(a) Offense defined.–A person commits an offense if he:

(1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, any record,

document or thing belonging to, or received or kept by, the government for

information or record, or required by law to be kept by others for

information of the government;

(2) makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false,

and with intent that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records

referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection…

This statute was violated with the knowledge and approval of each and every

listed actor within this complaint. Plaintiff has besought every listed actor to

address these criminal actions, and has met with deliberate resistance from each

as a combined form of conspiracy to not only deliver her 2 year old son to the

man that performed the acts; but also, acting as an organized syndicate, has

ensured that his actions were “brushed under the rug.”

B- Perjury

§

“4902.  Perjury.

1. Offense defined.–A person is guilty of perjury, a felony of the third

degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath

or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a statement

previously made, when the statement is material and he does not believe

it to be true.

2. Materiality.–Falsification is material, regardless of the admissibility of the

statement under rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or

outcome of the proceeding. It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly

believed the falsification to be immaterial. Whether a falsification is material in a

given factual situation is a question of law.

3. Irregularities no defense.–It is not a defense to prosecution under this

section that the oath or affirmation was administered or taken in an

irregular manner or that the declarant was not competent to make the

statement. A document purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at

any time when the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to

have been duly sworn or affirmed…”

Each and every Defendant listed in this case has conspired thereto and

acted in commitment thereof.

1. FRAUD – FORGERY

§ 4101. Forgery.

1. Offense defined.–A person is guilty of forgery if, with intent to

defraud or injure anyone, or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud or

injury to be perpetrated by anyone, the actor:

(1) alters any writing of another without his authority;

(2)makes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues or transfers any

writing so that it purports to be the act another who did not authorize that

act, or to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered

sequence other than was in fact the case, or to be a copy of an original

when no such original existed; or

(3) utters any writing which he knows to be forged in a manner specified in

paragraphs (1) or (2) of this subsection.

Each and every defendant listed was informed what this man had done and

concurred with the preceeding criminal acts committed. In fact, two of the listed

defendants (Magnusan and Burton) went so far to as to have a judge declare Ms.

Goodin “mentally incompetent” and forbidden to speak to the court lest the facts

that this case being one big Fraud upon the Court be written in court record!

Now, the questions before this Court are;

1. Did the listed defendants violate their Oath to Uphold the Constitution

and the Laws of the Land when they were presented with the knowledge that

that man falsified Birth Records and Court Documents to steal her son; and said

“That’s the way we do things around here…?”

Of course they did.

2. Did the listed defendants err when they denied Plaintiff Equal Protection

(Fifth Amendment) to ensure accuracy of records under the Law?

Of course they did.

3. Did the listed defendants err when they denied Plaintiff proper Procedural

Due Process (Fourteenth Amendment) by pushing to close the case when

they KNEW every Court Record was false?

Of course they did.

4. Did the listed defendants manifest a policy of trampling Rights upon

receiving an opportunity to correct this issue when first sued, and yet refusing to

correct the Constitutional errors and even criminal acts as one cohesive unit?

Of course they did.

5. Did the defendants violate the First Amendment Right to Familial

Association and even greater Intimate Association? (When dealing with “Intimate

Association” issues the courts by order of the Supreme Court must utilize “strict

scrutiny.”)

Therefore, the question to be answered is… Did the officers of the court apply

“strict scrutiny” by giving Plaintiff’s son to a criminal and a perjurer and denying

her the Right to even visit him via court actions based upon Fraud?

A Jury won’t believe so.

Indeed, this USC 1983 possesses elements enabling it to overcome qualified

immunity in accordance unto the Monell Doctrine.

USC 1985 Conspiracy Against Civil Rights

A Jury would be hard pressed not to see a Conspiracy amongst

each of these defendants in Light of the Facts of this case.

2. As for the RICO ACT, even as police can be charged therewith as was the

judges in the “Kids for Cash” escapade initiated here in PA., Plaintiff believes that

she can show an organized corruption of violation of state and federal laws

committed by the defendants in respect to having a Court of

Justice mutated into a controlled corporation that tramples Rights and winks at

crime as part of its process of “Constituents for Cash.”

As for “Constituents for Cash” at the expense of violation of their Oaths of

Office, Plaintiff can provide to a Jury other instances of persons held in prison

until they plead to crimes which by the elements required they are innocent

of; as well as sentencing persons without even an attorney in violation of the

Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth; as well as separating charges from a single

incident in violation of the Fifth Amendment; making them the most heinous of

RICO perpetrators.