Here in the State of Pennsylvania, (probably every state), the Legislators have enacted laws that prohibit the Common Man from being able to record Court Proceedings lest the People perceive how far off from the pursuit of Justice the Courts have veered in their mad rush towards corporate profits. The issues that People are forced to deal with through them, and the police that serve them, is reminiscent of the book and movie entitled “Animal Farm” that portrays by animal characters a nation’s descent into Communist socialism and the evils effected thereby.
I have no respect for the Courts of this Nation, nor their minions, any more than I do the “Corporation” whom they swear their service to when not swearing allegiance to their “worshipful masters” in the local lodges of the demonic. (Literally.)
The Devil’s “sword” in this application is two edged; the State and the Federal Court systems. Though they are “intertwined,” each County in this current endeavor has been supplied with a site whereupon which to enable the People to see and realize what their elected Civil servants have been up to in regard to their Duties. And, also a Way to make them once more accountable to the People whose Constitution they took an Oath to Uphold.
(The filing of appeals is futile when consideration is given to that which an attorney told me, saying,”What good will that do you? They all golf and drink together before going to their lodge; and they are not on your side…”; indeed, it is they working as a team that got you where you are now.)
Verily the only answer to this dilemma is to shine light upon their incorporated activities that prey upon the Citizen rather than Uphold Our Civil Rights as Americans.
The County of Butler seems to be one of the most bedeviled of all counties in Pennsylvania, (from the cops to the magistrates to the judges and even the very commissioners themselves!) and the following cases will open the eyes of many to the Breach of Fiduciary Duty committed as a matter of Pattern and Practice.
The true story of a courageous young mother’s pursuit to save her 2 years of age son from a man that she believes molested him and called the State Police to escort her and her son away from him.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
Cheyenne Louise Goodin PRO SE Case # 2:21-cv-00265
Plaintiff V, Butler, Pa CYS;
Butler, Pa. Domestic Relations;
Butler, Pa. Public Defender’s Office;
Butler, Pa. District Attorney;
County of Butler, Pa.
Solicitor of Butler, Pa.
Attorney Bobette Roper Magnusen
Attorney Amy Burton
Each of the listed defendants are being sued in their individual capacity as well as functioning officers of listed offices of Butler County. However, until subpoenas are submitted thereto to obtain the names and actions according to court documents of those who willfully acted as a coordinated team to turn a blind eye to violations of State Law and Federally protected Constitutional Rights; their listings shall be refrained until the fact finding sought thereby is attained.
PREAMBLE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
TO THE BUTLER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH
124 West Diamond St. 1-26-202
PO Box 1208
I, Cheyenne L. Goodin, do hereby appeal the decision reached by your department to close my case. You do not have the power to give my son to a man that I rented off because he falsified his name on my son’s Birth Certificate.
He is not the biological father as your agency insists upon falsifying within Public Records; by doing this YOU ARE CONSPIRATORS TO CRIMINAL ACTIONS!
He is not the father of my son In Loco Parentis; he is nothing more than a man that used and abused me after the father of my son abandoned me there with nowhere to go.
I respectfully request an expedited appeal process to remove my son from that alcoholic intravenous drug using porn addict.
EXAMPLE #1: Because a slum lord has 48 dope whores who are too doped up to realize the consequences of him falsifying Birth Certificates of all 48 children born to the whores so he can collect $144,000 a year in tax credits; when they get off the dope and realize what was done to them you are supposed to help THEM not HIM!
EXAMPLE #2: If an individual after watching your handling of this case decided to go to Mexico and enter the maternity wards to give 100 poverty stricken mothers $100 to have him sign his name on the Birth Certificate to give the child Citizenship and to collect $3000 a year equaling $3,000,000.00 in tax returns; would you consent and say, “That’s not only lawful; but one HELL OF AN IDEA!!!”
With that I close my Appeal, and also my position thereon.
Cheyenne L. Goodin
400 Virginia Av. Apt. 2
Butler, Pa. 16001
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”
Contained within this code is found the statement of : “…the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law…”
As pertaining unto the “LAWS ” – Off hand there are three LAWS that scream in this court’s face;
(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.”
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.
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.
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.
FRAUD – FORGERY
§ 4101. Forgery.
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;
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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