Canadian mom seeks charges against California judge for kidnapping son. Article updated January 2020)

Photo of mother and child taken in July 2014, at home in Vancouver Canada, a year before the boy was kidnapped by a California Judge.

Los Angeles, California, June 5th 2015, after 8:30 am, Judge Tamara E. Hall, sat in her chambers and scribbled hand-written orders to kidnap a 3-year-old boy from his mother in Canada. In that moment, the judge entered into a conspiracy to kidnap persons in a foreign country in violation of Title 18 US Code § 956 and deprivation of rights under color of law in violation of Title 18 US Code § 242.

Illegal orders that were used to kidnap a 3-year-old boy from Canada under color of law.

Judge Tamara E. Hall

A California judge only has jurisdiction over residents of California. When Judge Tamara Hall issued orders to kidnap a child from Canada to California, she willfully deprived the mother of fundamental, inalienable rights protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, under color of law.

The Kidnapping Orders

The terrifying, hand-written orders included “no visits to respondent” and there was no indication where the child would be taken since the father only had a UPS mailbox in California.

To start, Judge Tamara Hall did not have jurisdiction to hear the father’s Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, that he filed on May 19 2015, because neither party met the residency requirements to obtain a judgement for a Dissolution of Marriage in California. The couple shared a sole family residence in Vancouver, British Columbia Canada with their 3-year-old child for over a year, they did not have a residence in California and they were not legally separated.

When the father filed for emergency child custody orders two weeks later on June 5 2015, demanding instant sole legal custody of the three-year-old boy, no-contact with the mother, and the authorization to seize the child from another country without notice or opportunity to be heard, Judge Tamara Hall was not authorized to issue orders related to child custody matters.

According to how the father filled out the Case Assignment Cover Sheet and Declaration Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act when he filed his Petition for Dissolution of Marriage (only) in Los Angeles California, Judge Tamara Hall had absolutely no legal authority to hear child custody related matters.

When Judge Hall issued the illegal kidnapping orders in chambers on June 5 2015, she knew the following information from the court file:

1. The father filed for Dissolution of Marriage two weeks earlier, on May 19 2015.
2. On the Summons, the father listed the mothers residence in Vancouver, British Columbia.
3. On the Declaration Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the father listed the child’s residence in Vancouver, British Columbia with mother and father since April 2014 — Present.
4. There was no response on file from the mother regarding the father’s Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.
5. The father had not served the mother with the summons and Petition for Dissolution of Marriage according to The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
6. The Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on file did not ask the Los Angeles Superior Court to hear the matter of child-custody and although there was nothing in the court record to indicate that the mother received the summons and petition, there was nothing in the petition to indicate that the father wanted to change the custodial arrangement, and nothing to indicate that the father intended to ask the California court to adjudicate the matter of child custody.
7. If the father had intended to ask the court to hear child custody matters he was required to include specific mandatory judicial counsel forms and blank response forms with his petition. The father did none of this because the court did not have jurisdiction over child custody matters because the child did not live in California.
8. The petition did indicate that the mother lived with the child in Canada and that the father intended to share legal custody and give the mother spousal and child support and her fair share of the community property.
9. This Declaration Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, prohibits Judge Hall from claiming subject-matter jurisdiction over child custody matters for any reason.
10. Since the child had not been living in California the required minimum 6 months prior to the commencement of divorce proceedings, the custody proceedings automatically belong in Vancouver, British Columbia.

This is a redacted section of the father’s UCCJEA Declaration where he states that his son lives in Canada with both parents (for over a year)

Before Judge Hall issued the kidnapping orders in her chambers, she knew she was violating the mothers rights and conspiring against her rights with the father and his attorney because when she issued the orders the father and his attorney provided her with the following information:

1. The child was being cared for by his biological mother in Vancouver, Canada pursuant to a marital agreement that both parties had entered into willingly.
2. The mother had been solely responsible for her son’s care, physical and emotional health and wellbeing and lived with the child 100% of the time since he was born.
3. The father was the sole financial provider for his family.
4. Mother and child are dual nationals (USA/Canada)
5. The father had emailed the Canadian landlord in Vancouver, British Columbia a week earlier giving him a 30-day notice.
6. The couple lived in Canada with their child since April 2014.
7. The father’s assertion that since the mother had not “replaced” the fathers income with acting jobs, he now wanted orders for sole legal custody of the three year old boy, no contact with the mother, and for his friends and family to raise the child in California since he works long hours in the film and tv industry.

