Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Tamara Hall orders to kidnapping a child from Canada to California
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Tamara Hall 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:
The father filed for Dissolution of Marriage two weeks earlier, on May 19 2015.
On the Summons, the father listed the mothers residence in Vancouver, British Columbia.
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.
There was no response on file from the mother regarding the father’s Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
The father was the sole financial provider for his family.
Mother and child are dual nationals (USA/Canada)
The father had emailed the Canadian landlord in Vancouver, British Columbia a week earlier giving him a 30-day notice.
The couple lived in Canada with their child since April 2014.
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
(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
“(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 person results, 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.
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.
Image for post
Last Updated on 2 months by Jose Hernandez