest state court decided my case was 10/27/2023 attached at Appendix E

IX. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

11 '

This case explains the imminent need of creating a statue within an

interlocutory appeals to recuse a judge in a child custody cases for those lower court

judges who fails to equally comply with the due process clause, or is biased or have

a prejudgment against one part on their courts, to avoid complete an unfair trial, an

appeal, and a new trial and a new appeal, going back and forward from lower courts

to higher courts because the judge does not behave equally and provides the time to

speak and right to present their side to both parts, intentionally wasting this way time

on a child life until the child reaches 18 years old, wasting money and administrative

State resources paid by tax dollars, while depriving a child of one parent for years.

The recusal and disqualification of Judge Kali Morgan from 505th Court

District is greatly justified because she elapsed with her associate judge Clayton for

four years the age of the child denying heard petitioner’s side, she avoided take

testimony to petitioner material witness and avoided to rule in urgent motions;

preventing this way petitioner to file under the Hague Convention for retention of

the minor in United States by economic manipulation and abuse of respondent, and

manipulating the child education, his answers and wellbeing without consulting

petitioner, which result in an unfair administration of the law, making a parent wait

for years the never ruled decision of a lower court judge over her child custody,

violating the due process clause and retaining both the mother and the child for 16

years without visiting their family in other nation.

On July 29 of 2019, Respondent filed for divorce five days after petitioner

naturalized American and on 08/13/2019 respondent lawyers committed aggravated

perjury to visitor Federal Judge Terence Kern who ruled custody 50/50 the house to

respondent and $1,000 one-time to petitioner and asked petitioner “Can you get a

job? ” [sic] petitioner was a housewife, he also placed a fine of $200 to petitioner for

ask him twice if he will provide an appointed lawyer to petitioner. Petitioner was not

familiar with the process in United States.

Prior elections of 2019, petitioner consulted with Judge Christian Becerra on

August of 2019 during electoral campaign, and he requested from petitioner $5000.to be her lawyer, petitioner did not have any money. During that consultation,

Becerra defamed in front of the petitioner, his former partner in business, judge

David Perwin who was the judge on petitioner’s divorce case. Petitioner did not

know anyone in Richmond and was a housewife for twelve years.

Petitioner went with her child to the Houston FBI and reposted irregular

situations in that court, the child testified to an agent “I want to live with her” [sic].

At the hearing of September 18th of 2019, petitioner was stopped by the court bailiff

Jose Falcon who illegally separated the child from petitioner who placed the child in

a mediation room, Judge Becerra entered in the courtroom, greeted petitioner, talked

to the court bailiff Jose Falcon and left. The court bailiff without any judge’s orders

battered petitioner after she stated to judge Aguirre “I went to the FBF. Judge

Becerra was deleted from the tampered surveillance video evidence released by

Sheriff Fagan office, captured by 505th court surveillance cameras.

The child wanted to tell the judge his wish to live with his mother, so the

petitioner had a motion to confer in chambers prepared for free by Judge Janet

Heppard the former director of the University of Houston law school. Judge Becerra

ran a political campaign with Judge Morgan, who won Judge Pewin’s bench in

doubted elections because the area is an extraterritorial jurisdiction of Houston, and

constitutional “gap” on regard of what residents can vote for, depending on which

side of the road they, this is an unresolved land of Houston, claimed by Katy, TX

under statue 42021 Texas local government body.

Petitioner and her child are Argentinean citizens, naturalized Americans and

dual citizen of both nations, who were injured by these U.S. naturals actions, as well

in their constitutional and international rights, reason for what petitioner is also suing

Fort Bend County and its employees involved.

Judge Morgan ignored the exceptions for pro se litigants during child

custody cases, she denied heard any of the motion’s petitioner filed and she failed to

rule on motion requesting a writ of habeas corpus for the child to be returned to his

mother and the return of petitioner sole apportion of money to pay a lawyer.

The Federal rights exists, and this case is also an issue of clarity of the

United States credibility on regard of custody process for children retained inland

who hold international rights and duties of both nations, and visitation right to their

family in Argentina.

Judge Morgan denies heard petitioner’s part of the case, who is a pro se

litigant because her money is retained by respondent, and she denied rule on such

release to pay a lawyer. She forces the petitioner to self-disclose all divorce

information for her failure to rule and administrative silence, which is

unconstitutional, because respondent had five lawyers and petitioner is a pro se

litigant. Judge Morgan actions are unethical and unprofessional because she forces

petitioner to disclose in writing private family issues with her negligence. There is a

clear prejudgment and a bias, because both parties must be heard on their arguments

and have a legal representation of the case and complete a trial. Respondent lawyers

had filed false allegations to influence the ruling to their side.

Petitioner will not sign anything without a lawyer, in the meantime the child

has been subject of ransom-like negotiations by a judge’s hand who place conditions

to return the Argentine child to his Argentine mother.

If any motion filed by petitioner is heard, including a Writ of Habeas Corpus

to return the Argentine child to petitioner, his mother, because the child was illegally

separated by the public fraud committed by Judge Morgan court’s bailiff and other

local sheriff deputies involved, and by local layers who committed aggravated

perjury to a visitor Federal Judge Terence Kern. This contested case becomes only

one party favored by the judge Morgan’s hand who only talks to respondent lawyers

resulting in a violation of due process clause for petitioner, favoring one part over

the other part because they have a lawyer and at the same time, she is favoring a

natural citizen over a dual citizen.

Therefore, a parent must not wait until the end of the trial and its subsequent

ruling to appeal, because the process as in this case is taking four years of a child

growth, who is close to adulthood, without concluding the purpose of the litigation

which is the child custody and division of property in control of the respondent,

whose manipulative behavior, along with his lawyers, school educators, are

depriving petitioner any input over the decisions for the child, while the district court

judge fails to comply with their duties equally, and recognize petitioner’s

constitutionally parental rights grossly ignored by Judge Morgan.

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

Judge Morgan is part of a group of politicians who rule by political interest

instead of applying the law, and whose corrupted employees obstructed judicial

proceedings and due process into her district court in United States, during child

custody proceedings for a child bom in Argentina, brought to United States under

false promises, and retained into United States by economic manipulation, deprived

visit his family in Argentina for sixteen years.

The case derived on fraudulent claims of local Fort Bend County Sheriff

government employees, including judge Morgan’s bailiff and sheriff deputies who

violated the Vienna convention Article 36th recording consular communications and

confiscated consular mail, illegally confiscated the child’s foreign identifications,

violated due process, intruded petitioner property without any order or warrant,

violated parental rights and Constitutional rights of petitioner, favored aid a natural

citizen over a dual citizen, and intentionally elapsed the time of the child age to

prevent file under Hague Convention for such brutal retention and violation of

rights.

When a person is deprived or sole and joint resources, there is no freedom,

no happiness and no equal access to law and justice in a nation which is money

driven, where the law forbids lawyers to act on contingency in child custody cases,

and there is any federal and state lawyer’s network appointed by courts in cases of

inability to pay legal fees, who can provide legal assistance for the disproportionate

economic difference to access to law, justice, and for the retention of joint economic

assets during divorce cases which limits the legal representation of the child from

other parent’s side, especially when the judge only hears opposite part lawyers.

This case explains the consideration of the necessity in the judicial system of

implementing an agile and fair due process to hear child custody cases in lower

courts, and to allow recusal of those judges who do not comply with the law.

X. ARGUMENT OF THE CASE

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

District Judge Kali Morgan committed administrative silent for four years,

failed heard petitioner and her witness and rule to return a jus soli child of Argentina

illegally taken by a court bailiff Jose Falcon false allegations and other county

employees in a plot to destabilize former U.S. Judge David Perwin of bench, using

petitioner’s case for it, apparently organized by his former partner Judge Christian

Becerra during his political judicial campaign in 2019.

During Judge Morgan campaign one of the most important donors was

another lawyer S. consulted by petitioner who charged $500 consultation fee,

requested all financial evidence folder to petitioner and then declined representation.

In any part of the statue 455 (a) and (b) nothing is specified about political bias

and/or commercial relationship by donors to a judge who may be consulted on their

services by a party of a case under their bench, because a normal citizen who is not a

lawyer does not know if the consulted lawyer will provide such information to his

beneficiary judge to who has donated $2500.- during campaign to weight the ruling

in certain way, to aid on information for a case or other reason to favor or disfavor a

ruling in which the judge sits on, as an ex-parte communication.

144

145

146

147

During Judge Morgan campaign according to her web post of Ballotpedia

which was deleted from the web page, Title 15 of the Election Code. (chs. 251-259

only allows $1,000. - per district judge). Judge Morgan received $8,000. - in

donations not disclosed, However the previous post deleted stated Attorney S.

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

consulted by petitioner donated $2,500. - to judge Morgan campaign, the same

attorney who requested from the petitioner $500.- on his consultation fee and all

financial marital statements, and then he refused to represent petitioner. This

{DAVID

librarian.

court

the

shown

information

was

THOMPSON, ETAL., v. HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director of the Alaska

Public Offices Commission, ETAL. No. 19-122. Certiorari granted Decided

November 25, 2019 on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of ap).

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

The child bom in Argentina, had his life organized into a safe

environment, and family, and respondent refused to stay in petitioner’s own

house with the baby and returned to Houston, Texas to set the forum. The

baby was under the petitioner’s care he lived with the petitioner. Respondent

visited intermittently the baby, respondent naturalized the baby American

citizen at 10 days of life at the U.S. embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Petitioner was not allowed by U.S. authorities to observe the naturalization

ceremony for her baby- Betsy cannon question of international law may apply

over following the Nation’s transparent naturalization process for children in

front of both parents.

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

There is a diversity jurisdiction, recognized by U.S. consul Anthony

Wayne in full capacities, sending child’s CRBA Certificate of birth Abroad

and U.S. Passport to petitioner’s house in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Respondent initiated the migratory process for a K-3 visa, and on 06/24/2008

at entering to US Bush airport attempted to leave with the baby, and he was

escorted back by airport officers. The marriage became insupportable since

then. Petitioner sole apportion of money is retained by respondent along with

joint community property. Petitioner lived in United States for twelve

previous years under a permanent residency, green car holder, and naturalized

American on July 24th of 2019; five days after respondent files for divorce

and petitioner is served with petition for divorce in front of her witness on

08/02/2019. Respondent left the marital house for two months until

respondent’s lawyer committed aggravated peijury to a U.S. judge to obtain a

quick temporary court order filed under rule 190-2 to benefit respondent with

all joint assets and the child custody.

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

Former Judge David Perwin’s court rule 3.a. and 3.b. stated there was a

mandatory mediation before a hearing and any prior mediation was completed at that

time not even having an independent mediator, thus the perjurious application of the

rule 190-2 to a speedy partition and dissolution of the marriage and the child custody

were fraudulent because the joint assets were valued more than $250,000. permitted by rule 190-2. Petitioner made a wire transfer from Argentina to

respondent of $65,000. - from selling her sole house in February of 2008. The

petitioner’s sole apportion of money is retained by respondent who did not share his

exact income amount with petitioner since marriage and disbursed joint marital

assets which petitioner has not access to it. Respondent’s lawyers committed

aggravated perjury to a visitor Federal Judge Terence Kern to obtain a temporary

court order, favoring respondent. Judge Kern ordered 50/50 Joint management

conservatorship, the house to respondent and not remove the child from the State of

Texas and pay onetime $1,000. - to petitioner and a fine of respondent for $200.-

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

dollar (for asking Judge Kern twice is he will appoint a lawyer for petitioner,

because petitioner did not know the U.S. court system).