Judge Hall issued orders in clear absence of authority, without personal, subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction over both parties and the minor child.

The ex parte orders Judge Hall issued were perpetrated by fraud on the court, rendering them void and vitiating the proceedings. However, this crime goes so far beyond that because regardless of the merits of the father’s claim; international kidnapping is illegal. No judge has the authority to issue orders to seize a child from another country.

Kidnapping a child from another country is a federal crime and the penalty is not less than 20 years in prison.

When judges act in clear absence of subject-matter and or territorial jurisdiction and commit crimes under color of law, they are not protected by judicial immunity.

The illegal “warrant” was intended to be used as the means terrorize the mother, deprive her of her civil rights and to kidnap her child. The orders included the immediate unlawful search and seizure of her child and foreign government property (passports) by force, threat of force and fraud, without notice or opportunity to be heard, without due process, in violation of US and Canadian law.

Judge Tamara Hall brazenly issued orders in violation of the mother’s rights of custody and access under Canadian LAW. There isn’t a judge in any country in the world, with the authority to instantly seize a child from another country they are living in and effectively terminate a parent’s rights in violation of the laws of that parent’s country of residence.

On July 1, 2015 the child was taken with from his home, from his mother, from his life in Canada with only the clothes he was wearing that day. Neither knew that was the last day they would be together. The shock of the kidnapping was extremely traumatic for both of them.

Judge Hall’s criminal acts interfered with the official duties of Supreme Court Judges of British Columbia, Canada that do have legal authority (subject-matter, personal and territorial jurisdiction) over the legal residents of Vancouver, British Columbia Canada.

Judge Tamara Hall violated the U.S. Constitution which prohibits judges from acting “in excess of their authority” and demands that judges give full faith and credit to the laws of other States, the Laws of Nations, International Treaties and Conventions. A California judge may only issue orders that are enforceable in California, by California or US Federal Law Enforcement. Judges may only issue orders for residents of California, and only orders regarding subject-matter that the judge has the authority to make orders about.

Judge Hall issued illegal orders for the sole purpose of being used in another country as an illegal warrant. The purpose of the warrant was to intimidate, terrify and submit the mother, force her to hand over her child, under the threat of arrest, and the fraudulent threat of criminal prosecution for international kidnapping, that would be waiting for her in the United States if she didn’t cooperate.

The father used Judge Tamara Hall’s illegal orders in violation of Title 18 § 2261 — Interstate Domestic Violence in order to travel in interstate and foreign commerce with the intent to harass or intimidate his spouse and as a result of such travel attempted to commit a crime of violence against that spouse. The father also caused the travel of the victim. By maliciously procuring the illegal warrant, the father used this illegal warrant to cause his spouse to travel in interstate and foreign commerce by force, coercion, duress and fraud and as a result of such travel committed a crime of violence against his spouse by kidnapping their child.

Title 18 U.S. Code § 2261 — Interstate domestic violence

(a)Offenses. —

(1)Travel or conduct of offender. —

A person who travels in interstate or foreign commerce or enters or leaves Indian country or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, and who, in the course of or as a result of such travel or presence, commits or attempts to commit a crime of violence against that spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(2)Causing travel of victim. —

A person who causes a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner to travel in interstate or foreign commerce or to enter or leave Indian country by force, coercion, duress, or fraud, and who, in the course of, as a result of, or to facilitate such conduct or travel, commits or attempts to commit a crime of violence against that spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

Judge Hall issued the orders after 8:30 am on June 5, 2015. By 11:43 am the father attempted to enforce the orders in Canada over 1,400 miles away.

Pursuant to Section 283 (1) of the Canadian Criminal Code, this was an attempted abduction in absence of a Canadian Custody Order, because the child was less than 14 years old, no Canadian custody order existed, but parental rights of custody under statute or common law exist.

Since the child was residing with his mother and father in Vancouver, Canada for over a year, the British Columbia Family Law Act, and the Vancouver Supreme Court of British Columbia, has sole subject-matter jurisdiction over child custody matters.

A Vancouver Police Report documents the father’s multiple attempts to kidnap his son internationally, using these court orders issued from another country, under color of law. The father’s story changed depending on the officer he spoke to. The report listed the father as an “unwanted guest” and stated that the child was “at risk”.

An entry on June 6, 2015 at 5:30 pm states that the “court order did not have the relevant court markings and was not enforceable in B.C.” (British Columbia, Canada.)

