Jurisdiction and Unclean Hands
From The Allen Laws
The 'Home State' of a civil custody dispute is determined by the physical location of the child in a state.
Challenge of Home State Under USC Article 4
It may be challenged where the child is a Citizen of another State, is taken from a foreign state, or their transport from one state to another interfered with to effect or create a situation where one parent's state is preferred over another, such as a parental kidnapping. A child of parents who have Citizenship in two States has Dual Citizenship at the State level, and is entitled to a hearing in either state where the child has "significant family and ties" such as relatives and means of support by employment of the parent in that State. This statute exists to prevent kidnapping of children to distant territories to disadvantage their lawful recovery and cause Interstate Commercial Interference (Title 18 USC Sec 1951) by denying one party their child at the risk of keeping their present employment and means of supporting the child financially, which may influence the court award of custody or regard as a stable parent.
Once home state is established, the court must relinquish the jurisdiction of the ruling to another State. (Intrastate Uniform Code of Juvenile Justice)
Should a court refuse to do so, it may be forced to do so if one party may prove by cause "unclean hands" of the court - meaning a history or evidence of unlawful or unprofessional bias by which advantage is placed on the state where the court resides to rule unfairly in the proceeding. Such protection is Constitutional Law in Article 4 Section 2 paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution, ensuring that parties passing into foreign states of the Union are granted ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES afforded them in their home state and their passage into or out of that territory are not impeded or placed under duress by the removal of their property, freedom, or duress including the confinement and concealment of their proven biological children.
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
In the hearing May 2002 in Dallas County Court of "Petersen vs Allen", the sitting judge did rule a "default judgment" despite the absence of the PLAINTIFF in the TWO PRIOR HEARINGS due to the absence of the DEFENDANT in the THIRD AND FINAL HEARING. It was reported to the sitting judge within the hour that such absence of the DEFENDANT was caused by unlawful detainment by Dallas County Courthouse security on the 1st floor and during the proceeding the DEFENDANT was in the same building at the time of the ruling but denied by Dallas County Court employees from access to the 2nd floor or the proceeding. Despite this legal reason for absence, the judge scolded the DEFENDANT saying "My ruling is final." and rejecting a complaint of mistrial citing "You will receive papers if you wish to challenge my decision and appeal."
DENIAL OF SERVICE FOR CHALLENGE
Such service of papers was never carried out in 2002 (7 months hence) nor until March 2003 (10 months), and the DEFENDANT detained without pay (Title 18 USC Sec 1201) on false promise of employment and false hire in the State of Texas from his residence and home in the State of Oklahoma; his home burned in Texas (April 2003); his person detained and held at gunpoint (November 2002) and car stolen; his property stolen by the party making false promise to hire and false promise of wages (Dec 2002); and vehicular sabotage carried out to attempt murder of the defendant discovered and reported March 2003. Information of these events to local law enforcement and Federal Bureau of Investigation officers was rejected legal investigation or filing of criminal complaint citing the prior May 2002 "civil judgment" against the defendant, showing prejudice and discrimination in support of a false trial by the State of Texas and The State of Oklahoma and also the United States of America violating Title 28 USC Sec 1738Ae. Such action to include discrimination against the defendant for report of IRS tax fraud by Dallas and Richard-based companies, EPA violations filed in criminal allegation in Dallas County, and such actions thereby Title 18 USC Sec 1513e and 1519 Federal crimes.
DENIAL OF HABEUS CORPUS
Motion to move the jurisdiction of this order away from the State of Texas plead to local agencies including legal aid and the court of Pontotoc county indicate denial of the right of the defendant to habeus corpus (proof of lawful trial in duress of an unlawful and excessive nature exceeding 65% of gross income) so guaranteed under the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; and denial of 'right to modify the order' despite Federal Law supporting such right and required response to such formal complaint within 14 days under Title 42 Chapter 7 Subchapter IV-D (Federal power granting each State the authority to impose civil damage collection and modify or enforce custody orders). These actions speak to violation of Article 4-2.1 and Article 6 - U.S. Constitution - related the Treaty against the execution of Genocide and the International crime of genocide as a policy and supported by testimony of other parents exposed to similar criminal violation of rights based on gender, income, and religious status (matrimony at time of conception or birth) or state license related such religious grant of rights protected under the Human Rights provisions of the International Treaty Against Genocide.