The posterior order of Judge Kern on his docket is modified of his original

verbal say. The current order holds false statements about petitioner having issues

with the school, but the truth is the child was bullied at the school and neither the

school district nor the school district did anything to resolve the issue. Petitioner had

to hire a lawyer to argue the issue up to the Texas Education Agency including the

fact, Katy ISD was not in compliance with statute §89.3 of Texas Education Code

for Gifted and Talented Children services for K to 12 grades, petitioner was liaison

mother for Gifted and Talented with the Katy ISD district.

Among the tampered court documents, it was added in the court docket the

child support, which is not what judge Kern ordered, because petitioner immigration

status was a “housewife” and judge Kern only asked, “Can you get a job? ” [sic]

knowing petitioner had no access to money and nowhere to go.

In addition, petitioner showed Judge Kern on his hand, petitioner psychiatric

clearance signed by Argentine Ministry of Defense and petitioner’s professional

diver license signed by Argentine Coast Guard. Of this, comes to the evidence how

court documents can be easily altered by anyone who works in the judicial system.

The subsequent narrative provided on petitioner filings with the 505th court provided

the narrative needed to tamper at clerk level the court index and posterior court order

was altered and edited, making a public fraud of the use of a Judge signature from

what differs of what the judge verbal order. Such a docket also holds untruthful

statements, Judge Kern never stated.

In addition to that court order or docket, Judge Kern, clearly stated the child

cannot be removed from the State of Texas, and Judge Morgan did absolutely

nothing about when respondent fled the child to visit his U.S. family in Michigan, or

vacationing in Florida, while violating a Federal Judge Terence Kern order of the

court. With the same criteria, of access to law, United States cannot deprive the child

for sixteen years to visit his family in Argentina by the official inactions of Judge

Morgan and allow the child visit his family in Michigan in opposition to a previous

judge’s docket, making inconsistent the previous rulings in the case and extending a

geographic benefit inland for the child, to induce about which family is for the best

benefit for the child to visit until adulthood, because there is not statue about

retention of a foreign child in United States and prohibited to leave to other nation to

visit his family as well.

The child only grandmother and witness is 92 years old, lucid but handicap

and she cannot fly 11 hours by herself in a wheelchair and at arrival not having a

place to stay under petitioner care, just because respondent does not want to return

petitioner sole and joint assets and the judge does not care about the child well-being

Respondent was the immigration sponsor of petitioner, and he signed a

federal affidavit of support, stating that petitioner money was his, petitioner’s sole

apportion of money is retained by respondent and petitioner immigration status was

a ‘housewife’.

The respondent’s lawyers filed false allegations to obtain the child custody,

and deprived petitioner of her sole and joint property with the aid of local law

enforcement employees who committed public fraud, aggravated perjury to a U.S.

Judge and injured petitioner. Respondent considers that petitioner must wait until the

end of the divorce to have her sole apportion of money and share, and petitioner

disagrees because she worked on her nation for more than 20 years and she believes

on her parental rights, her right of property and her right of legal representation for

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

her child and self. Petitioner consulted about 200 lawyers who declined

representation for not having money up front, and for the international issue, only

one lawyer accepted under interim fees but were paid by respondent established this

way a commercial relationship with the other part, petitioner was not invited to that

hearing for what she did not trust that lawyer, the lawyer answered the divorce

petition and for brief time and withdrew.

Judge Morgan is ignoring petitioner motions to order respondent return sole

property to pay a lawyer, to have equal access to law and justice, and have a place to

live, while the cruel judge grossly ignores the 5th and 8th Amendment, forcing

petitioner to be a pro se litigant exposing a private issue publicly, in addition forcing

petitioner to sleep on her car and or in a hotel intermittently, depriving petitioner her

right to property.

In the meantime, Judge Morgan requests public donations by Facebook post

for her AKA sorority African American girls, while deprived petitioner a White

Hispanic woman her own money retained by respondent, and violates the due

process clause for petitioner; Judge Morgan solicits help for one kind of woman, but

deprives another kind of woman, she denies heard the mother’s side, using the child

as a subject of negotiation as a pre-punishment demonstration of her biased and

prejudgment behavior.

On August of 2019 Petitioner went to the Houston FBI office with her child

and the child told an FBI agent “I wanted to live with her ” [sic]. The child wanted

to express his wish to former Judge Cindy Aguirre, and petitioner had a motion to

confer in chambers, kindly prepared by Judge Jannet Heppard when she was

Director of the University of Houston Law school.

Within a fair legal system a district court judge who wants to sit in a case

must not have more rights than, a pro se foreign mother filling in forma pauperis for

the custody of her natural child taken away by U.S. natural’s fraud; who recused

such judge for failing to hear, falling to rule and failing to take any actions for four

years: just because Judge Morgan is an American lawyer who grossly ignored and

violated petitioner and her child constitutional and international rights by her

neglected actions and her administrative silent, for what she must not be above the

law over a citizen and her immunity is obviously highly questionable.

During set hearings, Judge Morgan repeated what respondent lawyer said,

showing she has no independent decision, when was petitioner’s turn to speak, Judge

Morgan used argumentative techniques to state what is allowed on “her court” and

falsely accusing petitioner of “not behaving on her court and been argumentative ”

[sic], which is a lie. Judge Morgan showed no respect for the petitioner or her job,

passing several times the hearings under such excuses and requesting petitioner take

more days of her job intentionally.

The petitioner’s witness was deprived to testify by Judge Morgan’s

linguistic discrimination forcing petitioner to speak only in Spanish, while since

2019 to 2022 petitioner had to speak in English during court proceedings for lack of

translators. The Department of Justice had signed a forced agreement with Fort Bend

County, so the county provide translators to their middle eastern employees. If tax

dollars pay translators for Fort Bend County employees, the same translators should

be used for constituents on their courts. Judge Morgan must not force petitioner to

speak one language over the other if the translator speaks another dialect different of

petitioner Castilian Spanish and does not translate accurately, thus Judge Morgan

creates another argument which has no sustain in law for forcing a person to speak in

certain way it is just idiotic because will imply all spectrum of disabled on speech

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

from electronic transducers of voice to FAS (foreign Accent Syndrome after a

traumatic brain injury, which according ADA would be discriminatory beside a

linguistic discrimination.

In a marriage where only one spouse holds the money and assets and the

other nothing, in English or Spanish is called abusive relationship, if a judge does

not comprehend that concept, she needs to vacate her sit for a fair and a better

trained judge, especially when there was a federal affidavit of support signed by

respondent lying petitioner money was his money. The U.S. government cannot

usufruct a legal migrant money for 12 years and then deprive her of all, and

throwing that person to the streets, to welcome illegal immigrants on their open

borders, pay all their needs and not those legal migrants and citizens, because is

called a selective spending or waste of federal budget which does not benefit to “We

all”.

In 2001 report of Honorable Senate over TREATIES AND OTHER

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS: THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES

SENATE Colello v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, however, a case

challenging afreeze ofplaintiffs' assets in Switzerland, a Federal District Court held

that the failure of the U.S.-Switzerland Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal

Matters to require U.S. officials to notify U.S. citizens of a governmental request for

assistance from Switzerland and to provide a prompt post-deprivation hearing

violated their fifth amendment rizht to due process and to this extent the treaty was

unconstitutional.\36\ It further held that the treaty’s "reasonable suspicion"

standard for freezing U.S. citizens' assets in Switzerland violated the fourth

amendment, stating that "[tjhe executive cannot eliminate plaintiffs' fourth

amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches by treaty." The same principle

applies here but vice-versa, if the assets came from Argentina and were declared to

the IRS, and are retained by respondent, while he invests his apportion and joint

money in stocks, which were transferred to his mother’s name to avoid pay

petitioner joint dividends, and release her sole apportion of assets to also avoid

paying the taxes for it “...to provide a prompt post-deprivation hearing violated

their fifth amendment risht to due process ” If Judge Morgan does not comprehend

this point, then she needs to be immediately replaced.

Dual citizenship is not prohibited by the US Constitution, and exists the

right to claim internationally for retention in U.S. by the inconsistency of their

lower courts judges who grossly ignore the constitutional rights while focusing on

little minor rules, and with the illegal local law enforcement practices such retaining

the child’s foreign identifications and recoding consular communications, violating

that way the Vienna Convention, during a request of help to the Argentine

Government and informing irregular situations affecting the child and mother

international rights, all informed to the Argentine Chancellor and Federal Argentine

Prosecutor.

Local county sheriff Fagan who is friend with Judge Morgan, must not send

his deputies to aid to steal and confiscate the child’s foreign identifications to aid

retaining the minor inland, simply because United States has any jurisdiction over

foreign identification issued by Federal Government of Argentina for their children.

Argentine children and teenagers are protected by Argentine Federal laws and

international children right to identity; Argentine consuls have the duty to see for the

safety of their children. Fort Sherif Fagan’s deputies were not trained on deal with

dual citizens; petitioner was threatened with an ICE deportation order, and later the

evidence released by sheriff Fagan’s office states for communication to Argentine

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

Consul petitioner requested the language selected was “English”, this fact is

evidence of the fraud committed in Fort Bend County because petitioner lived 43

years in Argentina and will communicate with her consul in Castilian, not English.

Fort Bend County should be immediately intervened for the level of fraud

committed.

Petitioner recused both judges for their lies and inactions in the case and

several other irregular situations. Under First Amendment to record officials in full

capacity, she recorded both judges lies and sent the recording it in an audio format to

the appellate court the audio was attached into her brief expecting the Justices

understand a judge who lies in child custody proceedings must be immediately

removed, because who suffers is the child, and the judge must not use the law

against a foreign mother who exposed her corrupted actions. Petitioner offers the

Flonorable Supreme Court of United States such videos, which were sent to the

Argentine president to be attached to the legal case filed as evidence of the fraud

committed in United States on its lower courts.

Unfortunately, the priority of the 14th court of appeals was to mandate the

judge to follow all rules while committed a public fraud, and their clerk priority was

to petitioner sign between two forward slashes, while original scanned signature of

petitioner was stamped on her brief. Petitioner also expected that from the lack of

statue over an interlocutory appeal, in this case recusal a judge who lies in child

custody procedures, will weight in the scale of j ustice more the factual wrongdoing

over the lack of rule, after all what ever is not prohibited, must not be denied, as a

result they could have granted the recusal, but they may have preferred this court to

decide it.

If United States allows and invites illegal migrants through their open

border, entering with children, with or without their identifications, United States

employees must not confiscate a child foreign identifications by force without a

court order, who is also a U.S. Citizen and legally entered to this Nation, because

this child is a dual citizen, and carries by his nation of birth international rights

granted by United Nations, as the right of identity, and live with his family.