The USA and Canada are signatories to The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. This Convention, requires that respondents be given proper, timely service and opportunity to respond, when they reside in a foreign country.

Judge Hall committed a federal crime when she issued orders in excess of her authority to the deprive the mother of her rights under color of law. She issued an order that was procured maliciously without probable cause, in violation of the mother’s rights of custody in Canada and in violation of Canadian law, for the sole purpose of kidnapping the child across the Canada/USA border without the mother’s consent and to circumvent the Canadian courts.

After a short trip to California, a husband illegally “serves” his wife with divorce papers in a parking lot falsely claiming a UPS mailbox in Marina del Rey as his “California Residence”. Two weeks later after she arrives back home in Vancouver Canada, with their child, the husband comes up with a daring plan to falsely accuse his wife of international kidnapping at an ex parte hearing in California in order to get sole legal custody of their three-year-old child and run off with his new multi-millionaire girlfriend. He cuts his wife off financially, leaves her stranded and expects to get away with his outrageous lie. Sadly, he does. Three and a half years later the wife is still fighting for her child. She has never been arrested, never been charged with a crime against her child or her husband but she has been maliciously deprived of all her rights of custody and access to her child and all her rights to community property and spousal and child support without due process.

Judge Tamara Hall violated US Federal law that prohibits the conspiracy to kidnap people outside the United States.

On June 26, 2015 Judge Tamara Hall ordered the mother to bring her child to the court 5 days later. On July 1st, 2015 Judge Tamara Hall ordered that the mother was not permitted to travel back home to Canada with her son.

Immediately after the hearing, the father met the mother in a hotel lobby 10 minutes away from the courthouse, he took the 3-year-old boy from his mother, took the child’s passport, and left the hotel.

Title 18 U.S. Code § 956 states:

Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or
damage property in a foreign country

“(a)(1) Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States,
conspires with one or more other persons, regardless of where such other
person or persons are located, to commit at any place outside the United
States an act that would constitute the offense of murder, kidnapping,
or maiming if committed in the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States shall, if any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy, be punished as provided in subsection (a)(2).
“(2) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this
section is–
“(A) imprisonment for any term of years or for life if the
offense is conspiracy to murder or kidnap;

The US Federal Kidnapping Act forbids the transportation of any person in interstate or foreign commerce, kidnapped, or otherwise unlawfully detained, and the punishment for kidnapping children under 18 is not less that 20 years in prison:

18 U.S. Code § 1201 — Kidnapping

(a)Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when —

(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when transported across a State boundary, or the offender travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any means, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;

(2) any such act against the person is done within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

(3) any such act against the person is done within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section 46501 of title 49;

(4) the person is a foreign official, an internationally protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined in section 1116(b) of this title; or

(5) the person is among those officers and employees described in section 1114 of this title and any such act against the person is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of official duties, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any personresults, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

(b) With respect to subsection (a)(1), above, the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the fact that the presumption under this section has not yet taken effect does not preclude a Federal investigation of a possible violation of this section before the 24-hour period has ended.

(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

(d) Whoever attempts to violate subsection (a) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years.

(e) If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is an internationally protected person outside the United States, the United States may exercise jurisdiction over the offense if (1) the victim is a representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United States, (2) an offender is a national of the United States, or (3) an offender is afterwards found in the United States. As used in this subsection, the United States includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places within the provisions of sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49. For purposes of this subsection, the term “national of the United States” has the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).

(f) In the course of enforcement of subsection (a)(4) and any other sections prohibiting a conspiracy or attempt to violate subsection (a)(4), the Attorney General may request assistance from any Federal, State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding.

(g)Special Rule for Certain Offenses Involving Children. —

(1)To whom applicable. — If —

(A) the victim of an offense under this section has not attained the age of eighteen years; and

(B)the offender —

(i) has attained such age; and

(ii)is not —

(I) a parent;

(II) a grandparent;

(III) a brother;

(IV) a sister;

(V) an aunt;

(VI) an uncle; or

(VII) an individual having legal custody of the victim;

the sentence under this section for such offense shall include imprisonment for not less than 20 years.

[(2) Repealed. Pub. L. 108–21, title I, § 104(b), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 653.]

(h) As used in this section, the term “parent” does not include a person whose parental rights with respect to the victim of an offense under this section have been terminated by a final court order.

