Personal Statement of Facts

Personal Declaration of Facts

“Affidavit”

Nathanael Lee Smith

Proud Father of Carter Smith

Tuolumne County Cases: FL17431, CV65761, CRM75348, CRM75349

Oath, I Swear

I, Nathaniel Smith, the loving father of Carter Nathaniel Smith. The statements I provide

in this Petition are based on my personal knowledge and beliefs, and I hereby declare that they

are true facts to the best of my understanding.

I request the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that I am without counsel, am not schooled in law and legal procedures and am not licensed to practice law. Therefore, my pleadings must be read and construed liberally. - Haines v. Kerner, 404 US at 520 (1980); Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592 (1981).

I believe that this court has a responsibility and legal duty to protect all my son’s and my

constitutional and statutory rights. - United States v. Lee, 106 US 196,220 [1882]

Establishing Fundamental Fathers' Rights

In December 2021, I sought and was granted paternity along with shared custody and visitation rights for my son, an arrangement to which Olivia and I initially agreed. Our co-parenting proceeded without incident until November 1, 2022, when Olivia unexpectedly filed a domestic violence restraining order against me. This action temporarily granted her custody of our son, pending a hearing where she was required to substantiate her claims—a burden of proof of her claims was never met.

In re Marriage of LaMusga, 32 Cal. 4th 1072 (2004): This California Supreme Court case discusses the factors that courts must consider when modifying custody arrangements, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for substantial evidence to support changes.

Litigation Abuse by Attorneys and the Court

Despite the lack of evidence, the proceedings dragged on for six months, characterized by a

troubling pattern of allegations and legal maneuvers from Olivia and her attorney, Julie Salkeld.

They filed multiple emergency motions to alter custody and made unfounded reports to law

enforcement, actions seemingly designed to disrupt my life and my relationship with my son,

Carter.

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971): While primarily focused on federal court intervention in state proceedings, this case underscores the importance of fairness and the avoidance of harassment through legal processes. It establishes the principle that legal processes should not be used to harass or unduly burden individuals.

Constitutional Concerns in Tuolumne County

Initially, I hired an attorney, only to discover a disheartening collusion aimed at manipulating

legal outcomes under the guise of protecting children. This revelation came at a high personal

cost—I faced my first-ever arrest amidst these legal battles on August 1, 2024, an experience

both bewildering and distressing. Unfortunately, sacrifices must be made for the greater good of

the people of Tuolumne County, as it highlights the courts, county, and private attorneys abusing

the color of law to target individuals who attempt to hold them accountable to U.S. and State

Constitutional Laws.

Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980): This case clarifies that private individuals who conspire with state officials to violate constitutional rights can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It underscores the principle that collusion between private parties and state actors to deprive individuals of their rights is actionable.

Judicial Overreach and Title IV-D Fraud

Commissioner Pimentel, no longer presiding or in Tuolumne County Court, issued a one-year domestic violence restraining order against me based on claims of disturbing the peace of Olivia Phillips, despite questionable grounds. During this period, I expressed concerns about Olivia's behavior, describing it as indicative of narcissistic personality disorder—a comment later used to grant a restraining order and remove custody of my son. It seems that in Tuolumne County, fundamental rights to the care, custody, and control of children as protected by the 14th Amendment are disregarded. The Superior Court of California in Tuolumne County appears to believe it can override the Supreme Power of the United States and Constitutional Laws.

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972): This case emphasizes that parents cannot be deprived of

custody without due process, reinforcing the necessity of procedural fairness and the protection

of parental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legal Battles and Self-Education

The legal battles extended over a year and a half, with each court appearance compounding the injustices. Feeling failed by the legal representation available, I embarked on a self-directed study of family law, eventually branching into civil rights and constitutional law. Utilizing my experience in AI technology, I created a virtual mentorship program to enhance my legal education. This journey transformed my understanding and approach, helping me represent myself in court effectively. Despite presenting clear evidence challenging the validity of the restraining order, including a flawed drug test accusation debunked by medical reports, my efforts to restore justice were continually thwarted, in favor of lying attorneys and bias judges.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993): Although primarily

applicable in federal courts, this case established standards for the admissibility of expert

testimony and scientific evidence, emphasizing the need for reliability and relevance, which can

be analogously applied to argue against flawed evidence.