Respondent which at childbirth registrations and under Argentine laws had fully

observed and accepted by respondent the issue of the baby Federal identification at

Federal Police facilities under the Argentine flag. These identifications belong to the

minor and its custodian was his petitioner, who carries the same nationality. This

fact is inconsistent with the current immigration issues broadcasted in many news

channels live, showing also during such invasion, those people foreign passports

were thrown to the floor into U.S. land, leaving a clear gap for human trafficking by

using foreign stolen identifications to traffic other children under false names. Fort

Bend County sheriff cooperated with such international crime by taking the child

Argentine identifications on 03/08/2020 to avoid petitioner leave with the child with

their Argentine passports and petitioner filed an Interpol report under the Argentine

law. United States has no right to deprive a child of their foreign identifications, nor

to retain two foreign naturals under their government employee’s fraud.

Judge Morgan refused to hear a dual citizen child custody proceeding with a

previous diversity jurisdiction in Argentina, and a previous “order of the court” or

“docket” signed by Federal Judge Kern, not recognized that order by Judge Morgan

as a valid order to hear a “Writ ofHabeas Corpus for the child” to be returned to his

mother who was the primary custodian of the minor since birth.

Neither the court employees cannot alter or tamper court documents to

justify their fraud committed during this case, in which the child’s education is

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

decided by his father and the school employees, without petitioner consent. Fort

Bend County does not have the custody of the child and must not abuse their

authority as they did, to decide what is for the child best benefit, without consulting

with petitioner, because the child is learning about racism and anti-racism, drugs,

alcohol, sex and learning to kill in literature offered by the school as the only option

for critical thinking, in violation of §110.60 - §110.C. - §110.61 already approved by

Texas State Board of Education, which states “the student is expected to select a

topic ” [any]. All this is not authorized by petitioner, instead of learning about the

geography and history of the Nation where he bom Argentina, and he was extracted

from under false promises: the school opts for indoctrinating the child against

petitioner and the judge opts for draining family assets to have lawyers only for one

side, not providing the relief for petitioner, to as retaliation intentionally deprive of

basic needs and equal access to law and justice with a lawyer.

In such circumstances, petitioner believes she should not give Judge Kali

Morgan an opportunity to fix her errors or her abuse of discretion or her

administrative silent, because Judge Morgan had four years to act, and she did not

give an opportunity to petitioner to speak and present her side of the case while

wasting four years of her child life intentionally with her and her associate’s Judge

Clayton false procedural excuses, nor has to agree in nothing to respondent lawyers

who lied in child custody proceedings to benefit their client.

The petitioner also believes her case must be heard in a federal court for dual

citizenship under customary law and because this case it holds a jus cogens

produced by American citizens toward both Argentine naturals which also fits for

Alien Tort.

In addition, Judge Morgan made false statements about petitioner, exposing

her prejudgment, specifically stated “you did not file your motions right” [sic]

which is not true, because it was an error of spelling the name of each motion by the

district clerk employee, and judge Morgan previously read each name of the motion

to be heard and few minutes later she stated “she did not even know which motions

are to be heard by her”\sic]; all this was videorecorded as well is other example

Judge Morgan untruthfulness.

She also took one year to understand one English sentence from petitioner in

a motion Filed in February of 2022 written “I demand a jury trial” [sic] and showed

and admitted as evidence by Honorable District Judge Susan Brown recusal hearing

who was a wonderful Judge and was always ethically correct, even though she

denied petitioner recusal. Petitioner does not believe to give an opportunity to

correct Judge Morgan error of abuse of her discretion and her administrative silent.

On 09/18/2019 the petitioner Argentine child was illegally separated from

her mother by the court bailiff Jose Falcon.

Judge Morgan favored the opposite party lawyers to lead the case with false

arguments {SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST v. DRIEHAUS 525 Fed. Appx. 415, reversed

and remanded) and refused to hear a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the child and

curtailed petitioner right to speak and denied petitioner 92 years old material witness

to testify. Judge Morgan threatened petitioner with “I will not give you the child

unless you have a place to live ” [sic] and simultaneously deprived petitioner of her

sole apportion of money retained by respondent.

The petitioner was tortured and injured by Sheriff Eric Fagan’s deputies

involved in the case. Sheriff Fagan is best friends with Judge Becerra, Judge

Morgan, and DA Brian Middleton. Fagan deputies’ perjurious allegations threatened

petitioner with an ICE deportation order and her child to be arrested. Petitioner is

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

suing Fort Bend County and its deputies involved.

Judge Kali Morgan has a clear friendship, with the deputies involved in the

case, petitioner is suing, she had publicly posted pictures of herself, and such

deputies and Judge Becerra requested donations for her AKA sorority to help black

young woman, while depriving petitioner a white Hispanic woman her sole apportion

of money transferred from Argentina, which is retained by her spouse. Judge

Morgan denies ruling within a period of time of four years, which violates

Constitutional right of property of petitioner and elapse either the statute of

limitation or the ability of petitioner to hire a lawyer to complete both legal

proceedings. Petitioner was a housewife and did not know anyone in Fort Bend

County courts, she is not a lawyer or a law student.

The petitioner believes the sequence of events against the petitioner and the

child was a pre-punishment because petitioner was a witness of defamation against

sitting Judge David Perwin and self which was reported to FBI agents in Houston

building. Why would a judge candidate lie about a sitting judge to his potential

client, or it was personal revenge using petitioner’s case for it?

The 505* Court Judge Morgan, has a first impression pre-judgement for

aggravated perjury committed by her court bailiff Jose Falcon. Judge Morgan openly

made antagonistic prejudgment statements harassing petitioner, while not

commenting anything over respondent. Petitioner recused Associate Judge Clayton

and Judge Morgan, for the same reason, both judges targets petitioner with false

comments about petitioner behavior and the way to speak to sustain the sheriff

deputies false claims and leave false records in her court, however petitioner

recorded the judge and her biased and unfounded comments, thus, she did not

intentionally allowed petitioner of her witness to testify on the motion for a writ of

Habeas Corpus for the Argentine child, taken away from petitioner by U.S. naturals

fraud. In recent case question for Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 16(a).

599 U.S. —, slip op. at 1-2 in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, (June 23, 2023) (This court

granted and interlocutory appeal for stay)

Honorable Judge Susan Baetz Brown denied Judge Morgan recusal and

petitioner appealed in the Honorable Fourteen Court of Appeals, where the

interlocutory appeal was also denied with court merits and recommendation for

observance. The court clerk had not provided any court reporter records to the

petitioner and requested petitioner’s brief to fix and refile under Trap rule 9.1. (c)(1)

signature between two forward slashes, when petitioner brief had an original

signature scanned according to the Trap rule 9.1. (c)(2). “(1) a ”/s/" and name typed

in the space where the signature would otherwise appear, imless the document is

notarized or sworn; or(2) an electronic image or scanned image of the signature

Also, the court clerks were sending letters to petitioner requesting payments several

times for court reporter records never provided to petitioner and with an affidavit of

inability to pay court costs, for what petitioner has any written court reporter records,

which petitioner believes were clearly altered according to petitioner narrative,

which is a violation of due process, by having the right to inspect all proceedings,

records and evidence still while been a pro se litigant.

Further is to mention that 505th court reporter Mr. Bowers to make a copy to

Judge Brown she had unstapled an apostilled deed certified by the Argentine Notary

college and Apostilled by the Foreign Affairs Ministry produced as evidence of the

house petitioner sold to transfer respondent the cash, he stated he did not have

money to buy a house. Mrs. Bowers with her actions invalidated and international

document which is evidence of such money transaction, and it is clear that 505th

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

lower court does not know deal with international documents and dual citizens, and

their employees are more than stupid and intentionally harass normal citizens.

International documents cannot be taken apart it must remain originally, they

wrongfully think they can do whatever they want because they work in a court room

and they assumed that the naturalization as American citizen will forfeit citizenship

granted of origin, thus a person must not receive such harassment from government

employees or its contractors who may think a person be forced to choose between

one citizenship over another to resolve custody issues, because the false promises of

migratory process existed.

Petitioner has twenty years of experience working in the Argentine

government and never saw before such harassment and tampering of court

documents as happen in Fort Bend County Court, where orders are printed

differently of judge’s verbal words, including Judge Morgan lying during hearings,

recorded by petitioner for inspection of her untruthful statements and her oppression

to petitioner, audios which were attached to appellant brief under first Amendment

right of record officials in official capacities, also reported to the FBI. All court

orders were modified, including the deputies fillings, because Judge Aguirre did not

stated any “capias order” or notice of Capias or nothing to petitioner after petitioner

stated “I went to the FBI”[sic],\n addition the order was not found for three years

according paralegal of petitioner defense lawyer for such fraudulent claims.

Petitioner filed with the Honorable Texas Supreme Court a petition for

review for the level of public fraud committed during this child custody proceedings

by public government employees, which was denied without explanations, for what

petitioner respectfully files a writ of Certiorari.

The marriage is also registered in Argentina, and the inactions of the U.S.

government towards petitioner set the retention frame for the child, by either local

lawyer and sheriff deputies aided retain the minor.

The unfortunate case in the Argentine Supreme court G. 280. XXXIV.

RECURSO DE HECHO Gay, Camilo y otros c/ Shaban, Imad Mahmoud

Mohammad y otro. Over the Argentine Gabriela Arias Uriburu, whose Jordan

husband stole her children from Guatemala, during divorce proceedings and never

left Jordan again, the Argentine government had intervened 1999 and produce an

opinion the Jurisdiction was Guatemala. Mrs. Uriburu, never recover her children

because a human rights advocate and this case is exactly its reversed, the child and

petitioner are retained in United States for sixteen years for financial abuse and free

servitude.

The fact that the Hague Cort gives only one year lapse should be reviewed

and request to be modify, because children does not belong to a Nation in which

have to be kept regardless, the retention claim should be investigated and modified.

Another reverse example would be the case CR-13-574I9 State of Ohio Vs Ariel

Castro (July 26, 2013, convicted 1000 years in prison) who kept three young woman

kidnapped in his house in United States, the children of those woman could have

been claimed by grandparents or close family in other nations if in the eventual case

of those woman would have not survived to their rescue, but luckily they did and by

God hand are in well recovery.

The Hague Court studies each case brought to their court, if they take their

time to study each case, why would United States lower district court will not do the

same under the rule of law, which is supposed to prevail.

Petitioner believes the Judicial System in Fort Bend County, Texas has been

use as a tool of control against innocent citizens in the area who openly explain

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

about the extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the educational deficiency of the Katy

School which operates on the questioned area, which is indoctrinating our children

about age inappropriate topics, because petitioner was a “housewife” for the

previous 12 years and according to Sheriff Fagan’s involved officers fantasy which

are not concordance with their own statistics of little crime in the area, placing a hold

for $20,000.- and releasing for the price of a large pizza, making their own

declarations not credible, but just as a way to silent their corruption with the

harassment of citizens.

In the case Pugin v. Garland, Honorable Justices delivered this opinion:

“Individuals can obstruct the process of justice even when an investigation or

proceeding is not pending. Indeed, obstruction of justice is often “most effective ”

when it prevents “an investigation or proceeding from commencing in the first

place. ” Brieffor Attorney General 15. The Court declines to adopt an interpretation

of the statute that would exclude many common obstruction offenses from the

definition of aggravated felony under §1101(a)(43)(S). ... “relating to” resolves any

doubt about the scope of §1101(a)(43)(S), because it ensures that the statute covers

offenses having a connection with obstruction of justice—which surely covers

common obstruction offenses that can occur when an investigation or proceeding is

not pending Third, reading §1101(a)(43)(S) to cover offenses that do not require a

pending investigation or proceeding may create some redundancy... because the

traditional tools of statutory interpretation show that an offense “relating to

obstruction of justice ” does not require that an investigation or proceeding be

pending. Pp. 3-10. No. 22-23, 19 F. 4th 437, affirmed; No. 22-331, 44 F. 4th 1181,

reversed and remanded. KA VANA UGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in

which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ.,

joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a

dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined, and in which KAGAN, J.,

joined. ”

In this civil child custody case, the obstruction of due process causes a

tremendous injury to the child and petitioner, the part who was never heard, and the

statue mentioned is questionable “...which surely covers common obstruction

offenses that can occur when an investigation or proceeding is not pending... ”[sic]

because, petitioner went before to the FBI with her child and reported “irregular

situations in the court” [sic], the child testified to an FBI agent “I want to live with

her” [sic] referring to petitioner, as the child did since he bom in Argentina.