This may be the first recorded case in the USA of a judge committing Kidnapping “Under Color of Law”:

18 U.S. Code § 242 — Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

18 U.S. Code § 241 — Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured —

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970

SHORT SYNOPSIS of the next 4.5 years…

On June 26, 2015, immediately after she ordered the mother to bring her child to another hearing on July 1, 2015, Judge Tamara Hall removed documents the mother filed with the court and kept them out of the court record for two years. These documents were recovered after Judge Hall was removed from the Family Law Division in April 2017. The documents included the evidence of the domestic violence, the fathers cruel plot to falsely accuse the mother of kidnapping to obtain sole custody, the evidence that the family resided in Canada and that the mother had commenced a valid custody action in Canada.

For almost two years, Judge Tamara Hall altered the online case summary, destroyed documents, improperly filed documents, refused to release the case file, falsified court records, and issued illegal no-contact domestic violence restraining orders against the mother. Judge Hall issued these illegal restraining orders without notice or opportunity to be heard, to terrorize the mother, prevent her from seeking assistance from law enforcement, and to intentionally and maliciously deprive a lawful custodian of all her rights of custody and access to her child.

ILLEGAL RESTRAINING ORDERS

According to the General Rule Re: Family Law Master Calendar Trial Courts for the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge Tamara Hall was prohibited from issuing domestic violence restraining orders or defaults or hearing any matters related to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

On March 25, 2016 Judge Hall issued illegal temporary domestic violence restraining orders against the mother, without notice or opportunity to be heard.

After only permitting the mother three weekend visits since kidnapping their son on July 1 2015, the father agreed to allow the mother to take their son to Disneyland. The father arranged for the mother to pick up her son on April 1, 2016 — April Fools day at the parking lot of her son’s day care. The father then had her served with the illegal, no-contact temporary (“TRO”)domestic violence restraining orders.

Three weeks later, a Deputy District Attorney from the Los Angeles Child Abduction Special Prosecutions Section, wrote Judge Tamara Hall a letter attempting to intervene. The Deputy informed Judge Hall that she may not make any further decisions regarding the “merits of custody” pending the application that was being filed for the child’s return to Canada, under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Judge Hall ignored the letter and re-issued the TRO anyway.

Judge Tamara Hall continued to reissue TRO’s and deprive the mother of all contact with her child for another 6 months, knowing that the only evidence the father provided to support his request for the restraining orders was the evidence that he was the abuser. The father gave Judge Hall the Victim Impact Statement from the Vancouver police, where the mother reported to the police about the domestic violence and her son’s kidnapping from Canada.

Judge Tamara Hall also ignored the LAPD investigation and report that was sent to the City Attorney’s office in January 2016 regarding the fact that the father had been interfering with the mother’s visitation and depriving her of all contact with her child in violation of Judge Hall’s own temporary orders. The Los Angeles City Attorney’s office forwarded this report to Judge Hall who was supposed to hold the father in contempt, but Judge Hall buried this report.

On October 31, 2016 Judge Tamara Hall, issued yet another 5-year default, no-contact domestic violence restraining order against the mother, without notice, without authority. The story behind that is another whole article. Once again she abused her authority and relentlessly terrorized the mother to deprive her of her rights of custody and access to her child indefinitely.

PUBLIC CORRUPTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTIONS

The mother believes that Presiding Judge Maren E. Nelson corruptly, orchestrated her son’s international kidnapping, and that the father and his attorney planned to obtain a default judgment with Judge Maren Nelson after they kidnapped her child with Judge Hall’s illegal orders. When the kidnapping didn’t go as planned, Judge Maren E. Nelson obstructed justice and illegally halted the return of the child to Canada by refusing to comply with The Hague Convention.

In another highly publicized international kidnapping case, Judge Maren Nelson flaunted her abuse of authority and direct involvement.

Both mothers have reached out to State and local law enforcement who appear powerless to intervene.

Kelly Rutherford, another mother whose two children were kidnapped by Judge Maren E. Nelson. The common thread with all these abductions: the abductors have a lot of money and in both these cases, the same high-powered law firm connected to Judge Maren Nelson got involved in the abduction and in blocking both mother’s efforts to recover their children. These two stories are just the tip of the iceberg.