Ongoing Bias and Procedural Irregularities

As the case transferred to Judge Beyersdorf, I faced another layer of bias and procedural

irregularity. Under his jurisdiction, I encountered aggressive questioning and unreasonable child

support demands based on inaccurate financial information. Olivia and her attorney continued to

leverage the legal system against me, securing a civil restraining order based on my documentary activities. This was sanctioned by a judge who later displayed questionable impartiality, underscoring personal vendettas driving the actions against me. Olivia Phillips, the mother

claiming the judge made her dinner in open court.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1: This statute outlines the grounds for disqualifying a judge in California, including instances of bias, prejudice, or personal interest, which can be used to argue for recusal if impartiality is in question.

In re Marriage of Calcaterra & Badakhsh, 132 Cal. App. 4th 28 (2005): This case highlights

the necessity for accurate financial information when determining child support and reinforces

the requirement for courts to base decisions on reliable evidence.

Conclusion

My struggle culminated in a plea to higher courts and federal authorities to address the grievous misapplications of law that not only alienated me from my son but also cast a shadow over my fundamental rights. This fight is not just about personal grievances; it is a stand against systemic issues affecting countless families, where legal mechanisms are manipulated for profit at the expense of justice and parental rights. This narrative is a heartfelt call for accountability and

reform, a demand for a system that upholds the principles of justice it was designed to protect.

The cases in question, documented in Tuolumne County Superior Court (FL17431, CV65761,

CRM75348, CRM75349), symbolize a pervasive problem demanding immediate attention and

rectification.

42 U.S.C. § 1983: This federal statute provides a mechanism for individuals to seek redress for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. It underscores the importance of accountability and the protection of fundamental rights.

Side Note

The District Attorney's Office sent a blank link, which, when clicked, would show I downloaded the information. However, I recorded a video showing that nothing appeared when clicking the links. I was never served discovery by the District Attorney, violating my due process rights. What evidence is the District Attorney’s Office hiding from the defense (Pro Per)?

California Penal Code § 1054.1: This statute outlines the prosecution's duty to disclose evidence to the defense in California. It mandates that the prosecution provides any evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, supporting the argument that failure to

provide discovery violates legal obligations.

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985): This case further clarifies the Brady doctrine,

emphasizing that the prosecution's failure to disclose evidence that could affect the outcome of

the trial violates due process.

Constitutional Laws that all Government Actor Swore to Uphold

The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees several fundamental rights

related to freedom of expression. It protects the freedom of speech, allowing individuals to

express their opinions, beliefs, and ideas without government censorship or interference. It also

guarantees freedom of the press, ensuring the media's ability to report on and criticize the

government without fear of retribution. The 1st Amendment additionally safeguards the right to

peacefully assemble, allowing people to gather collectively to protest, demonstrate, or express

their grievances. Finally, it protects the freedom of religion, allowing individuals to practice their

chosen religion or no religion at all, and prohibits the government from establishing or favoring

any religion. The 1st Amendment's purpose is to safeguard and promote the core principles of

democratic society, fostering a diverse and open exchange of ideas.

The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution is often interpreted as providing

individuals with the right to bear arms as a means of protecting themselves against potential

tyranny. This means that citizens have the right to possess firearms to safeguard their freedoms

and prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. The intent behind this aspect of the 2nd

Amendment is to ensure that the people could resist and challenge oppressive or authoritarian

regimes, should the need arise. It serves as a safeguard for the people to maintain their liberties

and serves as a check on the concentration of power in government. While this interpretation is

often debated and varies in application, it underscores the importance placed on the individual's

ability to protect their rights against potential threats to their freedom.

The 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution provides protections against cruel and

unusual punishment. It prohibits the government from inflicting excessive or unjustified

punishment on individuals who have been convicted of crimes. This amendment ensures that

punishments imposed by the criminal justice system are not excessively severe or degrading. It

also prohibits the use of cruel or inhumane treatment during punishment, such as torture or

extreme physical abuse. The 8th Amendment serves to ensure that the punishment imposed on

individuals is proportionate to the severity of their offenses and reflects society's evolving

standards of decency and fairness.

The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution provides certain rights and protections

for parents. Specifically, it guarantees parents the right to make decisions regarding the care,

custody, and control of their children. This includes the right to establish and maintain a

relationship with their children, as well as the right to make important decisions about their

education, healthcare, and upbringing. The 14th Amendment also ensures that parents are entitled to due process of law in any legal proceedings that may impact their parental rights. Overall, the 14th Amendment recognizes and protects the fundamental parental rights that are essential to the well-being and upbringing of children.

Respectfully submitted Dated 9-16-2024

Nathanael Smith

Father of Carter Nathaniel Smith

President of Fatherly Freedom Inc.

nate@fatherlyfreedom.com

209-591-0406