The obstruction in this case was during child custody proceedings, initiated

by the respondent who intentionally waited five days after petitioner was naturalized

as an American citizen, after twelve years of living in United States as a permanent

resident; for respondent concluded the use the shopping forum which favored him

for years and by having a lawyer, the money, and the retention of the child inland

and the use of petitioner as his personal maid, under economic abuse for years.

During thirteen-times petitioner reported the incidents to FBI agents at FBI

building in Houston explaining violations of Constitutional rights, tortures and

violation of civil rights and international rights of the child and petitioner. According

to FBI agents they stated, “they do not provide information ” [sic].

Petitioner also reported the incidents to the Argentine Consul in Houston,

Argentine Ambassador, Argentine Federal Prosecutor, Argentine Chancelor,

Argentine President. The Argentine Federal Prosecutor stated, “petitioner is in a

violent situation with the county sheriff and her economic situation by her spouse,

and that the jurisdiction is United States Petitioner signed a notarized power of

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

Attorney to the Argentine government to report this issue to pertinent international

authority and petitioner had sent recently the issue to the new President Javier Milei.

Unfortunately, the United Stated has done anything so far to protect the

child and petitioner, both naturalized American citizens. The only help received by

the government was some months of unemployment benefits, not even tax refunds

except one time of $60 dollars for 2021 and $393.- for 2023 - because every tax

refund was cashed by respondent.

The main point of this case is the Argentine child has been separated from

petitioner during fraudulent divorce court proceedings in which opposite part layer

committed aggravated perjury to a U.S. judge, and Fort Bend County government

public employees committed a public fraud in engaging on injuring petitioner

following the flaw of fraud and scam, by government employees taking actions by

their hands without any due process or court order.

Judges Clayton and Morgan were video recorded (under 1st Amendment

right to record public officials in full capacity) lying during court proceedings,

reported to State Commission of Judicial Conduct, which dismissed without

investigating, as they stated, “they do not have an investigator. ’’ which is shameful,

because it violates cannon 3rd, 4th and 5th of judicial duty in Texas. We the people

have some faith and hope in the judicial system, if the judges lie is it a wrong action

ofjustice.

The misconduct should not only rely on the vicious which a judge may have,

but also on the ethical conduct and untruthful statements produced by a judge and

the unfairness of the proceedings, because this case is a contested child custody case

in which Judge Morgan ignored the fact that petitioner was entitled to a lawyer to

defend her own Argentine child for four years.

If a court order was obtained by aggravated perjury to a judge and violating

a court’s rule of mandatory mediation, all the actions in the case must be voided,

because the child results stolen by fraud on U.S. lower courts and is retained by U.S.

naturals government employees aid.

The judicial system must not require a pro se litigant to follow all the court

rules and proceedings, while at the same time those rules and proceedings are

grossly ignored and violated by U.S. lawyers and lower court judges along with

violations of due process, because reflects the political favoritism they act upon to,

making the lower courts of United Sates judicial system the first line of a noncredible and non-fair system, in which a person is forced to agree or forfeit rights by

the pressure of their local politicians in courts, instead of simply follow a fair

judicial process in which both parts are heard on their truth and a subsequent ruling

is issued.

Petitioner respectfully request to the Honorable Supreme Court of United

States to Grant a Writ of Certiorari to recuse or disqualify Judge Morgan for

consistent violation of Constitutional right of due process for petitioner and her

child during three years, and move the case under an impartial judge who will listen

both parts of the case, not just the opposite part because it has a counsel, and it is a

natural of United States, which is the basics of a fair system.

When a government does not equally protect substantive rights and weights

more substantive rights and procedural duties, over substantive rights and due

process over children proceedings, is violating what is Constitutionally protected,

and also violates parental rights to decide “what is for the best benefit of a child

during their own children growth time”, especially when petitioner receives

administrative silent from a judge during four years; the court then abuse its

644

645

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

discretion, because it has the duty to hear both parts and rule according because the

case is contested. An example of this is the clerk, is more concerned whether a pro se

litigant signed between two forward slashes over what it actually is petitioned.

An antagonistic example of this point is petitioner wrote a request for help in

a white toilet paper cover to the Argentine Consul and received immediate help.

Petitioner called the local sheriff for help when respondent broke petitioner finger

and received from Fort Bend County Sheriff a pamphlet with instruction for

domestic violence victims, while taking her child to an undisclosed place in violation

of the Judge Aguirre Court order, making clear the non-guaranteed services in an

extraterritorial jurisdiction will aid those they want, not all.

If the acting judge explains during her electoral campaign “she is the most

qualified candidate ” [sic] and, then takes one year to understand one single sentence

in English “I demand a jury trial” filed by petitioner, admitted evidence by Judge

Susan Brown, she is violating petitioner due process and her international right of

file under the Hague Convention, for intentional elapse of the time to resolve the

issue brought to her court: a child custody.

Thus, associate Judge Latoya Clayton took another previous year to hear

false arguments of the opposite part lawyer Yanine Krohn and Mia Buratowski

arguing about “a $30.- trial fee no longer required”[sic] and with an affidavit of

inability to pay court fees and requesting Judge Morgan, “petitioner to surrender her

Argentine Passports to a county judge”[sic], for renewing mandatory Argentine

identifications for the child in Argentine Consulate in Houston, which were stolen by

Fort Bend County sheriff, making a jus cogens because local county sheriff does not

have jurisdiction over foreign identifications, and United States cannot force

petitioner child to be delinquent with the law to renew his identifications, just

because the lawyer is an idiot.

As a result, the petitioner does not believe Judge Morgan and her associate

Judge Clayton are fair or the most qualified to hear this child custody case; any of

them followed an equal due process for both sides. Both judges ignored exception 3.

of 28 U.S.C. § 1654 pro se litigation in which a parent needs to represent the best

benefits for the child with a lawyer. If a lawyer is hired for petitioner by respondent

is paid by the respondent, according consulted lawyer Judge Mike Schneider of

Houston “it creates and economic relation, which is not independent to act in that

case ”[sic], and reaffirms economic limitation for years, making the case not urgent,

making an intentional delay to elapse the child age until adulthood without

petitioner; in other words Judge Morgan intentionally delayed to resolve the case.

United States only focus on the abduction of a child from United States and

has no specific statue and procedures for retention of children in United States, and

under which circumstances specially under economic manipulation of the natural

who request the sponsorship. This child was happy in his mother’s own home, with

his direct family, and had plenty of support provided by his mother through her two

simultaneous jobs. The child is now 16 years old, and petitioner would still send this

case to the Hague Court under extraordinary requesting an exemption of case study,

for financial abuse, deprivation of foreign child and property, for the intentional

elapse of time, violation of due process, failed to protect a US citizen grossly

omission of exception 3) of 28 U.S.C. § 1654 along with failure to produce requested

records and evidence by the legal system the U.S. government has to provide legal

protection in such situations for pro se litigants representation for their children, for

the fraud committed by government employees and local lawyers and the failure of

the U.S. Government to protect both naturalized citizens, the child and his mother;

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

because the local U.S. Fort Bend County administration and its courts made it clear:

United States does not return foreign children to their foreign parents and use any

illegal means for it.

What is seen on the borders is many children entering with whomever to

possibly supply a child commence demand inland, where a fee for an adoption in

United States is approximately $40,000.- and local government employees accuse

innocent parents to take their children away to possibly feed their corrupt

administration under Judge KP George whose employees ignores International rights

and treaties as the Vienna and Hague Conventions, and dual citizenships; all is

authorized by his administration.

Petitioner agrees with Honorable Justice Alito Statement: of JUSTICE

ALITO. In a letter to THE CHIEF JUSTICE dated August 3, 2023, Senator Richard

Durbin, the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, “urge[d]” THE CHIEF

JUSTICE “to take appropriate steps to ensure ” that I recuse in this case. 1 Recusal

is a personal decision for each Justice, and when there is no sound reason for a

Justice to recuse, the Justice has a duty to sit. 2 Because this case is scheduled to be

heard soon, and because of the attention my planned participation in this case has

already received, I respond to these concerns now.

A Justice is a maximum exponent in law and has the right and duty to be to

sit on his/her court. However, a lower court Judge as Judge Morgan can be removed

from a case, disqualified and recused because she omits a due process, and

exemptions of pro se litigation for children custody, from the front line of the

judicial system she ignores a dual citizen has rights as “children rights to grow in a

safe environment, have his identity and grow with his family” and others.

The weight of decision then, should be use under international customary

law ofjus soli of petitioner because petitioner lived 43 years in Argentina, had a full

life, jobs family and friend with her son and was brought to united states as

respondent servitude and the child to obtain IRS refunds all cashed by him, over jus

sanguini and the same with the child, because the lifetime of the child was spent

under financial manipulation circumstances which limitation the return to Argentina,

as a result it is not a stay with freedom, live and happiness.

The former Argentine President Mauricio Macri was petitioner former boss

and signed a decree keeping petitioner’s job for one more year without payment in

case petitioner wanted to return, but respondent refuse to return or travel back to

Argentina, then petitioner and her child were stuck with no money in United States.

On November 20th of 1959 United States was signatory of Universal 1386

(XIV) Assembly on UN resolution 44/25 of children rights, but United States did not

ratify its vote in posterior Assemblies, which does not mean that a foreign child can

be retained in U.S. and deprived of their rights internationally protected by that UN

Assembly, and Constitutionally protected by a due process, for his own benefit, to

live with his mother as he wished, but Fort Bend County government forced the

child to live with his father by their employees and local lawyers fraud.

If those rights are deprived by a Judge’s hand without a due process, the

system is not fair, not equal and has tiers of justice that are not consistent of what is

promoted internationally, thus these type of cases are not reported to United Nations

delegates to resolve international issues, because inland the system has gaps and

judges as in this case does not apply either Constitutional and International rights,

just to silence the issue and manipulate the outcome of a case according to their

political preferences as judge Morgan did instead of the applying the law neutrally.

In Argentina children and teenagers are protected by Federal laws.

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

769

770

771

772

773

774

775

776

777

778

779

780

781

782

783

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792

793

If the child and the mother are retained in United States for economic

circumstances, a county judge cannot just simply refer both the child and the mother

only as naturalized Americans and ignore to rule for four years. The Hague Court

hears each case, United States cannot only assume their judges’ decisions are the

best for the child, if one part in a case is not heard and the local government

cooperate to retain the child inland under fraud, administrative excuses, clearly

violating the Hague Convention by Judge Morgan and by the fraud committed by

Sheriff Fagan deputies in Fort Bend County on illegal searches without warrants and

false claims. Petitioner offers recorded communications of Argentine Consul in

which tortures are clearly described; it becomes a fraud committed by U.S.

government employees as a jus cogens extended to this child custody case in which

Judge Morgan has a prejudgment for the hearsay of local lawyers and employees one

of them her bailiff, then her administrative silent and her inactions violates an

international right both petitioner and her child making this case also ajus cogens.