Determined to find answers, the mother reached out to other victims of interstate and international child abduction. She launched an online petition and website called “Hunter’s Law” named after her son, to “Help Us Navigate Their Emergency Return” and enact the effective legal remedy to end all forms of child abduction/trafficking through the family/juvenile courts. www.hunterslaw.org

What she has discovered from communicating with hundreds of other “left behind parents” is as follows: as a general rule, kidnappings commited by corrupt family court judges, are the result of intentional “erroneous decisions”. Judges get away with their crimes because they are protected by “judicial immunity”. When children are trafficked/kidnapped in California, they are either in California to begin with, or brought to California, so that the California court can go through the process of systematically stripping one parent of their custodial rights “under California law” until the children are then trafficked out of the State or country never to be seen again. There is a “play book” for how these children are kidnapped through the family courts, and no court does it more sadisticly than Stanley Mosk. Everyone is in on it: the attorneys on both sides, the clerks, judges and court appointed accoutrements. The cost of litigation: anywhere from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions.

(Former) Presiding Judge Maren E. Nelson

This particular case is very different, because it is the only known case of a judge involved in an “incoming” international child abduction case. In this case the judge literally ordered the international kidnapping of the child before the child arrived in California.

It is very common in international child abduction cases for judges to assist abductors by granting custody orders to the abductors after they have kidnapped their children from another country. The Hague Convention was created as a way to return children who have been “wrongfully retained” as a result of wrongfully obtained custody orders.

When Judge Maren E. Nelson permitted Judge Tamara Hall to issue orders to kidnap a child from another country, Judge Nelson knew that these illegal orders are not “erroneous”, they are void. The orders were issued in clear absence of subject-matter jurisdiction and there is no judicial immunity for judges that issue orders in excess of their authority under color of law. Void orders are also of no legal force or effect, they are forever a nullity and subject to collateral attack at any time. However, Judge Nelson knew the mother had no money, no family, no way of paying for an attorney, so she took a gamble.

Judge Maren Nelson was completely prepared for this because as the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Family Law Division, she was the only judge permitted to hear Hague Proceedings. She knew from the very first day that she assigned Judge Tamara Hall to the divorce case, that she would be able to halt the return of the child should the mother seek a return under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

It is the mother’s belief that Judge Nelson assigned the case to Judge Hall, and instructed her to issue the illegal ex parte orders. The father was supposed to use the orders to intimidate the mother and force her to hand over her child. The father then planned to disappear with the child and obtain a default judgement in the divorce two weeks later. Only the Presiding Judge may issue defaults, so it is the mother’s hypothesis that the plan was for Judge Nelson to sign off on the default. The father would have followed up with obtaining a 5-year domestic violence restraining order against the mother with an anonymous address, he would have closed the UPS mailbox he had and disappeared and that would have been the end of it.

The record of the action clearly shows that this was the plan throughout the case. Despite every effort the mother has made to fight for her child, the court has maintained this objective. The mother has discovered many other victims with similar stories of this type of kidnapping and outright child trafficking through the family courts in California, across the United States and around the world.

Judge Nelson’s direct involvement in the kidnapping is clearly evident from day one. As the Presiding judge of the Family Law Division, she oversaw the divorce/ ex parte “custody” case and intentionally failed to put the case in the “Family Law Case Management System”. There was no mandatory mediation, no status conferences, no trial setting conferences etc. Judge Nelson was also completely aware that Judge Tamara Hall issued invalid domestic violence restraining orders against the mother, while the father was on bail conditions for a criminal domestic violence case against him in Canada.

After a full year of abuse of the mother’s parental rights, Judge Nelson carried out the plan to throw out The Hague Case by claiming the “matter had already been heard” citing an “Order After Hearing” that was falsified by the father’s attorney a year earlier where he added an extra line on the Temporary Custody Orders that said “ The USA is the Country of Habitual Residence”. All of this was by design, and also completely absurd and irrelevant since The Hague matter had never been heard before, and Judge Nelson was the only Judge in LA County permitted to hear Hague Proceedings.

This is not the first time Judge Maren Nelson has abused her authority under color of law to kidnap a child to or from another State or country and it is not the first time she has halted the rescue and return of children who have been kidnapped. Judge Maren E. Nelson is so connected and so powerful that the State attorney, the Los Angeles District Attorney and judges do her bidding and no one dares to question her or report her to Federal law enforcement. After connecting with many other victims the mother believes Judge Maren Nelson is personally responsible for hundreds of interstate and international kidnappings and should be investigated by the FBI.

The Los Angeles Child Abduction Unit is well aware of the Public Corruption. They need to create a task force with the FBI to combat this systemic problem of interstate and international child abduction/child trafficking through the Family Courts.