RETALIATION AGAINST A CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFF
Abuse by the Dallas County Court to include failure to provide such prior complaints to The State of Oklahoma in request for enforcement August 2008 constitutes Title 18 USC Sec 1519 and 1513e Federal crimes in retaliation against a class action member and plaintiff in Federal charges supporting IRS and EPA violations against their state, so outlined in Pub Law 107-204, 116 Stat, Sec 745 (Sarbanes Oxley Act).
The case for evidence of prejudice and denial of State Constitutional Right to the child regardless matrimony or other claim is evident in Governor Rick Perry's claim "all rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the State" in 10th Amendment claims April 2009, similar to prior claim of "Sovereign Immunity" in class action "Bitara vs. The State of Texas" regarding this matter. Such immunity, or any legislative grant of immunity to the Justice Department or agencies of the State or Federal Government, was surrendered under "Texas v. White (1869)" and by Article 6 US Constitution in "The United Nations Resoltuion Against Genocide" - a binding and ratified U.S. Treaty - per Article 4 of that treaty which waives all immunity regardless of political or judicial office in the execution of this crime.
PERSONAL DENOUNCEMENT BY GOVERNORS OF BOTH STATES - CLAIMING A FEDERAL MATTER TO REFUSE AID
As both the Governor of the State of Texas and the Attorney General Greg Abbott have denounced the rights of Citizens of Oklahoma and New Jersey in favor of rulings by the State courts and in violation of those rights of foreign Citizens, the DEFENDANT in "Petersen v. Allen" claims that the Texas civil and District Federal courts have "unclean hands" in this matter and prior acceptance of mistrial, "Sovereign Immunity" for the State of Texas and its employees, and prejudice with retaliation against a Federal witness in Federal criminal allegations against the State and its officers so evident in continuation of this trial as lawful under Title 28 USC Sec 1738Ae and denial of modification of damages in excess of 65% of gross income or action on report of child abuse and injury to the child by Oklahoma, United Kingdom, and People's Republic of China Citizens with NO INVESTIGATION OR EFFORT TO CONTACT OR TAKE FURTHER SWORN STATEMENTS on FORMAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINT by those parties against the PLAINTIFF in "Petersen vs. Allen" 2002 (Dallas County Court). Requests to move the hearing to the State of Oklahoma and the County of Pontotoc, where the child has SIGNIFICANT extended family including a pediatric M.D., retired K-5 school educator with community roles in history preservation, grandparents former lifelong residence since the mid-1900s, and extended family in Springfield Missourri with academic credentials as educators in college level chemistry and services - all of which the child was denied by this abduction and concealment from 81 days of age to present (2009, 8 years).
PATTERN OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT
Further, that such damages and actions shown from 2001-2009 indicate a pattern of malicious commercial Interstate sabotage to deny the father his prior credibility as a "Senior Software Engineer" for clients in Texas including "Nortel Networks" and former title of "Telecommunications Administrator" for clients including Best Buy, FirstUSA/BankONE, SBC-Yahoo, Toshiba America, PeoplePC, and other Fortune 500 firms - to the advantage of parties taking direct public action in support of the kidnapping including threat of death and bodily harm; that this action constitutes Title 18 USC Sec 1951 (Interference in Interstate Commerce) to advantage such parties by denial of criminal law enforcement under such threats and duress of an unlawful kidnapping and concealment of the proven offspring of a registered officer of an Oklahoma corporation to grant unlawful commercial advantage to businesses based in Dallas (Texas), Richardson (Texas), and Fayetville (Arkansas) over the Oklahoma-based registered business (1990) and LLC (1998) of the DEFENDANT.
EXPRESS 14th AMENDMENT VIOLATION
Such action, in denial of criminal enforcement (14th Amendment), by means of false civil trial and unlawful duress - both Interstate Interference in Commerce, Federal kidnapping with ransom by abuse of office under color of law, and genocide in execution of such actions on the basis of prejudice and policy in violation of State, Federal, and International law by the officers and agents cited in this case. Subjecting this case to possible International jurisdiction under the Hague Court against The State of Texas, the State of Oklahoma, and The United States on behalf of the DEFENDANT in "Petersen v. Allen" (2002). Grounds for this claim evident in prior written responses, lack of lawful investigation on formal criminal complaint, rejection of complaint on the grounds that the Defendant was not a class or "real person" in "Bitara v The United States", and prolonged (legally proof of perpetual concealment at 7 years) removal without relief in violation of Federal Supreme Court opinion and Constitutional language presumed to be valid by any International jury in protection of the right to procreate and work without duress in excess of 65% of real and established income where not convicted by civil or criminal trial or granted ANY opportunity to face the accuser in such hearings resulting in these burdens, injuries, and irreparable harm to the parent-child bond and public image of an established member of society.