In such circumstances, petitioner had the right to request international help

to her origin Nation Argentina, for both the child and the mother under such

violations of a lower court in United States, also petitioner has the right to request

such violations be reported to United Nations, and to the Hague Court, because

United States failed to protect and provide equal access to law and justice, by local

lower government authority in less than twenty days after petitioner naturalization

ceremony picturing herself and her child with Federal Judge Gray Miller, and a

welcoming letter signed by President Donald Trump, which is a problem to have in

Fort Bend County, Texas under current government of democrat Judge KP George,

who grossly ignores international rights of its citizens in the area, having his sheriff

violated the Vienna Convention on recording consular communications.

President Biden on 06/26/2323 on the international day against torture

stated: “Torture is prohibited everywhere and at all times. It is illegal, immoral, and

a stain on our collective conscience. Today, on the International Day in Support of

Victims of Torture, I reaffirm the United States ’ opposition to all forms of inhumane

treatment and our commitment to eliminating torture and assisting torture survivors

as they heal and in their quests for justice. ” [sic] from the White House page, for

what he may need to come down to reality from his bubble and noticed in this case

since 2019 to 2021 tortures to petitioner were applied and not reported to UN on his

reports, whether inland or overseas it is a prohibited act which he is responsible for

been the head of the Nation.

Judge Morgan refused to be recused and recused herself of the case.

The interlocutory appeal of her recusal meets the test for:

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any

justice, judge, or magistrate iudee of the United States shall disqualify himself in

any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, (b) He

shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a

personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed

evidentiaryfacts concerning the proceeding.

Financial abuse is a limitation of own money, which differs from joint

common financial funds, whether the promise was joint and resulted individual for

one part, while depriving the exit of United States and visits to family in Argentina,

as a result it is a retention, because United States has stages to build credit which

cannot simply be reachable in a couple of days and weeks, without knowing the

system and if the help is been limited, if there is any. When a judge fails to

understand this part is intentionally diminishing a person, and she expect to request

794

795

796

797

798

799

800

801

802

803

804

805

806

807

808

809

810

811

812

813

814

815

816

817

818

819

820

821

822

823

824

825

826

827

828

829

830

831

832

833

834

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

842

843

“certain conditions to return a child who bom in Argentina”, who had no issues on

his nation of origin, this request becomes an extortive use of the law against a

foreign natural, which fits under alien tort, because a Judge cannot set “conditions”

of what her neglected actions deprives: the child, the sole and joint assets to provide

a place to live and the right of a lawyer; then a Judge under this spectrum of

behavior must not be immune of her abuse of discretion and her violation of due

process for the injury she committed by her administrative silent of four years.

The previous 505th court Judge David Perwin had a rule 3.a and 3.b which

required mandatory mediation prior a hearing; respondent’s lawyer did not comply

with that rule prior the first hearing, and assigning the child to respondent who was

not primary custodian and all assets assigned to the respondent the current court

order should be voided for not comply with court rules.

Then, judge Morgan is guilty of cruel and unhuman treatment of a dual

citizen, for keeping petitioner in misery during four years by failing to rule and is at

the same time incapable of deciding either for one part or for the child’s best benefit.

United States does not have a network of lawyers paid by the government in

such circumstances, also the wrongful concept of “pro se” litigation, in which a

person is expected to follow all rules and act as lawyers because there is not legal

help for child custody cases without money up front, as a result many parents are

forced to forfeit their children in front of judges as Judge Morgan who only hears

lawyers paid with petitioner’s retained money by her spouse.

The taxes paid in U.S. for 17 years were paid prior legally entering to United

States, and during the staying into United States, for a good purpose. It is great that

United States can help financially other nations, but it lacks the urgent help for their

own citizens who does not have nothing to eat or live in or defend their children in

courts with a lawyer. How many of our tax dollars are wasted in Judges as Kali

Morgan who ignores constitutional rights of the people on her courts.

Our tax dollars are not wisely spent: if a judge fails to hear one part and does

not rule in those urgent topics. Judge Morgan cannot request donations for her same

race woman, while allowing drain other race woman’s joint community property in

expensive lawyer’s hour fees who argue frivolous topics during hearings held in

front of Judge Morgan while she is depriving petitioner to speak; then, Judge

Morgan sarcastically states during a hearing “Mrs. S., let’s give an opportunity to

Mr. Moffett” [sic] Why should petitioner has to give an opportunity to respondent’s

fifth lawyer if no judge had given petitioner an opportunity to defend and protect her

own foreign child whitin United States courts?

Many migrant women have this problem for not having access to

community property or are placed in vicious circles of asking money for everything,

placed in debt to their spouses manipulate their credit to resolve their situation which

violates the Constitutional right to property, and the freedom. If Judge Morgan does

not understand this concept and rule according to a timely filed motion, the disparity

of criteria among judges marks the inconsistency of the system, as result se does not

comply with her own oath by deliver rulings: 28 U.S. Code § 453 - “...do equal

right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge

under the Constitution and

and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as

laws of the United States. So help me God. ” (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat.

907; Pub. L. 101-650, title IV, §404, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5124.)

Therefore, violates immigration promises of equal protection under the law

of the receiving nation, for the purpose of which the immigration was declared to

USCIS status as a “housewife”.

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

851

852

853

854

855

856

857

858

859

860

861

862

863

864

865

866

867

868

869

870

871

872

873

874

875

876

877

878

879

880

881

882

883

884

885

886

887

888

889

890

891

892

893

Therefore, a statement from Judge Morgan “I will not give you your child

unless you have a place to live” [sic], results extortive, and out of order, for using

the child as a subject of negotiation favoring respondent who has all marriage money

by his lawyers fraud, over the original wish of the child “to live with his

mother”[sic] stated to an FBI agent. Further, Judge Morgan’s statement can be

understood “to negotiate with a human being, a child” as a subject of negotiation on

possession of the respondent to force petitioner to sign papers or reach and economic

and custody agreements under duress and oppression by her hand, which is illegal, it

turns in a pre-punishment before a due process is completed. If fraudulent filings and

untruthful statements are allowed in lower courts, the oath of requiring the truth has

no purpose. Whether are lawyers or judges, no one is above the law, and petitioner

believe any fraudulent proceedings, must be reviewed and disposed and start a de

novo trial.

As stated, before there was a diversity jurisdiction in Argentina recognized

by American consul Anthony Wayne who sent the baby naturalization CRBA to

petitioner’s house, in Argentina. At that moment, the baby was 10 days old, and

petitioner had to ask an employee of the American Embassy in Buenos Aires to

return the baby to petitioner during the “baby’s secret naturalization ceremony”

petitioner could not see such naturalization ceremony of her son. The baby did not

pledged allegiance to the U.S. and at that time the baby did not have any

emergencies to leave Argentina, because petitioner had two jobs, one of them was a

20-year job in the Ministry of Health, the baby had a family, his own house and

friends. At that time, the baby was issued all his mandatory Argentine federal

identifications, which were taken away by or with the help of Fort Bend County

sheriff deputies on 03/08/2020 into a private parking lot after petitioner had dinner in

McDonald’s with her child. The deputies did not have any judge’s order, or any

warrant and the place was a private parking lot in an extraterritorial jurisdiction of

Houston with “no guaranteed services” for lack of municipality, making these

actions a jus cogens for the violation the child right identity given by his Argentine

identifications.

Argentina has Federal laws which protects any type of abuse over children,

teenagers and woman. The marriage in this case is also registered in Argentina as

well.

Recently, the Federal Argentine prosecutor have informed by an opinion

letter that petitioner is in a situation of violence with the County authorities, and with

her spouse. The Argentine Federal prosecutor has sent the case to the Argentine

Chancellor for her response.

Fort Bend County assumed the child was a U.S. citizen only, not knowing

the child bom in Argentina, and his U.S. citizenship was sanguis paternus. Judge

Morgan refused heard a Writ of Habeas corpus for the child, to return him to his

mother, on the merits that there was a current temporary order (acquired by

aggravated perjury to Judge Cindy Aguirre), and omitting the previous order of

Federal Judge Terence Kern granting 50/50 joint management conservatorship nor

recognized as valid by Judge Morgan, not even recognizing diversity jurisdiction,

which provide petitioner the right of primary care in Argentina and United States

while respondent dedicated to his work, petitioner was a housewife and care for her

child.

When there is a previous diversity jurisdiction of the minor in Argentina

where he bom making him an Argentine jus soli, for what Fort Bend County sheriff

has no jurisdiction over foreign federally issued identifications of the minor and

894

895

896

897

898

899

900

901

902

903

904

905

906

907

908

909

910

911

912

913

914

915

916

917

918

919

920

921

922

923

924

925

926

927

928

929

930

931

932

933

934

935

936

937

938

939

940

941

942

cannot request surrender the child foreign identifications, thus the tampered

temporary in the case court states on the point of Passport Provisions “it is ordered

that respondent will have exclusive right to maintain possession of any of the child

passports A.R.S. ” which is a fallacy, because the respondent does not hold the

Argentine citizenship as petitioner and the child, and respondent has been neglecting

the issue of child mandatory Argentine identifications renewal for the child not to be

delinquent with the Argentine Government laws at age of 8 years old and at age of

14 years old, when petitioner renewed the child mandatory Argentine Identifications,

respondent lawyers accused petitioner of “risk flight and request petitioner to

surrender her Argentine passports and the court to place a bond”

Therefore, Judge Morgan and Calyton committed a mistake of international

law for not understanding the topic: According the Interamerican Law Review for

Dual Nationality Vol 23:2 of University of Miami Law School “Australian

consulate said about Australian officials in the past insisting that dual citizens of

Australia and the U.S. must surrender their U.S. passports. If so, however, they

would have been acting contrary to the law, or, as one of the judges cited above put

it, "under a mistake of law” Rueff v. Brownell, 116 F. Supp. 298, 306 (1953)(Judge

Smith)... “the State Department is overreading the law in saying that all U.S. entries

and exits are to be on U.S. passports. But it would be senseless to seek confrontation

when there is no need. One should therefore always have both (or all) of one's

passports available for inspection, but one should vehemently object to any attempt

to confiscate a passport. All dual citizens shouldfirmly insist on their rights, and, if

these rights are threatened in some diplomatic out 178. Rueff v. Brownell, 116 F.

Supp. 298, 306 (1953) (Judge Smith); see supra note 49. 179. Infra. App. I. 456post,

they should immediately telephone the State Department”.

This is exactly what petitioner did, and the Secretary of State informed to

petitioner that foreign passports are to be surrender to a Federal Judge under the

presumption of terrorism only.

In addition, the law applicable in the area is questionable because the

domicile of the house, is set into an extraterritorial jurisdiction buffer area of

Houston, claimed by the city of Katy, without its resolution by the Texas Capitol,

and it is a Constitutional gap, because deprives citizens of having full right to vote

their government authorities. There is no municipality and about 17,600 residents

cannot vote for some elections and can for others, resulting in an inconsistent

electoral system which provides “quasi rights to vote” to their citizens, and where

services are not guaranteed, nor obviously their Constitutional rights.