Judge Tamara Hall’s on bench abuse of authority, international kidnapping of a child under color of law and efforts to cover up her crimes are all very well documented in the court transcripts, the court record and were even documented by the Deputy district attorney in her 148-page pleading for the child’s return to Canada under the Convention. Judge Tamara Hall’s disdain for authority is further documented by how she defied all efforts to intervene by the City Attorney’s office and the District Attorney’s office, and how she further interfered with the childs constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the mother’s federally protected right to an application for the child’s return to Canada under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects on International Child Abduction.

All of Judge Tamara Hall’s misconduct was protected and sanctioned by presiding Judge Maren E. Nelson who allowed her to commit all of these crimes with impunity. Judge Maren E. Nelson assigned the initial divorce petition to Judge Tamara Hall and one year later, personally shut down the District Attorney’s application for the child’s return to Canada under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Judge Maren Nelson removed almost 100 pages of the Deputy District Attorney’s 148-page pleading for the Return of the child under the Convention, she illegally sealed the case file, refused to release it, and did all this to prevent an appeal and bury the case. Both Judges were removed from the Family Law Division shortly after this debacle.

A new judge, the Honorable Lawrence P. Riff was assigned to the case in April 2017.

The father and his attorney quickly attempted to obtain a default judgement without notice to the mother.

April 2017, Dept 22 Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judge Lawrence P. Riff replaced Judge Tamara Hall

Judge Riff noticed that something wasn’t quite right about this case and didn’t allow the case to default immediately. The mother was able to return to California in December 2017 and resume her attempts to recover her child whose whereabouts were now unknown to her.

In January 2018, the mother discovered that her former attorney, Anat Resnik had withheld all subpoenaed discovery documents, including the evidence that the father had been stealing her tax ID number to commit tax fraud and tax evasion on approximately a million dollars of income (motive for the kidnapping and to keep the mother in Canada). The mother also discovered that her former attorney had known that the California domestic violence restraining orders were invalid and had willingly participated in the hoax that had allowed the father to completely deprive the mother of all her rights of custody and access indefinitely. This attorney also failed to give the mother her final billing statement, deliberately failed to appear for the fake DVRO hearing, did not file the mother’s response to the fake DVRO thus allowing Judge Tamara Hall to issue an illegal default 5-year renewable no-contact domestic violence restraining order against the mother on October 31, 2016. The attorney also failed to inform the mother that the opposing party had emailed her what they later claimed were their (incomplete) financial disclosures (without mandatory tax returns). In short, the attorney deliberately created insurmountable obstacles for her own client to conspire against her rights to assist the opposing party with their ultimate objective: to kidnap the child, obtain a default judment in the divorce, destroy her financially and terrorize the mother so badly she would never return to the USA to discover the truth or recover her child.

Even though the father’s attorney admitted in open court in January 2018 that his client had not done his tax returns and lied about his disclosures and even though the mother had completed all the mandatory disclosures and requested in March 2018 that the court enter the father’s mandatory default, Judge Riff ignored the mother’s request and set the “matter” for trial anyway.

A short cause trial began on March 27, 2018. The trial continued for a few minutes on May 22, 2018. The mother is in pro per and her long list of witnesses who have sworn in already include a Deputy District Attorney, a Deputy Attorney General, and a LAPD Detective. She also successfully subpoenaed both Judge Tamara Hall and Judge Maren E. Nelson, filed oppositions to their County Counsel’s motion to quash their subpoenas and argued her position in open court on Sept 7, 2018. Although Judge Riff quashed the subpoenas, the mother was able to explain to the court exactly what she would ask the judges if they were on the stand “for the record”. The next trial date was on September 11, 2018, the father and his only witness (the multimillionaire fiancee) have completed their direct testimony.

On December 17, 2018 the father changed his story and admitted on the stand that he lied about living in California with his child and lied about his date of separation. He admitted he he did not have a home in California at the commencement of proceedings. He admitted he lied on his financial declarations and had not filed a tax return since 2012 and even admitted to stealing his wife’s tax ID number claiming he was allowed to since she “wasn’t using it”.

On January 8, 2019 the mother testified about the domestic violence and abuse she and her son endured during the marriage and after her son was kidnapped. She tried to introduce evidence but Judge Riff made it very difficult for her to put anything on the record. Nevertheless, Judge Riff appeared to finally consider returning the child to his mother and set another two days of trial: February 22, and 25 2019.

Without warning, the February 22, 2019 date was taken off calendar and the courtroom went “dark”.

On February 25, 2019 Judge Riff seemed to have amnesia. He had blinders on and ignored the fact that the father failed to do his mandatory disclosures, had committed domestic violence and has deprived the mother and child of virtually all contact without a justifiable reason for almost 4 years. Judge Riff then began to claim he no longer wanted to hear from any of the mother’s witnesses.

As of February 25, 2019 the child is now almost 7 years old, has been kidnapped for over 3.5 years and he has had only had three short visits with his mother during the first 15 months of his abduction. The mother and child have had no other contact or any information about each other in over two years and Judge Riff has still done nothing to alleviate this situation. The case is 1379 days old. By law 90 percent of cases must be wrapped up in 180 days.

On March 5, 2019 Judge Riff decided that the rest of the witnesses on the mother’s witness list were an undue consumption of time and refused to allow her to call them, even though they have been on her list for over a year and opposing counsel has never filed a motion to oppose these witnesses. Judge Riff also begrudgingly allowed the mother’s uncle and her accountant to testify via telephone knowing this would be completely useless because the witnesses would not be able to authenticate any documents this way. He also declared that the mother’s testimony was now “complete” even though she has not yet been permitted to submit any of the 150 + exhibits in her 13 trial binders into evidence.

Judge Riff then set another date for the “sham” trial for May 6, 2019.

The mother has now discovered that Judge Riff never actually scheduled a proper trial. A trial has an end date. It is scheduled in advance for a specific period of time over consecutive days without interruption.

Judge Riff has never had any intention of allowing the mother to testify properly or present her case. It appears as though Judge Riff is just abusing his authority to drag the case out to destroy the mother emotionally and financially and prevent an appeal.

The mother reported all the details of her son’s kidnapping, the public corruption, the father’s financial fraud and identity theft to the FBI in October 2018 and continues to update them with information about her case as the trial continues.

The mother recently filed two complaints with the California Bar association against her former attorney and the attorney for the father for their participation in the kidnapping of her child, conspiracy against rights and deprivation against rights under color of law.

The mother also filed a complaint against Judge Tamara Hall with the California Commission on Judicial Performance for her role in the international kidnapping of her child under color of law. Complaints against Judge Maren E. Nelson and Judge Lawrence P. Riff are soon soon to follow, because both judges have actively participated in the subsequent cover-up. They refused to return the child under the treaty, committed fraud on the court, obstructed-justice, and then furthered the international kidnapping of the child and continued to deprive the mother of all her rights of custody and access. These judges have felt that it was more important to protect the court’s interest and focus on the covering up the court’s culpability, even though they knew they had plenty of evidence to point the blame against the father and his attorney. The illegal orders did not materialize out of thin air, they were procured by fraud when the father and his attorney committed perjury and filed false statements in court proceedings to kidnap the child. The judges were well aware of this and had every opportunity sanction the attorney and the father and remedy the situation, but chose not to.

Copies of all complaints will also be sent to the California State Auditor and U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.

28 U.S. Code § 540A — Investigation of violent crimes against travelers

(a) In General. —

At the request of an appropriate law enforcement official of a State or political subdivision, the Attorney General and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation may assist in the investigation of a felony crime of violence in violation of the law of any State in which the victim appears to have been selected because he or she is a traveler.

(b) Foreign Travelers. —

In a case in which the traveler who is a victim of a crime described in subsection (a) is from a foreign nation, the Attorney General and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, when appropriate, the Secretary of State shall assist the prosecuting and law enforcement officials of a State or political subdivision to the fullest extent possible in securing from abroad such evidence or other information as may be needed for the effective investigation and prosecution of the crime.

( c ) Definitions. — In this section —

(1) “felony crime of violence” means an offense punishable by more than one year in prison that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.

(2) “State” means a State, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(3) “traveler” means a victim of a crime of violence who is not a resident of the State in which the crime of violence occurred.

Due process in non-existant in the Los Angeles Family Court.

The mother was not properly served the petition for the divorce, the divorce has remained stagnant for over 3.5 years without a single pre-trial order. The “notice” regarding the initial ex-parte custody hearing that never actually took place (it was in chambers) for the kidnapping orders that were never served, consisted of an “email” the night before said “hearing” was supposed to have taken place. Two and a half years later, when a trial date was finally set, the mother was never served a notice of the trial date. The mother found out, by flying to California, pulling the case file and intercepting the fathers attempt to obtain a default judgment. The mother’s due process continues to be violated ad nauseam and absolutely none of the Rules of Court or Family Law Case Management Rules are followed in this case. It’s no surprise that the Stanley Mosk Courthouse is plagued by lawsuits. This mother and parents like her who have exhausted every legal remedy available are not presented with any other options.