The petitioner is not sure if such government employees were rightfully

elected for such Constitutional gap, not even “called to a referendum” by the faulty

actions of County Judge KP George. A few 17,000 people in the area can weigh into

a local election results and government decisions, overriding their citizens electoral

will violates the 15th’ 19th and 26th Amendments, just for an unresolved buffer land

which hold most of oil and gas employees with succulent incomes to be taxed for.

Judge Morgan recusal was denied by Administrative District Honorable

Judge Susan Brown, who kindly listened petitioner for one hour and told petitioner

“You have the right to appeal my decision ” [sic]. Justices in the Fourteenth court of

appeals denied interlocutory appeal over Judge Morgan recusal and found its own

dismissal meritorious with a recommendation for observance, and finally Texas

Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review.

The interlocutoiy appeal to recuse Judge Morgan meets:

943

944

945

946

947

948

949

950

951

952

953

954

955

956

957

958

959

960

961

962

963

964

965

966

967

968

969

970

971

972

973

974

975

976

977

978

979

980

981

982

983

984

985

986

987

988

989

990

991

992

(1)

“...the order to be appealed involves a controlling question of law as to which there

is a substantial groundfor difference of opinion. ”

In this case the substantial ground difference is the a- Diversity Jurisdiction, b-the

immigration purpose and its false promises, c-the particular situation of the child and

the mother under financial manipulation, d-the intromission of the local Fort Bend

County government on the actual retention of the child and e-the obstruction of due

process clause during family proceedings, f-the neglected administrative silent

Judge, g- the tampering of evidence by government employees, and h-injuries to

petitioner for retaliation with the intention to elapse the child age and i- the lack of

statue for an interlocutory appeal over a child custody case: whatever is not

prohibited it must not be denied.

Who speaks, who argues in the case: Judge Morgan’s statements were

prejudicial, discriminatory, curtailing witness testimony for forcing petitioner to

speak whether in Spanish over English, and arguing with petitioner about incomplete

translations, the translator did not translate or answer to the witness, specifically

denying heard an “a writ of habeas corpus for the child” based on the child was

cared by his mother since birth as primary custodian, and Federal Judge Terence

Kern, signed a temporary court order, providing Joint management conservatorship

on 50/50% custody; however, Judge Morgan did not consider Judge Terence Kern

“order of the court or docket ” a legal valid order to hear a “Writ of Habeas Corpus ”

for the child to be returned to his mother, taken away by Fort Bend County

employee’s public fraud.

Petitioner explains the Honorable Supreme Court of United States that all

proceedings were completed by opposite part lawyers, who lied about the facts to

Judges to obtain a quick temporary court order for their client.

According to Sec. 51.014.

(2)an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate

termination of the litigation.

Hearing a “Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by petitioner for the child” provides

petitioner the opportunity to legally recover the child who was separated from her

by the public fraud committed by Fort Bend County government employees and

respondent lawyers.

The fact that the Argentine minor was naturalized at 10 days of life for his

father in U.S. American embassy in Buenos Aires, and petitioner did not observe

such ceremony, later the Certificate of Registration Birth Abroad (CRBA) was sent

to her mother’s domicile in Buenos Aires, Argentina, recognizing United States

diversity jurisdiction. Later, respondent convinced the petitioner to sell her house

and transfer the money to him by reverse manipulation “I do not have any money,

but do not sell your house”. The petitioner lived with the baby in her mother’s

house in Buenos Aires. The petitioner was under financial manipulation of

respondent because she had to request money every time for any purchase.

There is a precedent in the case in June 24 of 2008 at entering the Bush airport

in which respondent attempted to leave with the baby and was escorted back by

security officers. Also, there were recorded 911 communications in the same year

petitioner called local sheriff, and respondent retaliate by making false accusations

to flip any conflict against him, including with his lawyers filed in court and with

Fort Bend County sheriff calls. Most of respondent lawyers were acquitted of local

Sheriff and local Judges, raising another question if public law enforcement is

private aid of local lawyers. In a small town where everyone knows each other the

court will rule over first impression, political, friendship or other social motivations

993

994

995

996

997

998

999

1000

1001

1002

1003

1004

1005

1006

1007

1008

1009

1010

1011

1012

1013

1014

1015

1016

1017

1018

1019

1020

1021

1022

1023

1024

1025

1026

1027

1028

1029

1030

1031

1032

1033

1034

1035

1036

1037

1038

1039

1040

1041

1042

instead of the law per se, it is a cruel reality in United States that cannot be ignored

because lawyers, know judges and “will favor” their case, with time to expose,

resets, ruling, depriving to speak to the other part or any other legal tricks can use,

which are unknown to petitioner and any other migrant in same situation.

Judge Morgan cannot ignore Diversity jurisdiction and the way the minor

entered United States, and have his naturalization completed. The child is a jus soli

Argentine citizen extracted of his own nation, under false promises.

According to the Bulletin of 2001 of DOJ Patricia Hoff explains:

“The Hague Convention and the ICARA. The Hague Convention and the

Federal statute that implements it (the ICARA)22 deal with international

wrongful removal and retention of children. The Hague Convention

establishes administrative and judicial mechanisms to expedite the return of

children (usually to their country of habitual residence) who have been

abducted or wrongfully retained and to facilitate the exercise of visitation

across international borders. Under the Hague Convention, children who are

wrongfully removed from or retained in a contracting State (i.e., a country

that is party to the Convention) are subject to prompt return. The UCCJEA

specifically provides for the enforcement of Hague Convention return orders

and authorizes public officials to locate and secure the return of children in

Hague Convention cases. The UCCJEA contains other provisions that clarify

when foreign custody determinations (from Hague and non-Hague countries)

are entitled to enforcement and when courts in the United States must defer to

the custodyjurisdiction ofa foreign court ”.

The case No. 13-P-1035. 09-09-2015 Karina SCHECHTER v. Yan

SCHECHTER (and a companion case) explains reversal situation on this case

in which Petitioner was support of the family in Argentina and had a 20-year

job and had her house. Thus, the former Argentine President signed a decree

to keep petitioner job for one more year in case to return after family reunion,

because respondent did not want to stay or return to Argentina, petitioner’s

money was in control of respondent and petitioner was stuck with the baby

into a difficult marriage. Respondent use the baby as a shield for marital

arguments which increased during the divorce proceedings which are still

pende lite.

In addition, on “No. 21-908 US Writ of Certiorari 11 U.S.C. §

523(a)(2)(A). “There is no doubt that fraud requires intent. The question in

this case is whose intent counts”, a “willful and malicious injury by the

debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity, ” id. § 523(a)(6);

and Section 523(a)(2)(A) carves out from the rule of discharge debt “for

money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit,

to the extent obtained by” fraud. ” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The question, of

course, is whose fraud counts. If the rest of section 523 is any indication, it

must be that of the “individual debtor” herself.

The term “fraud” is not only used on the economic deception, in this petition

the term “fraud” is also used for deceptive and perjurious actions by Fort Bend

County government employees, local lawyers and judges in a child custody case.

The petitioner believes Judge Morgan violated the petitioner’s due process and

abused her discretion, as a result cannot trust Judge Morgan for a future fair trial.

When Judge Morgan states “I will not give you your child until you have a

place to live” [sic] she is overriding what duties the US Congress must explain

according 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). “Congress scarcely needed to say whose

1043

1044

1045

1046

1047

1048

1049

1050

1051

1052

1053

1054

1055

1056

1057

1058

1059

1060

1061

1062

1063

1064

1065

1066

1067

1068

1069

1070

1071

1072

1073

1074

1075

1076

1077

1078

1079

1080

1081

1082

1083

1084

1085

1086

1087

1088

1089

1090

1091

1092

obligation it is obviously the individual debtor’s accounting ability to support or

have a place to live, it is not an isolated topic in which the individual must reach or

meet. That ability accounts for all the circumstances that individual is exposed to

whether is a naturalized US citizen or a US natural, or a permanent resident because

taxes were paid in good faith, to support a fair system while the same system

deprives 1) petitioner of sole and joint apportion of money, 2) limits the petitioner

ability to build a credit history in United States for been a housewife, 3) files a Pro

Se litigation which requires time and research and it is also against exception 3 of

pro se litigants, 4) petitioner has to found the ability to have a place to live with no

money, 5) have the ability to work with a sufficient income to support all those

situations, 6) while any federal protection provided by United States 7) received any

legal help provided by United States 8) has to sort the fraudulent accusations and

injuries of local U.S. government employees.

If a spouse invests in stocks while depriving the other spouse of own and

joint property, which is not fair and just under the U.S. laws, a judge must not ignore

these facts for almost four years and keep neglecting the child needs and wishes. If

Judge Morgan does not understand this concept, she has a clear prejudgment to

return an Argentine child to his mother and heard and rule in the case.

If ignoring what is established as international priorities in the Hague

Convention for retention in this case into United States, petitioner finds no clear

statue associated to child retention in United States, for each case and the mechanism

to return it. United States is not an exemption of the Hague Convention for retaining

a child, and all the circumstances in this case should have been heard, even though

the limit is one year under certain circumstances that time should be overridden, and

the fact that respondent lawyers lied as well Fort Bend County law enforcement

threaten to arrest and injury the child, petitioner believes it is not a safe place for the

child who is been also raised by local school district authorities, without petitioner

consent, teaching him age inappropriate “critical thinking literature”.

If the Hague convention set a one-year time frame to resolve the case

initially 180 days, judge Morgan must not take four years to not ever hear any

petitioner motions for her child.

Judge Morgan grossly ignored those facts and claimed herself for a judge

candidate to be “the most qualified for the job ” and place a plaque into a public

building for been the first black of her family to obtain a college degree. How many

other races Judges have a plaque into government buildings to record the first of

their family in obtain a college degree; are we all equal under the law or not

According to American Bar Association “First-generation college students from the

class of 2020 had an overall employment rate of 88% after law school and were

employed in bar-passage-required or anticipatedjobs at a rate of73.2%>, according

to an Oct. 20 press release from the NALP ” In other words, this means that it should

have been an increase of the 88% of first generation graduates names plaques on

Federal buildings, are all these employed graduates names recorded on a plaque in a

public building too or not. What is more important, the Facebook picture or a child’s

well-being?

The subject of this petition is to grant certiorari over an interlocutory appeal

to recuse or disqualify Judge Morgan and transfer the case to other impartial Judge

for the fraud committed on her court and for the deprivation of due process for four

years, administrative silent and denial of petitioner part to be heard, which benefited

the natural citizen respondent to elapse the time to timely file Internationally for

retention of the Argentine child in United States by their natural’s citizens actions.

*■

1093

1094

1095

1096

1097

1098

1099

1100

1101

1102

1103

1104

1105

1106

1107

1108

1109

1110

1111

1112

1113

1114

1115

1116

1117

1118

1119

1120

1121

1122

1123

1124

1125

1126

1127

1128

1129

1130

1131

1132

1133

1134

1135

1136

1137

1138

1139

1140

1141

Petitioner believes when United States judge deprives a foreign person from

her foreign own child and property resulting in a constitutional and international

rights violation under customary law results the action implies a basic unclear

conflicts which are not ruled, but are supposed to be part of the law of the nations

related to the protection of its citizens resulted on not guaranteed rights over a matter

without a legal statue not prohibited by either nation which fits in ajus cogens.

The judge is recused for actions and inactions of violating constitutional and

international guaranteed rights to petitioner and her child, and the action of the

recusal prior a final order has no legal frame to be granted, or denied, then is denied.

To petitioner understanding should be vice versa. If is not prohibited within the law

does not mean it reached a dismissed status; in turns, in this particular case the child

and assets case still pending took four years and the trial has not even started, the

continuance of the litigation with an unresolved issue, with an unfair judge, will

elapse the time frame of subject of the child custody litigation for his own growth to

adulthood, growing without his primary custodian which was his wish and therefor,

the change and accustom of forming his personality without that influence and

without his primary family in other nation, eliminates the subject of litigation for the

custody of the child and causes an irreparable injury on the child and petitioner

which will be very difficult to reverse per the natural course of life. Once the child

reaches 18 years old the injury will still prevail because of the faulty action of the

judge of not allowing the same opportunities for both parties on their case under the

law.

XL REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The first consideration for granting this petition is the subject of equal

assistance and equal observation of rights under the law and the lack of

investigation of the facts exposed in the case, which were disproportionate between

a natural and a newly naturalized citizen, what marks a clear difference of the

access of rights among the U.S. courts. The court erred in procedures such ignoring

by opposite part lawyer mandatory mediation rule 3.a. of 505th court prior the first

hearing.

The virtue of ruling over motions and providing argument time to both

parts, whether having a lawyer or not remarks the fairness of the judge. United

States requires their naturalized citizens a basic English language to answer 10 of

100 question in English. Also, there is any requirement to know in less than a week

all the laws and represent a child and self as a lawyer, because there are

exemptions, as a result the concept of Pro Se litigation is inconsistent to the access

of law and justice, and the problem shift towards the government over its lacks of

policies, rules and laws over the issue because after all is who supposed to protect

equally their citizens. In dual citizens children’s cases, there are no lawyers

involved into international claims who may help file and international claim for

deficit of provide something which is not contend in its own government on the

legal frame for such violations inland into United States.

The fact of both judges of the 505th district court were recused in this case,

for violating petitioner due process, allowing false claims and unilateral time

assigned to respondent lawyers, who committed aggravated perjury to a judge by

presenting fraudulent information, petitioner believes whether their actions were

corrupted or by not comprehending the issue, because after all they are American

lawyers.

_• l

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146

1147

1148

1149

1150

1151

1152

1153

1154

1155

1156

1157

1158

1159

1160

1161

1162

1163

1164

1165

1166

1167

1168

1169

1170

1171

1172

1173

1174

1175

1176

1177

1178

1179

1180

1181

1182

1183

1184

1185

1186

1187

1188

1189

1190

1191

Failing to observe 28 U.S. Code § 1738A - Full faith and credit given to

child custody determinations, because there was a previous diversity jurisdiction in

Argentina, and because the child lived with his mother since the child bom, when

respondent left the marital house in 08/02/2019, until Attorney Kalen Malone

committed aggravated perjury to visitor Federal Judge Terence Kem to obtain the

child custody and marital house and assets to her respondent client, and until the

child was fraudulently separated from petitioner by court bailiff Jose Falcon

actions who battered petitioner, while petitioner had a motion to confer in

chambers and followed directions of FBI agent.

Both judges Morgan and her associate Clayton refused to hear this part,

and the eye witness wanted to testify and but was curtailed on her testimony by

Judge Morgan, who had given plenty of time as her associate Clayton to

respondent’s lawyers as Yanine Krohn to argue over irrelevant facts as a jury trial

fee of $30.- dollars no longer required, information that can easily be provided by a

district clerk employee, by asking: “Do I have to pay any fee for a jury trial

request?” (Petitioner) and such employee will answer: “ no, it is no longer

required, before we charged $30.-, but if you do not have it you can file an

affidavit of inability to pay cost courts and will be free ” (Mr. Eusebio Garcia Fort

Bend County District clerk) from that simple standing point the court proceedings

over the topic are frivolous, fraudulent, and with the intention to cash money from

a family, the judge time, the court reporter time, to argue for a fact that can be

easily answered in 10 minutes. Wasting not only the child time with his mother for

four years. From such argument, Attorney Yanine Krohn charged certain amount

of money from respondent, while in the meantime, that money was denied by

Judge Morgan and Clayton by their administrative silent to petitioner, not having

money to eat or a place to sleep, while petitioner must remain silent listening such

ridiculous arguments, Judge Clayton ignored the fee is no longer required. These

situations are not a good use of judicial resources or a fair application of attorney’s

fees, under United States laws, it is a fraudulent practice sustained by its courts

Judges to scam a family during child custody proceedings, not knowing or ignoring

those the facts brought to their courts by local lawyers.

Second, Judge Morgan in a discriminatory way argued about the language

used by petitioner, she stated “in her court petitioner language must to be

Spanish”, because there was a translator who spoke another dialect of Spanish,

petitioner speaks Castilian Spanish and the translator did not translate all the

answers and petitioner had to ask the translator to translate, then petitioner use her

English to answer to Judge Morgan, and petitioner was deprived to speak as well

her witness to testify to Judge Morgan motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for her

child, this facts marks a pre-punishment.

The 1st amendment grants petitioner the right of freedom of speech, if the

translator speaks other Spanish dialect, or does not translate all the words,

petitioner can speak English to communicate with the judge and Castilian to

communicate with the witness who was in Argentina and translate to the judge,

because if the translator does not translate and skip words and if petitioner has to

help the translator with English words the procedure is not accurately understood

and fair. Judge Morgan also stated petitioner “accused the court of not having a

translator^sic] The point of this facts is the Department of Justice signed an

agreement with Fort Bend County to force the County to provide for its middle

eastern employees a translator for their spoken languages; as a result Judge Morgan

accusation is unfounded, because petitioner used her English to communicate with

1192

1193

1194

1195

1196

1197

1198

1199

1200

1201

1202

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

1208

1209

1210

1211

1212

1213

1214

1215

1216

1217

1218

1219

1220

1221

1222

1223

1224

1225

1226

1227

1228

1229

1230

1231

1232

1233

1234

1235

1236

1237

1238

1239

1240

1241

the court and at certain point requested a Castilian translator, because if County

employees can have a translator for their work duties, which generates double

spending to the county, constituents can have the same right in courts, because

after all they paid taxes. There are 68 million of second language speakers in

United States, and 2.95 million of Federal government employees, the math results

in 70.95 million of translators which may or may not be forced to speak one

language over another in court following Judge Morgan’s criteria, which is

ridiculous.

The first Amendment grants freedom of speech which is an ability to think

and express an idea in any language, a judge cannot force a person to express in

one language over the other if is able to speak at any level to testify respectfully,

again the issue shifts towards the government in provide the accurate dialect or

been patient. Judge Morgan making an argument over the language spoken in her

court, which fits in origin linguistics discrimination, was clearly explained under

President Bush Administration in Fair Housing Act advertisements played on all

television channels. Therefore, will be also a discriminatory practice under ADA

for those aphasic patients who rely on computer translators by either electric brain

waves or vocal cords transductor, or ALS speakers who also want to testify in front

to any Judge in U.S.

Third, the wasted time on such frivolous arguments brought by respondent

counsel Jedediah Moffett, repeated by Judge Morgan, demonstrating she has no

independent decision, which weighs on the detriment for the child best benefit,

because the hearing was' set by petitioner to hear a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the

child, to be returned to his mother, who was primary custodian of the minor since

the child birth in Argentina, and in United States, while his father was dedicated to

his Chevron career. In simple words, return petitioner’s Argentine child back to her

mother for the fraud committed in Fort Bend County Courts.

In this point, the diversity Jurisdiction existed and was ignored by Judge

Morgan, as well the sequence of events dealing to the divorce, although the

opposite part lawyers committed aggravated perjury to a judge on their pleads to

obtain a quick child custody order, fact which is an injury to petitioner, overseed

by Judge Morgan. Federal Judge Kern assigned 50/50 joint management

conservatorship in a “temporary order of the court or docket” not recognized by

Judge Morgan as a valid order produced by visitor Federal Judge Kern. Judge

Morgan then followed the opposite part lawyer Jedediah Moffet babbling

statements about Judge Kern’s “docket” exposing that way Judge Morgan lacks an

independent opinion. Once again the issue shifts to the government on why a judge

will refuse a hierarchically superior judge order as valid for a foreign dual child

when uniform child custody statue should have been applied and the rule was in

the state of Texas from a visitor judge, Judge Morgan cannot omit a Federal judge

ruled in her court because the venue was the same, if any of the U.S. Supreme

court would visit a lower court and rule in a case, their ruling would be valid: yes!

A part has an expert in front of them, why would a lower judge ignore their rulings.

In addition, Judge Kern order was brief, and district clerk or opposite part

lawyer added that petitioner has to pay child support, which was not stated by

Judge Kern, because petitioner was a “housewife” and Judge Kern asked petitioner

only “can you find a job? "fsich after petitioner showed Judge Kern petitioner’s

psychiatric clearance signed by the Argentine Ministry of Defense for petitioner

research in Antarctica and her license as a professional diver certified by the

Argentine Coast Guard, to cast doubts Attorney Kalen Malone false statements.

1242

1243

1244

1245

1246

1247

1248

1249

1250

1251

1252

1253

1254

1255

1256

1257

1258

1259

1260

1261

1262

1263

1264

1265

1266

1267

1268

1269

1270

1271

1272

1273

1274

1275

1276

1277

1278

1279

1280

1281

1282

1283

1284

1285

1286

1287

1288

1289

1290

1291

The addition or tampering of several words, sentences and pages of court

order and dockets it is an act of public fraud, with the intention of punish

petitioner, and hide their corrupted network of local power, this was done and

organized by a legal mind, because petitioner did not know the US legal system

and had never been before in Richmond city.

Fourth, According to child custody statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau

report published in May 2020 and gathered in 2018 show that there were 12.9

million custodial parents in the US, living with 21.9 million children under the age

of 21 years old. These number implies and approximately time spent of 10 hours of

preparation for a hearing and having approximately 3 hearings per case with a

lawyer result in a significative number of fees that varies from by each attorney but

are applicable to certain significative number of 1,000,000. - or more children

according to the DOJ, resulting in battles of 30 days to several years fees, without

counting the more than 10,000,000 of illegal migrants welcomed in this land by

president Biden whose carried children would have to be identified and put in court

for their custody proceedings following the stupid custody criteria Judge Morgan

told petitioner “I would not give you your child unless you have a place to

live ”[sic]

In the meantime, the wrongfully assigned and the wrongfully retained

child suffers, while superfluous and unnecessary arguments are allowed by Judge

Morgan’s to their political friends acting lawyers eager to for succeed based on lies

in her court to feed a corrupt local court system in Fort Bend County, which punish

their residents by the judge’s friend sheriff Fagan’s deputies as happened in re

Sizemone!4-21-00542-CV and other cases, which fits on qui tam cases committed

at Fort Bend County courts.