The family law “trial” continued through to January 2020..and still no final judgment..

The mother is still requesting the court enter the father’s default in the divorce and requesting orders finding that the court has jurisdiction based on unjustifiable conduct and must deferring custody jurisdiction to Canada. She showed the court that the father did not want a proper divorce because he did not want to submit his financial records or file his tax returns. He did not want the authorities to discover he had committed ID theft and tax evasion in the mother’s name. The father wanted sole legal custody of the child so he could bait his new multimillionaire girlfriend. He wanted default judgements in the divorce and custody matters so he could disappear and avoid prosecution for his financial and violent crimes.

The mother is seeking the arrest of the father and his girlfriend for kidnapping, custodial interference, identity theft and criminal harassment and criminal protection orders. She is also seeking a “ pick-up order” so she can recover her child who is now in San Diego.

The mother is requesting to return to Canada with her son and obtain a final judgement for sole legal custody, in the custody action she began in Canada prior to her son’s kidnapping.

The mother is seeking a new action to annul the fraud marriage and a separate trial for sanctions for disclosure violations fraud, perjury, and bad faith tactics.

Unfortunately, it appears Judge Lawrence P. Riff never had any intention of giving the mother a fair trial. He has refused to allow any of her witnesses to testify in court, and has refused to allow her to present any of her evidence during the trial that has lasted over two years.

In July 2019 the parties were order to prepare final arguments proposed orders. The mother complied asked the court for the default against her husband for disclosure violations, fraud and perjury, and to vacate all pretrial orders because they were procured by fraud and perjury under color of law. Judge Riff ignored absolutely every single argument the mother submitted, and went so far out of his way to find the most absurd obscure defenses to support his position that even after a two-year trial, he has to inexplicably, up-hold Judge Hall’s prior decisions.

It appears that no matter what the mother does, the court is determined to protect the judges and the reputation of the Los Angeles Superior Court and Los Angeles County, at all costs and in so doing, protect a kidnapper/con-artist and his psychopathic attorney.

On October 23, 2019 Judge Lawrence P. Riff issued a tentative ruling and proposed statement of decision stating that the father gets all the property, sole legal and physical custody of the child and that the mother may not have any contact with the child, not even supervised visitation because that might cause the child to be “alienated” from his father.

This finding and ruling is completely illegal, and beyond even what the father requested. The father had consented to supervised visitation, it was Judge Lawrence P. Riff who, like Judge Hall and Judge Nelson decided on their own motion, that the mother should be deprived of her fundamental parental rights, FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.

The mother is now headed to the United States District Court, Central District of California. She is demanding the return of her child and a federal grand jury investigation into the public corruption at the Stanley Mosk Court House where three judges are now directly responsible for the international kidnapping of her child.

Persons should not be permitted to obtain custody of children by virtue of their wrongful removal or retention:

Title 22 U.S. Code § 9001 — Findings and declarations
(a) Findings

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The international abduction or wrongful retention of children is harmful to their well-being.
(2) Persons should not be permitted to obtain custody of children by virtue of their wrongful removal or retention.
(3) International abductions and retentions of children are increasing, and only concerted cooperation pursuant to an international agreement can effectively combat this problem.
(4) The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague on October 25, 1980, establishes legal rights and procedures for the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained, as well as for securing the exercise of visitation rights. Children who are wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Convention are to be promptly returned unless one of the narrow exceptions set forth in the Convention applies. The Convention provides a sound treaty framework to help resolve the problem of international abduction and retention of children and will deter such wrongful removals and retentions.
(b) Declarations

The Congress makes the following declarations:
(1) It is the purpose of this chapter to establish procedures for the implementation of the Convention in the United States.
(2) The provisions of this chapter are in addition to and not in lieu of the provisions of the Convention.
(3) In enacting this chapter the Congress recognizes —
(A) the international character of the Convention; and
(B) the need for uniform international interpretation of the Convention.
(4) The Convention and this chapter empower courts in the United States to determine only rights under the Convention and not the merits of any underlying child custody claims.
(Pub. L. 100–300, § 2, Apr. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 437.)

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: WRITETOMARIKA@ICLOUD.COM

PLEASE VISIT: WWW.HUNTERSLAW.ORG