The time in this case was elapsed for four years and Judge Morgan refused

to hear a “Writ of Habeas Corpus” to return the foreign child to his foreign

mother, because Judge Morgan has a prejudgment and a bias towards petitioner

and other white woman as she advertised on her previous practice she worked for

“father’s riehts” while in U.S. national average, men receive about 54% of the

custody time that women are granted. How many women are migrants who does

not know the U.S. court system, has no money as petitioner, and how many

children are taken away from their mothers for such corrupt system in lower courts

not even assigning an appointed of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) If this leave

to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, or just simply applying exception 3) of 28

U.S.C. § 1654 “A non-attorney parent may not appear pro se on behalf of a child,

except to appeal the denial of the child's social security benefits ”

Fifth, as a matter of international clarity of United States courts

proceedings which hears child custody should clarify whether the system is

credible or not, and why the system by Judge Morgan favors a natural citizen over

a newly naturalized citizen and dual citizen. Why if a District Court had a rule for

mandatory mediation previous a hearing, that requirement was not fulfilled by

respondent lawyer Kalen Malone, and then Judge Kern verbal order is different of

what is states on his docket the hole process is tampered, ignored by judge Morgan

who should have been voided and start de novo litigation.

Sixth, The respondent observed every single governmental registration

process of the baby in Argentina, into Argentine federal government facilities and

into the Argentine Consulate in Houston, with a very clear and transparent process;

from footprints and the issue of mandatory federal identifications including

passports and baby’s tax ID, all such identifications taking away in United States

1292

1293

1294

1295

1296

1297

1298

1299

1300

1301

1302

1303

1304

1305

1306

1307

1308

1309

1310

1311

1312

1313

1314

1315

1316

1317

1318

1319

1320

1321

1322

1323

1324

1325

1326

1327

1328

1329

1330

1331

1332

1333

1334

1335

1336

1337

1338

1339

1340

1341

by the help of local Fort Bend County law enforcement who has no jurisdiction

over. The mentioned fact that respondent naturalized the baby at 10 days of life

into the American embassy in Buenos Aires, without the petitioner seen such

process, and petitioner had to request the baby to be returned, sets an matter of

clarity on regard of children bom in other neutral nations where they live happily

and their migratory process is sustained in false promises of the sponsor.

With this reasoning, the Charming Betsy canon may apply in this part as a

fact of preventive authority to aide steal foreign children and dispose their foreign

mothers violating substantive rights for both the child and the mother which are

federally protected as in this case in Argentina, and which not federally protected

in United States, when naturalization process in other nation it is a private issue for

just only the American citizen part, because the baby cannot produce an oath of

allegiance to the United States and the foreign mother cannot see what happen

during such procedures and if the answers of respondent were truthful or not.

United States lower courts see the US parent with most money as the better

benefit for the custody of the child but is not always true, in this case the child was

under care of petitioner since birth, and Judge Morgan ignores every fraudulent

proceedings committed on her court by respondent lawyers and employees,

ignoring also for past almost four years respondent and the school district have

decided whatever they wanted for the child education and wellbeing without

consulting with petitioner, violating her constitutional parental rights.

6 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1864) “The Charming Betsy canon exists in a radically

changed world-a world in which the doctrine unquestionably has more coverage

and arguably is under more stress. It may be an exaggeration to say that

"globalization makes everything international," but "well known developments

have radically increased the number of cases that directly implicate foreign

relations" and everyone agrees that international legal norms increasingly

"address substantive matters of our political and economic life traditionally

reserved to exclusive domestic jurisdiction." In 2016, Justice Stephen Breyer

published a book dedicated to exploring the issues and challenges of a world in

which our Supreme Court "must increasingly consider foreign and domestic law

together, as if they constituted parts of a broadly interconnected legal web."

Simply put, in an era in which there are international legal norms on

everything from children's education to chlorofluorocarbons, a doctrine that says

that federal statutes "ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if

any other possible construction remains" is more and more likely to conflict with

other interpretative canons, including the 468 U.S. 837 (1984) Chevron doctrine's

deference to agency determinations... Upon boarding the Charming Betsy, Captain

Murray learned that Shattuck had been born in Connecticut and reasonably

concluded that the ship was actually American. Murray seized the Charming Betsy,

disposed of its perishable cargo, and sent the ship to Philadelphia for adjudication

under the Non-Intercourse Act. But in Philadelphia, the Danish consul sought

recovery of the ship as the property of a Danish subject. ... contrary to customary

international law.... First, Charming Betsy has been considered the source of a

canon limiting the extraterritorial application of domestic US laws... as an

interpretative canon to align the substantive content of American law with the

United States' commitments in international law... case, Lauritzen v. Larsen and

McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, reinforced Charming

Betsy as a tool to limit the reach ofAmerican law.... On "the well-established rule

of international law that the law of the flag state ordinarily governs the internal

1342

1343

1344

1345

1346

1347

1348

1349

1350

1351

1352

1353

1354

1355

1356

1357

1358

1359

1360

1361

1362

1363

1364

1365

1366

1367

1368

1369

1370

1371

1372

1373

1374

1375

1376

1377

1378

1379

1380

1381

1382

1383

1384

1385

1386

1387

1388

1389

1390

affairs of a ship" [or nation] . In other words, the Charming Betsy doctrine in

McCulloch applied both to customary international law and to treaty obligations ”.

Bringing this concept to a child custody for retention: The child is an

Argentine citizen by birth, during naturalization proceedings of a baby if the

mother cannot see such naturalization proceedings in an embassy under other’s

nation flag are those proceedings validated for both parents or not. The respondent

attempted to leave with the baby and was escorted back by Intercontinental Bush

Airport officers on 06/24/2008 at arrival from Buenos Aires, Argentina. In addition

of the confiscation of the child Argentine identifications by local Fort Bend County

sheriff, is Judge Morgan intends to dispose as Captain Murray did, of the child’s

mother like in the in the Charming Betsy with the transported goods.

Judge Kali Morgan failed to be impartial and hear both sides, she violated

petitioner due process and for that reason and all other explained reasons judge

Morgan must to be recused or disqualify and assign another impartial judge in the

case who understand customaiy law observed by the International Court of

Justice (ICJ) which settles disagreements between member states of the United

Nations. Under Chapter II. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of

Justice, international customs and general practices of nations shall be one of the

court's sources of customary international law is one of the sources of international

law. Customary international law can be established by showing (1) state practice

and (2) opinio juris. Article 38) on its point c) the existence of any fact which, if

established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation 5) Declarations

made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice

and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present

Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court

of Justice for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their

terms. Judge Morgan and her associate Judge wasted four years of time of an

Argentine child’s life, without hear his mother; with the purpose of keep the child

with his natural US citizen father, for political favoritism to respondent lawyers to

drain with administrative silent hours of frivolous and false claims paid for attorney

fees, with petitioner money.

Judge Morgan with her authoritarian attitude, destroyed the child education,

health and wellbeing just for her refusal to hear petitioner part of this case for her

political democratic motives which favored same ideas lawyers time applied during

child custody proceedings failing to rule in four years.

There is any reason to continue a trial with an unfair judge who believes she

has more rights, than an indigent citizen; she failed to hear and rule what any other

correct judge would do, to fairly apply the law to both parts, to end the dispute, split

the assets move on.

xn. CONCLUSION

This petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted because Judge Morgan

and her associate, violated petitioner’s due process for the past four years, she had

already made antagonistic statements against petitioner and is ignoring the child

well-being and his rights on violation of due process clause for petitioner and the

child rights of a fair trial, in violation of the child and petitioner constitutional rights.

She refused to hear petitioner’s material witness; even though it is an

interlocutory appeal which meets the test, the continuance of the divorce and child

custody of this case with Judge Morgan would be impossible for her bias, her

1391

1392

1393

1394

1395

1396

1397

1398

1399

1400

1401

1402

1403

1404

1405

1406

1407

1408

1409

1410

1411

1412

1413

1414

1415

1416

1417

1418

1419

1420

1421

1422

1423

1424

1425

1426

1427

1428

1429

1430

1431

1432

1433

1434

1435

1436

1437

1438

1439

1440

prejudgment and the violation of constitutional and international rights.

Judge Morgan caused an injury to the child and petitioner by violation of

exception 3) of 28 U.S.C. § 1654 exemption for prose litigants, petitioner equal

access to law and justice, and equal protection under the law in United States during

child custody proceedings for dual citizens.

There is a matter of clarity under customary international law which was

overseed by Judge Morgan and her Associate Judge Clayton by allowing during

hearing time to only U.S. lawyers to expose and argue the issue, and grossly omitting

petitioner rights, then she overlaps U.S. Congress and Secretary of State jurisdiction.

If there is no statue for granting or denying an interlocutory appeal for recusal a

lower court judge, it does not mean it is prohibited, it must be granted.

There is also important to remark that dual citizens owe allegiance to both

nations, especially when acting in good faith, the problem exist when one nation

does not recognize international rights of those dual citizens children and adults,

ignoring international rights Some dual citizens are limited to vote their officials

because one Nation as U.S. may threat with lost the second citizenship for voting in

the birth nation, which holds a mandatory suffrage system for its citizens as

Argentina has, but United States forbids Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958),

which losing US citizenship to vote in foreign elections was constitutional in and

then unconstitutional: “voting in a foreign election (also repealed in 1978). The

last-namedprovision, on voting, was upheld as constitutional by a five-to-four vote

in 1958 in Perez v. Brownell, and then declared unconstitutional by a five-to-four

vote in 1967 in Afroyim v. Rusk" because of this conflict with dual citizens,

petitioner child of 16 years old will fulfill mandatoiy duties to vote in the

Argentine consulate of his nation of birth, unless Fort Bend County sheriff may

again obstruct the child mandatory duties with Argentina.

Judge Morgan had the option to hear petitioner and her witness but she

declined by following respondent lawyer lead, however, there was a diversity

jurisdiction and a previous order or docket to set the argument over the Habeas

Corpus which under customary law must be heard as a protection of rights for a

child to be returned, following the principles of the Hague Court, the child lived

with his mother since birth and both are retained for economic means in United

States which its laws does not help either petitioner or the child. The petitioner

believed the judge avoided heard about the complexity of the case and recused Judge

Morgan expecting an appointment of another judge or transfer the venue to a federal

court as requested in writing in the case. The judge refused to be recused and set for

petitioner an interlocutory appeal denied and dismissed up to this court creating a

matter of clarity: because Judge Morgan declines resumes in a no independent

opinion for her part, and the denial of the recusal appeal sets an affirmative action,

just for the existence of the denial over an absent statue.

It is also urgently needed to allow recording of all judicial proceedings to

evidence the transparency, ethical standards, knowledge and the abusive actions of

lower court judges or lawyers who do not proceed according the law, as in this case

Judge Morgan lied in front of an eye witness, making an argument about

administrative proceedings and discriminatory argument requesting of the use of first

over second language of petitioner to communicate with her in “her court” paid by

constituents tax dollars, distorting that way the concept of public servant to

administer justice under the law, because “her rules” may not be aligned of

Constitutional principles.

Finally, it is urgent to safeguard by an electronic traceable print, the

1441

1442

1443

1444

1445

1446

1447

1448

1449

electronic use of a Judge signature, to avoid its misuse and fraud of altering court

records by government employees as happened in this case, writing in dockets what

was never stated by a judge, which is called administrative fraud.

For all argument exposed above petitioner respectfully request to grant this

petition of a writ of certiorari and request the Honorable Justices dispense any

English mistake. All explained is true. Respectfully submitted,

Date'

B / 2 0 2*4

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.